Cannabis Ruderalis

thcscience_admin
< 8 March 10 March >

Purge server cache

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

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) DannyS712 (talk) 00:01, 17 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Danijel Cerović[edit]

Danijel Cerović (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:NMUSIC. Tymon.r Do you have any questions? 23:26, 9 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Montenegro-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 02:34, 10 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 02:34, 10 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Has been placed in rotation nationally by a major radio or music television network.
  • Has been a featured subject of a substantial broadcast segment across a national radio or TV network.
  • Has released two or more albums on a major record label
  • Is cited in reliable sources as being influential in style, technique, repertory or teaching for a particular music genre.
  • Montenegrin Media News Links
  • Keep – I just added discography (2 Albums from one of the largest classical music labels) 79.106.126.108 (talk) 03:27, 16 March 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. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 04:23, 17 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Heraclius (son of Constantine IV)[edit]

Heraclius (son of Constantine IV) (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 don't think every child of an emperor or other royalty should get a separate entry, unless they held particular named offices and have enough to say about them that couldn't be mentioned on their parents' pages. Iveagh Gardens (talk) 10:10, 23 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 13:13, 23 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the Article Rescue Squadron's list of content for rescue consideration. --Tryptofish (talk) 00:07, 28 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Understand the challenge but when you appear in Gibbons D&F, and the Liber Pontificalis, and your parents (and brother) were the most powerful people of the age, it is a Keep for me. Time is a brutal qualifier of notability. There are hundreds of thousands of valid BLPs in WP who will be ghosts in a thousand years from now. Britishfinance (talk) 16:48, 23 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - no indication of any basis for notability. Sentence one - genealogical context; sentence two - notable positions he didn't hold; sentence 3 - passing reference to a lock of his hair. How is that notability? Indeed, the second reference says, Heraclius' existence is only known from the fact that a letter was sent by Constantine to Pope Benedict II (684-85) together with locks of his children's hair. (To save others the work, the first reference is obscured by pointing to a recent reprint of Gibbon, but the text can be found at the bottom of the page here [1], again a simple mention of the 'hair episode'.) That is not independent notability, not then, not now, not a thousand years from now. Agricolae (talk) 17:49, 23 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. Prince Andrew has a large WP article based on a similar position in a less notable household. If Heraclius was alive today with the same RS that we use for Prince Andrew's article, he would have a GA WP article. You are confusing GNG-type arguments with individuals whose RS have long gone. Very minor RS exists from that era, even for emperors. The idea that the second of two children, of what would have been one of the most powerful individuals in the world at that time, is not notable for WP is not sound reasoning. Britishfinance (talk) 19:08, 23 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Regarding Prince Andrew, this would be no better than an WP:OTHERSTUFF argument, even if the cases were comparable, which they aren't. If Heraclius were alive today he would certainly be notable, because numerous reliable source would invariably have reported how there was a living man who was 1400 years old, and that would establish his notability. However, he is not alive today, and we don't have the same reliable sources that we have for Andrew. 'All children of people with title X are inherently notable and saying otherwise isn't sound reasoning' is an argument that flies in the face of established policy: WP:NOTINHERITED. Notability on Wikipedia is based on substantial coverage in reliable sources. This person has not received substantial coverage in any sources (actual sources, not hypothetical lost ones). Agricolae (talk) 21:51, 23 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. Heraclius would have had greater notability in the world in his time then Prince Andrew or even one of the most viewed articles on WP, Prince Harry, Duke of Sussex, does now. Because of the passage of over 1,500 years, Heraclius' equivalent of Daily Telegraph, Times and Guardian articles are long gone. Byzantine kings were known to kill younger siblings and delete any note of them, to remove any potential competition (which is probably what happened to Heraclius) - E.g. Fratricide by his tyrant brother Justinian II.
Here is the WP article on Ealhmund of Kent, the father of Ecgberht, King of Wessex. There is only a tiny actual reference to Ealhmund confirming his existence, and nothing else. That is the reality of many early ages historical figures. There are whole emperors worthy of WP articles whose only definitive fact-base are passing references in specific historical chronicles. Are we to delete all of these from history because they don't meet the GNG criteria of Prince Andrew? Of course not. Being recorded in both Gibbon's Decline and Fall and the Liber - two of the most important historical records of early ages - means you are notable. However, WP:COMMONSENSE knows that the second of only two male children of the most powerful man on earth at that time is worth recording. Britishfinance (talk) 14:11, 25 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Wouldda, couldda, shouldda. Wikipedia is not based on hypotheticals, let alone the elaborate false-narrative you envision for Heraclius. It is anachronistic to assume that the self-publicity, fawning interest and press spouse-attack pieces that surround the British royal family represents the historical norm - the Constantinople Daily News is not lost, it never existed, and given how secretive the House of Saud is about its members, one cannot assume the British model applies to ancient Byzantium. As to Eahlmund of Kent, this is nothing but another WP:OTHERSTUFF argument - notability is not established by spurious analogy. Receiving passing mention in a source, no matter how important that source, is not one of the criteria for notability. We do record Heraclius: he is listed on his father's page. Nobody is arguing he should be purged entirely from Wikipedia, just that having a single source report his and his brother's hair being sent to the Pope as the sole evidence he existed falls well short of established criteria for notability that underlies the justification for a stand-alone article. Agricolae (talk) 15:15, 25 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment, But we only have a single source on Ealhmund of Kent (a single "passing mention" in your words) - so should we delete that article? You use tangential arguments to avoid the core argument (although you now try to label the core argument as a "false-narrative"). You now make WP:PSEUDO claims (in your words) about ancient sources and the House of Saud? Your own arguments disprove your own assertions. Britishfinance (talk) 15:26, 25 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • This discussion is not about Eahlmund of Kent and whether or not his page should be deleted. If you think he is not notable then put forward an AfD, but WP:OTHERSTUFF is applicable - that Wikipedia undoubtedly includes articles on non-notable individuals is not a valid argument to retain any given article on a non-notable individual. (As an aside, you are incorrect about Eahlmund - there are multiple passing mentions in the primary record, in the ASC as King of Kent, in several other ASC entries as father of Ecgberht, in Æthelweard's chronicle, not surprising as it is mostly a translation of the ASC, in the Textus Roffensis, in Asser, in the Historia Brittonum, etc., but that is all beside the point, as it is the degree to which he has received coverage in secondary sources, e.g. modern scholarly writing, that is relevant. For that our article has five cited, many of which give Eahlmund more substantial coverage than what Gibbon wrote regarding Heraclius, most focussed on the question of whether the Eahlmund who was father of Ecgberht is really the same as the Eahlmund who was King of Kent [scholars have generally accepted this], but likewise addressing the veracity of the pedigree attributed to him [opinion is split]. He has been subject to more than passing mention, he has been the direct subject of debate and discussion. Is this enough? Launch the AfD and find out the community consensus, but that is not a relevant question in this discussion of Heraclius.) I am not calling your core argument a false-narrative, unless your core argument is that your personal assumption that Heraclius was probably fratricided is somehow a basis for notability. We don't know anything that happened to him other than that he was born, he had a haircut, and we can presume that he died because he isn't still alive, but we cannot base notability on presumptions of how he died that are entirely baseless. Also, I have not applied WP:PSEUDO to the House of Saud as the record of this discussion clearly shows. If you continue to intentionally distort my arguments, I will begin to doubt your commitment to having a reasoned discussion. Agricolae (talk) 16:19, 25 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete/redirect He could have been notable in his day per Britishfinance's claim, but we simply don't have the sources to verify that, with no information beyond that he existed. Any notability now or then seems merely inherited and his existence can be mentioned in the Constantine IV article. I laugh at your comparison to Prince Andrew; this is not based on what RSes could have existed back then. Reywas92Talk 23:15, 23 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per historical significance. -- Willthacheerleader18 (talk) 16:16, 24 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Pray tell, what makes him significant? Being lucky enough to have some DNA? Embarrassing that people's standards to have independent articles here are so low. Reywas92Talk 21:34, 24 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Your tone in every conversation I have had with you has been embarrassing. I'd appreciate civility in your responses. -- Willthacheerleader18 (talk) 06:02, 25 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • His notability is linked to the copious amount that has been written about him by reliable secondary sources. Actual sources, not hypothetical ones, that have detailed every aspect of his life. The reason why all those sources have been written about him is indeed because of his parentage (at least originally), but his notability is based on the sources, independent of why they were written. Again, not really a pertinent analogy. WP:PSEUDO really applies very well to Heraclius. It indicates that in such circumstances where a person is only known for a single non-notable event, with no reliable sources that cover the individual themselves as a main or sole focus of coverage and if the person is not the main focus of the relevant coverage, we should not be creating a pseudobiography relating the one event and padded out with 'context', that in circumstances where a person is only known for a single non-notable incident, then "it's very likely that there is no reason to cover that person at all." Agricolae (talk) 14:39, 25 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • @Agricolae: You keep repeating that "notability is linked to the copious amount that has been written about him by reliable secondary source" which does not apply to ancient historical figures who have very little actual on them. WP is not chronical of The Telegraph-Guardian etc. It does record important historical figures, and the second son of the world's most powerful man in 685 is notable. We don't need Telegraph-Guardian-Financial Times articles for GNG etc. to tell us that. Britishfinance (talk) 14:50, 25 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • The second son of a 685 monarch is notable not by default, by analogy, by assumption, or by fiat, but if and only if he has received significant coverage in secondary sources. Full stop. That could be in scholarly articles, biographies, encyclopaedias, or yes, even newspapers, but it has to be significant coverage, not passing reference to a non-notable episode. Agricolae (talk) 15:28, 25 February 2019 (UTC) (by the way, please don't ping me - I have this discussion watchlisted and neither need nor want the notification. Agricolae (talk) 16:19, 25 February 2019 (UTC))[reply]
  • Comment. But this is not just a monarch; it was probably the world's most powerful man. An he appears in Gibbons and Liber, two of the most respected scholarly chronicles of the ages. You are arguing against yourself. Do you intend to delete/wipe-out the thousands of ancient history BLPs in WP that rely on a single passing reference for the proof of their existence? Britishfinance (talk) 15:34, 25 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • You have already made these arguments and I have already shown them to be invalid. Constantine was a powerful monarch, not Heraclius, and being born to someone notable does not imbue the child with automatic notability (WP:NOTINHERITED). Mention in a primary source (Liber) is explicitly excluded by policy (WP:BIO) from consideration in evaluating notability. Simply appearing in a secondary source is not the bar for notability, significant coverage is.(WP:BIO again) WP:OTHERSTUFF is among the WP:Arguments to avoid in deletion discussions. Agricolae (talk) 16:19, 25 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment But you have not. I am using other WP examples to show the flaw in your reasoning. But you ignore that. Continually. On your basis, we can start deleting whole groups of early history BLPs in WP. And yet don't, for very good reason. I don't need to use any WP acronyms to understand that. Britishfinance (talk) 17:04, 25 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • I ignore it because it is an OTHERSTUFF argument. 'Some other people are also not notable but they have pages' is not an argument for alternative standards of notability, it is an argument for more AfDs where each can be discussed on their own merits and not collectively. The subject of this page is either notable or is not notable based on the relevant criteria for notability, in this case WP:BIO. The notability of the subjects of other Wikipedia pages can be addressed in their own AfDs but this has no bearing on whether Heraclius satisfies the criteria for notability found in WP:BIO and other Wikipedia policy. Agricolae (talk) 17:39, 25 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment You ignore it because it shows the flaw in your argument. His mother Anastasia (wife of Constantine IV), whom we only know a tiny bit more about than her second son, under your logic, would be next for AfD. Quoting OTHERSTUFF avoids the fact your logic would see thousands of early history WP BLPs of major royal figures deleted (while we keep Prince Andrew-type BLPs). I don't need a WP acronym to know that is flawed logic. Britishfinance (talk) 20:14, 25 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Anastasia is the subject of an entire article in a secondary source, Garland's. That represents a qualitative difference on how the two are treated by this secondary source, Anastasia given specific coverage, Heraclius passing reference. Show us the secondary source that dedicates an article to Heraclius and we will have something to talk about. Again, the distinguishing feature for notability per WP:BIO is how they are treated by secondary sources, not as you suggest, how much we know about the subjects. My 'logic' is that we have a policy on biographical notability for a reason, your overblown red-herring claims of resulting imaginary carnage notwithstanding. The notability of an individual is not in any way affected by the notability (or lack thereof) of any of the thousands of other ancient history individuals who have (or don't have) Wikipedia articles, and nothing is to be gained by you going through them all here, one at a time, as if finding a page on someone even less notable somehow justifies the retention of Heraclius' page in the face of explicit policy to the contrary. (Oh, and as for acronyms, you might want to refresh your memory on what the 'L' in BLP stands for.) Agricolae (talk) 22:00, 25 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Changing my position to Merge -- Willthacheerleader18 (talk) 06:13, 25 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete (Redirect fine too - just the present title "Heraclius (son of Constantine IV)" seems like a silly redirect to Constantine IV). Absent additional sources, the article actually makes it quite clear this figure doesn't pass GNG. We don't know his birth date (so we're speculating on a birth year based on the year of his older brother's birth and his father's death), and all we know of him is that a lock of hair of his was sent to Pope Benedict II. He's already mentioned in his father's bio so not much to merge (the locks of hair - seems like a trivial detail there). Icewhiz (talk) 16:28, 24 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge & redirect to his father. He is a mere footnote to history. If we had substantial sources as to his life, showing what he did (apart from merely existing), he might deserve and article, but often even for royal family members in ancient history, we know nothing and probably never will. Having such articles is not helpful. They have to be tagged as stubs, but that is to invite WP:OR, i.e. invention or fiction. Peterkingiron (talk) 17:11, 24 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - it is WP:COMMON to keep pages on the children of emperors and other nobility from Roman times and forward. XavierItzm (talk) 21:10, 24 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Non-sequitur. It is also common that emperor's children have sources about them and what they did; that does not appear to be the case here. Reywas92Talk 21:32, 24 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • This has absolutely nothing to do with the authoritative nature of the sources - accuracy is not the issue. WP:BASIC: "trivial coverage of a subject by secondary sources" doesn't cut it, and that is all Gibbon gives him in that single sentence in which he is named; "Primary sources . . . do not contribute toward proving the notability of a subject," so mention in the Liber is of no weight whatsoever. It is simply not tenible to suggest that the passing mention of a single anecdote in all of the cited sources combined provides the "significant coverage" indicated by WP:BIO as the basis for notability. Agricolae (talk) 23:07, 24 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • First, the Liber Pontificalis is being cited by Lynda Garland of the University of New England in New South Wales. That's a WP:SECONDARY; therefore, the argument that "mention in the Liber is of no weight whatsoever" is untenable. Second, Gibbon is, as you admit, also a secondary source, meeting and far exceeding any and all criteria listed on WP:AEIS; therefore, any claims against it are, again, invalid. Third, clearly the Garland cit. is more than "a passing mention," as her citation clearly arises from her raising an inventory of all bibliography available to her. Who does "passing mentions" that require reviewing all avail. lit? XavierItzm (talk) 23:46, 24 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • If Garland is citing the Liber, Garland is the secondary source, and as such the Liber, as a primary source, does not contribute to notability as per WP:BIO, no matter how authoritative you argue it is. And as to Garland, the only thing she adds to the anecdote is a statement that we know absolutely nothing other than the anecdote in the Liber, which is not "significant coverage" by any stretch of the imagination. And yes, Gibbon is a secondary source, but he only makes passing mention of this anecdote. That is not "significant coverage", that is "trivial coverage of a subject by [a] secondary source[.]" Being mentioned in an authoritative secondary source is sufficient for verifiability, but that is not the same as notability, for which there are more stringent criteria. The question is not your "Who does passing mentions?", but "who has done anything but passing mention?", certainly not any of the cited sources and given Garland's explicit statement that there is nothing else to say, . . . . Agricolae (talk) 00:13, 25 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Not notable. His existence, relations and the hair episode can be covered in his father's article. Srnec (talk) 03:17, 25 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep/Merge. There's sufficient sourcing here for a stub article IMHO, but merging the little amount of content here to his father's article would be absolutely preferable to outright deletion per WP:PRESERVE. ---- Patar knight - chat/contributions 15:50, 25 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    Striking merge, since Keep is my preference, and merging/redirecting is only preferable to deletion. ---- Patar knight - chat/contributions 16:14, 11 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge & redirect to his father for reasons stated by Peterkingiron. Marginal figure who is notable only for his relationship. Kind of like Eric Trump 7&6=thirteen (☎) 11:39, 27 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. We have tens of thousands of BLPs (and BPs) on WP now that fully meet WP:GNG, but whose article will be deleted in the coming decades. Even now, we see them at AfD. Their RS wanes, and editors realise that while GNG is a guide, it is not the only criteria. In 1,000 years from now, Heraclius still will be recorded by historians. Unlike the reference to Eric Trump above (who does not become U.S. President if his father dies), at a point in time, Heraclius was the 3rd most important person in the western world, and would have had plenty of contemporary RS/GNG notability (long since gone, probably deliberately so given his brother). The most important man in the western world at that time (Constantine IV), sent a lock of his Heraclius' hair, and the hair of the 2nd most important person (Justinian II), to the most important western religious leader, Pope Benedict II; and it gets recorded in one of the most important books of that era, the Liber Pontificalis. This is not a nobody.
Heraclius is listed in almost every major historical book on that era, from Gibbons onwards (I could list 20 such references). In the future, historians/readers will want to understand specifically what we know, and what we don't know about Heraclius. Deletion or Redirect of such a figure on WP makes no sense. There is no PROMO/COI here to be addressed.
His father's WP article is already modest, and therefore any Merge with Constantine IV will probably see future editors remove the little detail we have on Heraclius as unnecessary given the modest size of his father's article (and potentially with justification). I think it is a perverse application of the GNG rules to do this. We should be able to record what little we know about this – at one time exceptionally notable character –– properly and not bury it inside another article where it will get edited away. Britishfinance (talk) 14:31, 27 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Heraclius was never the third most important person in the western world. He would not have had plenty of RSs were they not. He was not an exceptionally notable character. This is all anachronistic thinking. Everything we know about him amounts to a single sentence: that his father sent locks of his and his brother's hair to the Pope. That one sentence could be put on Constantine's page right now (indeed, it just has), without merging. If that one sentence can't survive on Constantine's page, it certainly shouldn't survive as the basis for a stand-alone page, no matter how much it is bloated with 'context' in the fashion of a pseudobiography. Agricolae (talk) 16:42, 27 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • But your entry doesn't note that JM Hussey lists him as being born in 670? It doesn't note that Dale de Lee Benjamin records him as surviving his father. It doesn't note that his father did not make Heraclius Agusti unlike what Constans II did for him. It doesn't note that the lock of hair was a sign of the Pope Benedict II adopting Heraclius. Or that is Greek name was Herakleios.
Even Google have a "Knowledge Graph" entry for Heraclius, son of Constantine IV, with his biographical details listed. /g/11hd1s3c8x but WP feels that he is not worthy of coverage (outside of one line buried in his father's bio). Our readers will have to rely on en.everybodywiki.com That is how absurd this is? Britishfinance (talk) 11:18, 28 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
He existed, he was a younger son, and he got his haircut. All the rest is fluff, speculation and pseudobiographical backfill. That you are now resorting to citing Google searches, Wikipedia mirrors and (on his page) geni.com is exactly how absurd this is. Agricolae (talk) 14:07, 28 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • According to RS, he was adopted by the Pope, he was born c 670 (plus more as noted above). Your response above shows that you have a strong POV here (as do I); yours is a subset of the facts; and you POV the RS of other historians as "fluff, speculation and pseudobiographical backfill".
But readers are not coming here to read your (or my) view of Heracilus, they are coming to find the RS from known historians on Heraclius – and it is clearly more than one line. Sadly, they will have to rely on en.everybodywiki.com or Google KG to find it. Britishfinance (talk) 14:31, 28 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
There is no RS that says he was adopted by the Pope. There are RSs that say the sending of a child's hair, such as happened for him and his brother, can be (not must be) indicative of a symbolic adoption, something that says more about the father than the child even were it true. Where do the birthdates come from? - he was a younger son and we know how old his brother was. From that, and that alone, come Garland's more-than-a-decade range and Hussey's approximation, but the fact is that he was younger brother to Justinian. As to him surviving his father, that directly contradicts Garland's statement that we don't have that information. That he wasn't named co-Emperor is what he wasn't, not what he was, and it wasn't Heraclius who made the choice, so this this may tell us something about his father's ruling philosophy, but not him. All of this, the contradictions, the discussion of different authors' guesses, the elaborate accounting of what he wasn't, are not indicative of the need for an independent article. They are the result of having a single historical datum, that Constantine sent locks of his two sons' hair to the Pope, and trying to spin the various RS's passing reference to this event and its otherwise completely unknown, historically-irrelevant younger son of Constantine into a full Wikipedia biography - this is part of the reason why Wikipedia has notability guidelines, because non-notable people don't have enough known about them to be able to avoid writing what is nothing more than a pseudobiographical Wikipedia entry about them.
All these words spilled here, about dire consequences and the hoards of readers desperate for information about Heraclius that will have to resort to Google searches and Wikipedia mirrors, and yet it is really as simple as this: no reliable source has given this obscure individual any more than scant passing reference, and as such he does not meet any of the relevant policies or guidelines for notability. Agricolae (talk) 16:40, 28 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Again, this is not about my (or your views) on the subject. It is to capture and chronicle what historians do say about Heraclius. Even in the specific issue of the Pope adopting Heraclius, I can produce over 10 works that discuss the affair (and Heraclius). Your POV comments show that you have decided an outcome, but the more you assert your POV, the more RS that is produced to show that it is a POV. All I am doing is adding RS to this article on aspects of Heraclius life, and they keep building up.
Sadly, given Heraclius had been compared to Eric Trump (again, notwithstanding the irony I raised earlier re Prince Andrew, that ET has a huge WP article, but in 1,000 years time ET will be forgotten where as Heraclius will be chronicled), perhaps my efforts are to nothing. Britishfinance (talk) 19:35, 28 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
And as you bloat the article with passing references that represent nothing but alternative spins on the same one datum we know about him (and only one of which sources dedicates an actual sentence to him, that being Garland stating that we don't known anything else about him), it only demonstrates exactly how utterly obscure this infant is. This is clearly not a notable person. In spite of your groundless and endless insistence that the well-established criteria for notability should be blatantly ignored (and repeated referral to irrelevant modern people), he does not merit a page. WP:BIO applies, even to ancient royal infants, and this royal infant has never received the required significant coverage, anywhere. Agricolae (talk) 21:20, 28 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • No. I am adding RS on facts we do know. Repeating Garland, Garland, Garland (an RS I added), is not going to change the fact that we know more than one sentance. I am trying to do some actual work on this article and adding actual RS content. I am not the soure of the "bloating", "groundless", "instance".
Britishfinance (talk) 02:24, 1 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
You seem to by trying to incorporate as it it were a different piece of information every passing reference, every implication that a different author has drawn from the single datum that we know about this obscure person. Agricolae (talk) 14:12, 2 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
:Above it was said that «Heraclius was never the third most important person in the western world». Oh my. How many wars, how many coups, how many died in the times of kings because of succession issues, whether real, made-up or even just gossiped about? There is simply no question that the son of any Byzantine emperor was one of the most important people in the planet, merely by breathing. The Empire of the Romans was the most important polity of Heraclius' age, stretching from the Black Sea shores of the Caucasus, across the Mediterranean, to the Balearics and Septem (Ceuta) in the west. The Empire at this time kept the Arabs confined to the East and South, the Slavs to the North and East, and the Franks, Lombards and Visigoths in their homelands. The position that Heraclius is not one of the most critical persons in the planet at the time is simply untenable. XavierItzm (talk) 00:36, 2 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
The fact that an important person has 'an heir and a spare' does not automatically make the spare 'one of the most important people on the planet' and place at his feat responsibility for the stable succession of an empire, particularly when a place like Constantinople did not have a tradition of stable succession. It is anachronistic to assume modern rules of succession even applied, and to therefore conclude that that makes this infant important. We know precisely one thing about his life - he had hair a hair cut. Yes, we have a few articles on similar individuals, but only because historians have waxed extensively about how history would have been different if only . . . , but no historian has given this individual more than passing mention. Agricolae (talk) 14:12, 2 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • He was the second eldest prince to the most powerful man in the western world, and adopted by the most powerful religious leader in the western world; and his older brother became the most powerful man etc. I could paste 30 references from works of RS historians on the period which all list Heracilus (I have already added several, and several have their own WP page). In another 1,500 years time, a very material % of WP BLPs will have been deleted because their subjects, despite meeting our WP:GNG, had no long-term notability. Heraclius will still be getting chronicled. I say we keep and preserve whatever pieces – which is more than one line – that we have on him. It seems totally absurd to do otherwise?
What is strange about this discussion is that none of the Deletes/Redirects want to discuss any of the additional material (ahem, hard work), added and sourced from major historians (with their own WP pages). Usually in an AfD, when somebody adds high-quality RS to the article is warrants discussion. In this AfD, it is ignored, and the POV is just amplified that there is "just one line", when the facts patently now show that our knowledge of Heraclius is more (which is I guess why amplifying the POV-argument is the only option). Britishfinance (talk) 10:29, 2 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Someone who appears in 30 lists is still only receiving passing reference. Do any of these authors give him a full paragraph? Is there even a full sentence where he is the sole subject (except for Garland saying we don't know anything about him other than the haircut)? Agricolae (talk) 14:12, 2 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I will discuss the additional material: None of it is "significant coverage" per the GNG, they are brief mentions on his existence and relationship but nothing actually about him. None of the additional material is content that is not already at or cannot be added to Constantine IV. The notability or reliability of the sources does not translate to the notability of the subject or the necessity that it be in a separate article. Reywas92Talk 02:28, 3 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per WP:NOTPAPER. Now that this page has been created, it would serve no useful purpose to delete it as all that does is make it viewable by admins alone. What's the point of that? Andrew D. (talk) 21:33, 28 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • The point would be that the person is not independently notable, so the article is contrary to policy. We do not know when he was born. He was not emperor, but then neither was I. He is known from one episode. No information need be deleted. It can all easily be covered with less fluff in his father's article, where anybody can see it. Srnec (talk) 15:06, 1 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Not true. One of the most regarded Byzantine historians, Joan M. Hussey, puts it at 670. Neither Prince Andrew nor Prince Harry will ever be king (or at least have less of a chance then Heraclius) and have WP articles. This article quotes major historians which give other facts on him. This is the same POV-argument made above but it has been shown not to be true. Britishfinance (talk) 15:44, 1 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
And why does Hussey say he was born then? Because he was younger than his brother, who was born about 668, so yeah, let's put Heraclius at 670. That's it. There is nothing more behind this. It is just another passing reference based on the same single actual fact, that he was the younger of two sons whose hair was sent to the Pope. Andrew was not relevant when you first mentioned him and continues to be irrelevant, as is Harry. Notability by analogy is not a valid concept. Agricolae (talk) 19:07, 2 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep This is the sort of thing you'd expect to find in a legitimate encyclopedia. The fact they didn't have newspapers and television back then to talk about people nonstop like the royals today, is not relevant. There is no limit of space in Wikipedia, and there is some historical mention of this person. Dream Focus 17:41, 1 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    • Good news then, you can still find it at Constantine IV! Incredible how low the bar had gotten: They were mentioned!!1! WP:PAPER explicitly says "this policy is not a free pass for inclusion" and is not a valid argument at AFD. Reywas92Talk 19:30, 1 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • No you can't. As shown above, historians – who are notable enough to have their own WP article – have more to say about Heraclius than one line. It is surreal that in an infinite project like WP, in a case with zero PROMO/COI, that a POV-argument is being pushed to remove RS content about a 1,500 year old prince (2nd in line) of the most powerful person in the western world at that time? Never mind the tens of thousands of WP BLPs on figures that will be deleted within a 100 years; in another 1,500 thousand years, this charachter will still be chronicled. However, under this AfD, and the POV views above, you will have to go to Everybodywiki: Heraclius (son of Constantine IV) to find more. Britishfinance (talk) 10:23, 2 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
He was not necessarily 'second in line'. It is anachronistic to apply to Byzantium the strict rules of succession that are applied to modern monarchies. (Under this AfD, a non-notable person will only be mentioned on his father's page. Oh, the humanity!) Agricolae (talk) 14:12, 2 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • But when you made a similar blanket comment above about about him not being adopted by the Pope, which was shown to be false (with major references who had written paragraphs on the affair), you went silent?
I suspect you would like me to go silent, but that he was adopted is still implication rather than fact, again derived from our sole datum, that his father sent the Pope his hair. Agricolae (talk) 19:16, 2 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Why not contribute to the article rather than POV-posting in AfD - but that would add even more content to the article, which would defeat your POV (in a way, your POV it caught in a trap). However, I share your sentiments on the humanity. Britishfinance (talk) 15:19, 2 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
There is nothing to add. The article is already fluff. We do not know when he was born: "was born between 667 to 685" means after his older brother and before his dad died. That he was never emperor or co-emperor is, I suppose, a fact about him. Maybe we should also mention that he was not a pineapple while we're at it? The sentence In contrast, the brothers of his father, Heraclius and Tiberius, had been crowned Augusti with Constantine IV during the reign of their father Constans II, but in 681 Constantine IV had them mutilated so they would be ineligible to rule. tell us nothing about Heraclius. The same goes for in contrast, his brother Justinian II's death is known as 711, while his mother Anastasia outlived all her family and died sometime after 711. We are reduced to one episode in one source, as everybody has been saying. If it were a lengthy episode, perhaps an article on that would be useful so as not bog down Constantine IV's article. But it isn't. Srnec (talk) 17:43, 2 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • No, Joan M. Hussey says he was born in 670 (as referenced in the article). Arguments like him not being a pineapple (which you haven't even referenced; unlike everything that has been added to this article during this AfD) show that you are not interested in a good faith discussion here, but have a POV-view. You forget to mention that he was adopted by the Pope, and you forget to mention that his not being made Agusti was in contrast to his father's treatment of his brothers. You only demonstrate you are here to push an agenda regardless of the well referenced fact-base, or of the value of this fact base is to our readers. If I need a POV-encloypedia according to Srnec, I know where to go. Britishfinance (talk) 02:00, 3 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
And both of these so-called facts about him, his approximate birthdate and his supposed adoption, are just implications drawn from the only actual fact, that his father sent the hair of two sons to the Pope, and he is the second-named. Both the tonsorial gift and the failure to crown the boys, as decisions made by their father, tell us much more about Constantine than they do about the two kids who likely played no conscious role in either the act or the non-act of their father. Agricolae (talk) 02:28, 3 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Jovanmilic97 (talk) 21:09, 2 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - as per Britishfinance. I see no advantage in deleting a perfectly adequate article on a historical figure about whom little is known. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 10:42, 4 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Tymon.r Do you have any questions? 22:59, 9 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep because this is an encyclopedia. Phil Bridger (talk) 11:28, 10 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak Keep he is a historical figure, and as the son of an emperor he is notable, but in both medieval and modern sources he is essentially a footnote. Personally for such cases, where the person in question has no agency of his own and no notable fact other than his existence, I prefer to include this at the parents' articles rather than in a dedicated article. However, I have seen similar entries in encyclopedias before, and since we don't have space constraints, I see no harm in keeping the article, and no immediate benefit to deleting/merging. Constantine ✍ 14:22, 10 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep It seems to me there are (now) sufficient reliable sources. I am going by WP:BASIC and its first bullet point qualification. All that apart, it would be silly to delete this and WP:N advises towards using common sense. Thincat (talk) 17:07, 11 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep as per Britishfinance, Phil Bridger, Constantine, Thincat. Mosaicberry (talk) 12:10, 13 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Yes, children of significant rulers are and should be seen as notable. -- Necrothesp (talk) 13:24, 13 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. It is perhaps worth repeating that the figure in question—Heraclius, son of Constantine IV—is named precisely once in one source. He is known from a single episode. Everything we know about him can be summed up in one sentence. The best reason to delete is that the article at present leaves you with the impression there is more. There isn't. It's just worded to look like there is (although footnote #2 is honest). Srnec (talk) 04:31, 16 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per those arguing that the sons of Roman emperors are presumed to be notable, even if evidence is scarce. I have two standards: people written about in premodern times are likely to be notable, and the children of ruling sovereigns are almost always notable. Bearian (talk) 22:16, 16 March 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. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 04:19, 17 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Conspiracy Series with Shane Dawson[edit]

Conspiracy Series with Shane Dawson (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)

Articles about this series have already been deleted three times:

I closed two of those, so I'm sort of WP:INVOLVED, and it's questionable whether this version is sufficiently identical for WP:G4. So, bringing it here for a wider look, and more authoritative decision. -- RoySmith (talk) 00:13, 23 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete No change or improvement in content, another use of title case to round the previous AfD's. Stop this embarrassing charade already and respect our consensus. Nate • (chatter) 02:11, 23 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Looking at the web showing that has enough coverage which it does not always mean being risk from being deleted. The reason for this deletion is little to no improvement, like the other two of those which is identical which Royhsmith said. Sheldybett (talk) 05:07, 23 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Plenty of coverage since the last AfD, see e.g. this in-depth NYT article [2]. This isn't a run-of-the-mill webseries. wumbolo ^^^ 09:39, 23 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - if this was created by the same editor, they should get blocked. --Gonnym (talk) 11:45, 23 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. ___CAPTAIN MEDUSAtalk 12:54, 23 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 13:29, 23 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge As I recall, someone has previously tried to delete this page about a month ago per WP:TOOSOON; the series has some coverage here and there but it’s notability is always inherited from Dawson. It’s intellectual dishonesty to think that New York Times article is about the series itself rather than the Bigger Picture. Merge with Shane Dawson. Trillfendi (talk) 17:57, 23 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Hi all, I noticed that a few pages of this topic had been made and deleted due to bad sources and the fact the series hadn‘t ended. When it did end to continue the multiple other pages on Dawson’s series in continuity in the format of The Mind of Jake Paul and The Secret World of Jeffree Star. This is completely new page and I have no association with the other deleted articles, and I pride myself in creating articles on notable topics with correct information that does justice to the topic and if you read it and other similar pages  The Mind of Jake Paul and The Secret World of Jeffree Star you will see this. Thanks! l — Preceding unsigned comment added by LukaStevens (talk • contribs) 08:34, 23 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. The topic is notable per WP:GNG. Looking into merger, I found that, per content of each article, it would do more damage than good. gidonb (talk) 18:06, 23 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep This series is important and notable. eventhough their might be a lack of content a merger might save this articleBMO4744 (talk) 19:43, 23 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Notable and will continue to be added onto by editors when more sources are found. Goveganplease (talk) 04:12, 28 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 07:06, 2 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Tymon.r Do you have any questions? 22:56, 9 March 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. Overall consensus is for deletion. North America1000 02:54, 17 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

John Pylka[edit]

John Pylka (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)

His article survived PROD in 2010 but the sources are not reliable, notability is not demonstrated and the subject of the article is not significant. Mccapra (talk) 22:48, 9 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

  • Weak Delete (SOFT) - GNG/BASIC is relevant here, and I just don't think it is met. Certainly not for the two sources accessible and not in other sources I could find. There is some reliable coverage, but in those, Sig Cov isn't satisfied. I've made it weak for his frequent presence indicating that the book coverage might well cover the man himself in some detail. However, one source, unless amazing, wouldn't be sufficient for GNG. I actually think the event could get enough, so a soft delete is my preferred option. Nosebagbear (talk) 23:31, 9 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Washington, D.C.-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 02:36, 10 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Sourcing is very poor. A search turns out no reliable sources. Lapablo (talk) 10:55, 16 March 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. -- Patar knight - chat/contributions 23:31, 16 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Joe Lanham[edit]

Joe Lanham (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 is an article on a radio personality. There's no claim of notability anywhere in the article - see WP:MILL. It is completely unsourced since its creation in 2008 and I couldn't find any reliable sources to cover this biography of a living person. RetiredDuke (talk) 22:35, 9 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete - no clear claim of notability and certainly nothing findable to demonstrate WP:BASIC or GNG. Nosebagbear (talk) 23:34, 9 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per above. No claim of notability, seems like a good candidate for a CSD A7. Citrivescence (talk) 01:56, 10 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Ohio-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 02:37, 10 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Radio-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 02:37, 10 March 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. North America1000 03:05, 17 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Giampaolo Pasquile[edit]

Giampaolo Pasquile (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. Reliable coverage not found. GeoffreyT2000 (talk) 22:09, 2 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 22:25, 2 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Italy-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 22:25, 2 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 22:26, 2 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Jovanmilic97 (talk) 22:34, 9 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - I haven't been able to find any solid coverage of him per WP:CREATIVE or WP:MUSICBIO, in English or Italian. If other editors could find a few independent profiles of his work in WP:Secondary, WP:Reliable sources I could change my mind on this, as he's worked on a few reasonably notable recordings. But absent this, I can't see how notability is asserted independent of the teams he's worked with. Flapjacktastic (talk) 12:08, 14 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Fails all possible notability guidelines for inclusion. Fails WP:ANYBIO. Lapablo (talk) 11:20, 16 March 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. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 04:18, 17 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Frederick Greenwood (magistrate)[edit]

Frederick Greenwood (magistrate) (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 had speedied this earlier and it's back. There is no content in the article that indicates that this individual is notable -- the article indicates he held a position as magistrate, and lists various genealogical connections. Fails WP:JUDGE. References appear to be lists and other passing mentions. UninvitedCompany 22:32, 9 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 02:40, 10 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 04:40, 10 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Law-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 04:40, 10 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Would being High Sheriff of Yorkshire qualify as holding "sub-national (statewide/provincewide) office"? If so, I believe that he does pass WP:JUDGE. He was appointed to that position, but never held it due to "failing health". (Note that WP:JUDGE also applies to "persons who have been elected to such offices but have not yet assumed them.") MarkZusab (talk) 15:44, 10 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep The above reasoning is exactly why I felt he was notable, the High Sheriff of Yorkshire status would surely give him a pass on WP:JUDGE. StaniforthHistorian (talk) 15:52, 11 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • At most weak keep -- High Sheriff is not a judicial appointment, but might still be sufficient to make him notable, but he was excused for ill-health and did not actually serve (according to the article). The formal responsibilities of a sheriff are executing high court writs (but this is actually done by a deputy sheriff, normally a solicitor) and accounting for certain government revenue, but there was little or none to collect. Being a JP is a local judicial appointment & NN. NOTINHERITED applies to the connections with his son and Charlotte Bronte. Peterkingiron (talk) 17:11, 11 March 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. -- Patar knight - chat/contributions 23:32, 16 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

OTG exp[edit]

OTG exp (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 midsize operator of airport concessions does not appear to be notable and the article tone suggests that it may be paid placement. References are passing mentions. The article is not neutral in tone and is a borderline speedy. UninvitedCompany 22:25, 9 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 02:41, 10 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Food and drink-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 02:41, 10 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 02:41, 10 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Fairly standard paid brochure article for a business basing its notability criteria on a passing mention in an X of Y listing. Highly promotional and would need a significant rewrite to become encyclopedic. Fails WP:ORGIND and WP:CORPDEPTH. scope_creepTalk 10:56, 10 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
..assuming verifiable sources exist. scope_creepTalk 22:15, 11 March 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. North America1000 02:57, 17 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Paul Lamb (author)[edit]

Paul Lamb (author) (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)

An extremely promotional page on a non-notable individual (in the encyclopedic sense). Subject does not meet any of the criteria of WP:NAUTHOR. Sourcing is very weak and I couldn't find any better; the only RS here is the one from the Hamilton Spectator. Article also has an interesting story of declined drafts and SPAs. RetiredDuke (talk) 22:03, 9 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. ~SS49~ {talk} 22:30, 9 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. ~SS49~ {talk} 22:30, 9 March 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. -- Patar knight - chat/contributions 23:32, 16 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Stephen Gormley[edit]

Stephen Gormley (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 glass maker I'm trying to find notability for. He is apparently popular in Asia, as well as his own website. But not quite what it makes to be on here. (Surprise it wasn't tagged in 2013 when it went up, this isn't like one of those older articles, we were getting pretty strict before then) Wgolf (talk) 21:31, 9 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Artists-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 02:43, 10 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 04:31, 10 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • delete I fixed one source but cannot find anything beyond that.ThatMontrealIP (talk) 03:28, 12 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete I tried, but I can't source it. E.M.Gregory (talk) 23:35, 14 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Sources is very scanty, could find one but not sure if its him or a singer. Lapablo (talk) 11:51, 16 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. -- RoySmith (talk) 02:01, 17 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

StudyPoint[edit]

AfDs for this article:
StudyPoint (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)

Possibly non-notable business, was AfD'd once before with a close of delete. I'm finding mentions but not significant coverage. Possible COI creation. valereee (talk) 19:16, 2 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment I would advise you to expand that rationale for deletion. Just because a page was deleted through AfD before, does not mean it will never be notable. This could fall under WP:SK criteria 1. Jovanmilic97 (talk) 19:21, 2 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    Jovanmilic97, weirdly, it seems to have had a close of delete but not actually been deleted? Am I misreading the article history? valereee (talk) 19:30, 2 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@Valereee: Deleted in 2009 after AfD, but restored with full page history in 2011, see [3]. Bakazaka (talk) 20:00, 2 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Bakazaka, ah! Thanks! valereee (talk) 20:12, 2 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Massachusetts-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 19:35, 2 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 19:36, 2 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 19:36, 2 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Tymon.r Do you have any questions? 21:01, 9 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Coverage is minimal, the article does not currently pass WP:GNG in my opinion. Pax:Vobiscum (talk) 19:48, 16 March 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. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 04:17, 17 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

G. Kent Ketcher[edit]

G. Kent Ketcher (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:NPOL and WP:GNG. Small town mayor who's only references are either obits or reports of his dying in office by local news sources. GPL93 (talk) 20:45, 9 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 20:48, 9 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Oklahoma-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 20:48, 9 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Missouri-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 20:49, 9 March 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. -- Patar knight - chat/contributions 23:32, 16 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Michael R Hart[edit]

Michael R Hart (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)

Subject is the mayor of Commerce, OK (Population: 2,473). His position fails WP:NPOL and he doesn't appear to pass WP:GNG either. GPL93 (talk) 20:11, 9 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete. Completely fails WP:NPOL. He has not received significant press coverage, and Commerce is a town of less than 3k people. --Kbabej (talk) 20:23, 9 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. Kbabej (talk) 20:24, 9 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Oklahoma-related deletion discussions. Kbabej (talk) 20:25, 9 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. Kbabej (talk) 20:28, 9 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete along with the horse he rode in on. As the mayor of a gtown with a population 2,500 and declining, he has at least gotten elected, but WP:NPOL requires in addition that such people are major local political figures who have received significant press coverage. All I found was his profile on the town website [4] Hawkeye7 (discuss) 01:52, 14 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Smalltown mayors are not automatically deemed notable just because they have profiles on the self-published websites of their own municipal government, but there's not even a hint here of enough reliable source coverage to make him a special case over and above most of the thousands upon thousands of other smalltown mayors in the world. Bearcat (talk) 18:48, 15 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Per norm. Lapablo (talk) 11:59, 16 March 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. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 04:17, 17 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Tom Brandt[edit]

Tom Brandt (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)

28-year-old footballer played 21 games across two seasons in 2012 and 2013 for a 3rd-tier minor league team (SW). While that's a technical NFOOTY pass, there is no SIGCOV to support GNG. The most significant coverage is this ROUTINE article about his professional debut. It was published in a local newspaper that prints 3x per week, The Patriot-News (now PennLive). Their website doesn't provide editorial information (no masthead), and the owner, PA Media Group, describes itself as a "marketing agency". The remaining coverage is non-independent and not very significant. This bio is put out by the player's university announcing his joining the university's team. This ROUTINE coverage of Brandt being drafted is published by the league, MLS Soccer, and written by a freelance journalist whose beat is to cover this particular team franchise. This blog post about the player's home field debut was written by the same journalist on his personal blog, published on the website of the university's alumni magazine (The Penn Gazette). The only coverage has been from his local newspaper, his own team, and his own university. While NFOOTY is met, GNG is not, and this article should be deleted. Leviv ich 17:04, 9 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Leviv ich 17:05, 9 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. Leviv ich 17:05, 9 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Leviv ich 17:05, 9 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Pennsylvania-related deletion discussions. Leviv ich 17:05, 9 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Leviv ich 17:06, 9 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. (Nom consulted me prior to nomming). Subject here played college (more coverage actually) and then a few gamees in the minors. NFOOTY merely creates a presumption of notability - however in this case it is clear there is no SIGCOV. His minor league stint (which went no where) is not even mentioned in a local piece mentioning him briefly helping a high school - [5].Icewhiz (talk) 18:21, 9 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - meets WP:NFOOTBALL; needs improving, not deleting. GiantSnowman 11:53, 11 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    Absent significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject - which are lacking here (failing WP:GNG) - such an improvement is unlikely - impossible even given sourcing quality required for a WP:BLP. Keep by NFOOTY (merely presumption of GNG) means nothing for borderline NFOOTY players who are being challenged for not having anything approaching SIGCOV. Show us the sources, if you want it kept. At least 3-4 high quality in-depth sources. Icewhiz (talk) 12:18, 11 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep passes WP:NFOOTY. AFD is not cleanup, fix the flaws rather than delete the article. Furthermore, the newspaper cited in the article is most certainly not owned by a "marketing agency", it is owned by Advance Publications, which is a reputable media company. It looks like PA Media Group is responsible for technical maintenance of the website, but that's all they do. Smartyllama (talk) 13:01, 11 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    The article at issue [6] is at Blog.PennLive.com–that's the first hint. If you click on the "About us" at the bottom, it takes you to PA Media Group's about us page, which states at the top (bold added): PA Media Group is a data-driven marketing agency, delivering news and digital advertising solutions to consumers and businesses in Central Pennsylvania and all across the state. We drive daily conversations and engage millions of people through quality journalism on PennLive.com, social channels, newsletters and The Patriot-News. PA Media Group is not owned directly by Advance Publications, it's owned by Advance Local. If you go Advance Local's website, it says on the front page (bold added): Advance Local is one of the leading digital media and marketing companies, reaching more than 50 million people throughout the U.S., across multiple platforms. Advance Local, in turn, is one of several subsidiaries of Advance Publications (per their website). Advance Publications has other subsidiaries, like the magazine publisher Conde Naste, the newspaper publisher American City Business Journals, and Sports Business Group, but these are separate companies from Advance Local. So it's The Patriot-News -> PA Media Group -> Advance Local -> Advance Publications, and the Patriot-News seems far removed from Advance Publications' actual journalism entities, and is instead organized under its marketing/faux-journalism entities. The real point is that there is no indication of editorial oversight at Blog.PennLive.com. No masthead that I can find. I'm sure someone is an editor there... Leviv ich 15:36, 11 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    Regardless of the (relevant) detailed analysis of lack of reliability above - it is a very local source. Very local media coverage generally does not establish SIGCOV. Icewhiz (talk) 15:46, 11 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep passes WP:NFOOTY and I believe the sources provided along with the ones in my WP:BEFORE search satisfy WP:GNG, including [7] [8] [9] [10]. Plenty of coverage. The PennLive blog appears to be an extension of PennLive and should be considered an RS. SportingFlyer T·C 06:25, 14 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    Of the 4 sources you cite - The first - philadelphiaunion.com was his employer thus not independent (and generally not a RS). The second - Philly.com has about 2 paragraph worth - so no in depth. And the third and fourth are from blog.pennlive.com - a very local source which probably doesn't meet our RS standards. Claiming SIGCOV off of these 4 is quite a stretch. Icewhiz (talk) 07:20, 14 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • There are many other articles discussing him as a footballer as well in a simple Google search. Those are not the only four sources. As I've said, I believe PennLive does meet our standards for RS. SportingFlyer T·C 07:25, 14 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as per nom & Icewhiz.Tamsier (talk) 11:58, 15 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep meets agreed notability criteria, this article needs improvement and AFD is not clean up. Wikipedia is not on a deadline, articles will be improved as current or new editors decide to assist. A google search finds coverage of this player, and the reliable sources mentioned above from SportingFlyer could be utilised by a willing editor to improve this. Borgarde (talk) 10:37, 16 March 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. -- Patar knight - chat/contributions 23:32, 16 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Cosmic Nitro[edit]

Cosmic Nitro (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 for lack of significant coverage in reliable sources. Nothing significant to find in my searches besides the 148Apps (that is situational per WP:VG/RS) review that is already in the article. There are 2 sentences about it on Macworld, but is not WP:SIGCOV. Jovanmilic97 (talk) 15:47, 9 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Video games-related deletion discussions. MT TrainTalk 18:18, 9 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • delete as non notable. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 18:21, 9 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. Videogameplayer99 (talk) 22:32, 10 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Have a hard time finding any reliable sources for the subject. Created since 2009 with no proper sourcing. Lapablo (talk) 17:11, 16 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete The coverage just isn't there. --SubSeven (talk) 19:19, 16 March 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. -- Patar knight - chat/contributions 23:33, 16 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Country Life (video game)[edit]

Country Life (video game) (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 for lack of significant coverage in reliable sources. Nothing to find in my searches except for blogs. Jovanmilic97 (talk) 15:11, 9 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Video games-related deletion discussions. MT TrainTalk 18:20, 9 March 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. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 04:15, 17 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Theodore "Ted" Jones[edit]

Theodore "Ted" Jones (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)

Louisiana lobbyist who fails WP:NPOL and WP:GNG. Sources used in this article are: 1 & 7) his voter registration records; 2) a search on usa-people-search.com; 3) his bio in the Louisiana Political Hall of Fame, which has a lower threshold of notability than Wikipedia; 4 & 8) original research by the article's since-banned author, which only states that he couldn't actually find the information he was looking for; 5) the website for a consulting firm that his son used to work for; 6) Permanent dead link about the inductees from his year to the LA hall of fame in a local newspaper; 9) an article regarding a minor political scandal that he was partly involved in; 10) a dead link to a wealth management firm. None of these sources are enough to establish notability. GPL93 (talk) 14:38, 9 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. GPL93 (talk) 17:23, 9 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Louisiana-related deletion discussions. GPL93 (talk) 17:23, 9 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Clear lack of strong sources, and the ones that are here do not establish any level of lasting notability. Penale52 (talk) 20:54, 11 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Came across a few passings mentions but nothing in-depth on subject. Fails WP:CORPDEPTH. Lapablo (talk) 18:05, 16 March 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. ~ Amory (u • t • c) 18:39, 16 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

International Emerging Talent Film Festival[edit]

International Emerging Talent Film Festival (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-ed by Mccapra with the rationale Based on the IEFTA website this festival only ran once in 2007 and if therefore not notable. and de-PROD-ed by MarkZusab with the rationale WP:NOTTEMPORARY, subject may be notable. I've searched Google, Scholar, Newspapers.com and there's no secondary coverage, just mirrors of this article and self-published sources. Therefore I think it fails WP:NEVENT. SITH (talk) 14:17, 9 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete. I found the same lack of sources when I looked, but should probably have made that clear in my PROD nomination to save it coming here. Mccapra (talk) 14:50, 9 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. MT TrainTalk 18:21, 9 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. MT TrainTalk 18:21, 9 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, per Mccapra & SITH - in the absence of sources, we can't maintain an article (side note: I need a catchy way to say that. If there are no deets, we must delete? I dunno.) ♠PMC♠ (talk) 22:10, 10 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. No significant coverage on the award. Fails WP:NEVENT. Lapablo (talk) 18:24, 16 March 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. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 04:14, 17 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Tension & Trauma Releasing Exercises[edit]

Tension & Trauma Releasing Exercises (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 has been tagged for three years as an orphan. It seems to be a promotional piece for a fringe therapy, and I've been unable to find any significant coverage ~dom Kaos~ (talk) 09:35, 2 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. Icewhiz (talk) 09:41, 2 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ~SS49~ {talk} 14:13, 9 March 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. TonyBallioni (talk) 18:22, 9 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Tyler Morris[edit]

Tyler Morris (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 seem to quite meet WP:MUSICBIO. Long history of promotional edits from single-purpose accounts Tyler5150ful and BobKelley. Eman235/talk 03:34, 23 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Sheldybett (talk) 04:56, 23 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Sheldybett (talk) 04:56, 23 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Massachusetts-related deletion discussions. Sheldybett (talk) 04:56, 23 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nomination. He may go on to become notable, but at the moment it is TOOSOON. I note (as mentioned at the Teahouse) that the first reference does not make any mention of the subject, and the other two are to his own website.--Gronk Oz (talk) 08:23, 23 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per above comment. --Comment by Selfie City (talk about my contributions) 19:14, 23 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Per nom. Not notable yet. Britishfinance (talk) 01:11, 1 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - I have no dispute with the general "too soon" consensus above, but the kid has received some robust profiles in the blues press: [11], [12], [13]. His recent album has also gotten in-depth reviews in that genre's magazines: [14], [15], [16]. The article currently reads like an attempt at personal promotion, but it can be improved with more honest content from the media coverage he has received in the past few months. However, I can find no online evidence that the recent album charted in Billboard. ---DOOMSDAYER520 (Talk|Contribs) 15:27, 1 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 07:07, 2 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ~SS49~ {talk} 14:12, 9 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. -- RoySmith (talk) 01:58, 17 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hierarchical software models[edit]

Hierarchical software models (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 prodded this as a "one sentence stub definition", which was declined because length is not a reason for deletion. A WP:BEFORE shows little-to-no usage as a term, which fails both WP:GNG and WP:NOT#DICT. DannyS712 (talk) 00:49, 2 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. J947 (c), at 00:58, 2 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, Wikipedia is not a dictionary, and subject does not appear to be notable. Jeb3Talk at me here 20:34, 5 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ~SS49~ {talk} 14:12, 9 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete the use of the phrase in the literature is inconsistent. It is used in other contexts than just quality attributes. I don't see enough reliable sources referencing the title to justify notability. --mikeu talk 23:38, 13 March 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. Consensus is for the article to be retained. North America1000 06:20, 16 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hubert Invents the Wheel[edit]

Hubert Invents the Wheel (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’m not sure whether the sources cited count as ‘non-trivial published works’ and therefore not sure if this passes WP:NBOOK. Mccapra (talk) 12:24, 2 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. Sheldybett (talk) 12:30, 2 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Poetry-related deletion discussions. Sheldybett (talk) 12:30, 2 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 13:39, 9 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak keep. Kirkus is absolutely a quality and respected source. After that... The School Library Journal review is decent enough but I'm unsure how selective their lists are. The Midwest Book Review treatment is a capsule review at best. Dyson is a notable author but I'm unconvinced she's a recognized expert for the purposes of making her self-published site a reliable source. Nomination for the Bluebonnet award isn't exclusive enough to confer notability (15-20 nominees per year). Bloomsbury isn't independent. I think I'm willing to conclude that this one just squeaks by. Squeamish Ossifrage (talk) 16:25, 9 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per meeting WP:NBOOK criteria #1 through the reviews listed in my comment above. MarkZusab (talk)
  • Keep, meets WP:NBOOK and WP:GNG with the reviews mentioned above, plus Horn Book here (just a snip), and Library Media Connection listed here. Coolabahapple (talk) 13:51, 11 March 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. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 04:14, 17 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Justin Tellus[edit]

AfDs for this article:
Justin Tellus (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)

Footballer who has never played in a fully-professional league, failing WP:NFOOTY. Prod removed twice by article creator on the incorrect claim that the league is fully-professional. Number 57 22:20, 2 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Malta-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 22:27, 2 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 22:31, 2 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 22:32, 2 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 22:32, 2 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions.CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 22:33, 2 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Fails WP:NFOOTY and WP:GNG. This article got accepted at AfC in ignorance of WP:NFOOTY and WP:GNG. Editors now have to waste time at AfD on it.Dougal18 (talk) 08:29, 3 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Hello all, I still believe this article is wrongly listed for deletion. According to Wikipedia:Notability (sports)'s Wikipedia:WikiProject Football/Fully professional leagues the Maltese Premier League is not a fully professional league (incorrect information). This information clashes with that of the information on the MPL's Wiki page which lists the league as professional (correct information), see Maltese Premier League. Perhaps the fault lies within Wikipedia:WikiProject Football/Fully professional leagues needing an update, rather than the page itself or my own 'ignorance'. The subject also competed in the UEFA Cup (Europa League) at the qualifying stages and also proper rounds which increases notability. I find 'Editors now have to waste time at AfD on it.' somewhat callous when there is discussion to be had. regards, User talk:AndrewHaines98 11:07, 3 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    • Maltese football is largely semi-professional; see, for example, this ("And most of the local-based players are semi-professional."). The Maltese Premier League article was wrongly changed two weeks ago from "semi-professional" to "professional" by an IP (who made that edit only a few hours before you created the Tellus article). Number 57 12:21, 3 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    • Hello, if you read the BBC Sport article carefully it states that Maltese footballers, not the league itself, are largely semi-professional and goes on to state that that 'Maltese Premier League clubs field up to seven foreign players in their starting XI' all of which could be professional as it does not state otherwise or about the league itself, so I do not think that is strong proof that the league is not professional. User talk:AndrewHaines98 09:12, 4 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak Keep For playing in a few UEFA Cup games, per this and this. In my opinion just passes WP:GNG and google searches reveal there are a number of interviews, podcasts, some YouTube videos, etc, and a bit more. Govvy (talk) 22:01, 3 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    • Playing in the early rounds of the UEFA cup for a team from one of the smallest countries in Europe is in no way an acceptable reason for having an article. Number 57 22:35, 3 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    • I understand this is not a strong argument as as of yet I cannot prove (still searching through old paper cuttings for citation as to why I left it off the page for now) the player competed in one Malta Under-23s game and also played in the Champions League (a Tier 1 international competition) during his time at Valletta FC, see Valletta F.C. European Record 1999-00 they competed in the tournament during his years at the club. User talk:AndrewHaines98 09:17, 4 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - fails WP:GNG and WP:NFOOTBALL. GiantSnowman 10:20, 4 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - He has not received significant coverage or played in a fully pro league, meaning the article fails WP:GNG and WP:NFOOTY. Sir Sputnik (talk) 14:46, 5 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Fails WP:GOLDENRULE, seems a case of WP:TOOSOON till he plays significant league Accesscrawl (talk) 16:08, 5 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak Keep- Me too have to say weak keep. It has some notability for playing in local teams but need more reliable sources. --SalmanZ (talk) 21:52, 7 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Normal-strength keep – Passes GNG after BEFORE search. The top WP:THREE sources are this local newspaper article, this interview, this article, and I'd add this recent interview. Even his wedding got some coverage. From his playing days, though the coverage is routine, he features prominently in several game reports, e.g., by being the player whose photo accompanies the game report and/or by being referred to as the best player on the team, like here, here, here, here, here, and here. Too bad he had the misfortune of playing on a team sponsored by McDonald's. Those uniforms–wow! Leviv ich 19:02, 8 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    • @Levivich: I was under the impression that you believed there were too many football biographies on Wikipedia, yet arguments like the one you've used here would justify far more articles on semi-pro players that we normally use WP:NFOOTY to exclude. As an example, most of the same arguments you've used above could quite easily be applied to a player from my local semi-pro/eighth tier club AFC Sudbury: There are numerous articles on him in both local media [25][26] and football websites,[27] as well as match reports that specifically name him in the headline/feature his photo.[28][29] Realistically, because football gets so much coverage, a line has to be drawn somewhere, otherwise the number of football bios will go even higher than at present. Number 57 19:44, 8 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
      @Number 57: You are correct; I do believe there are too many football biographies. But I don't understand NFOOTY to be a rule of exclusion; if a subject doesn't pass NFOOTY, the article can still be kept if the subject passes GNG, right? In this instance, I think there's enough SIGCOV to pass GNG. That he doesn't have SIGCOV from his playing days means he wouldn't be notable as a player (since he also doesn't pass NFOOTY), but that doesn't mean he isn't notable as a coach in the present day per the SIGCOV, and thus passes GNG and should be kept. By comparison, James Baker, in my view, doesn't pass NFOOTY or GNG. Of the links you posted, two are significant in length but routine in that they're reports of his transfers. (Every player seems to get a 500-word write-up when they transfer.) The game reports I wouldn't say confer GNG notability to anyone (they are routine), but in the case of Tellus, it shows there's been at least some coverage of him for 20 years. Kind of a pile-on to the SIGCOV he receives today. But to be clear, what makes this a keep for me is the current SIGCOV (the THREE cited above), and not NFOOTY or the coverage he received as a player 20 years ago. Leviv ich 20:29, 8 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
      • @Levivich: You're correct that a player can pass GNG but not NFOOTY; however, this really should only be in exceptional circumstances (such as Sonny Pike), not your average semi-pro player who wasn't good enough to play in a fully-pro league (we're talking here about someone coaching (not even managing) at the seventh level of English football). NFOOTY is more often than not used by project members to exclude players who could arguably be shown to meet GNG. We'll have to agree to disagree about the relative merits of the coverage here, and perhaps I didn't use the best example, but if you're going to push GNG over NFOOTY as the main tool for assessing footballer bios, I'm just flagging up the fact that it will almost certainly open the door to more bios, not fewer. Number 57 20:42, 8 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 13:15, 9 March 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. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 04:10, 17 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Clifton House Preparatory School[edit]

Clifton House Preparatory School (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 is a private primary/elementary school and such schools need at least a distinctive feature or good coverage in RS to have any prospect to be considered notable. This school has no such feature or coverage and fails WP:ORG. Delete. Just Chilling (talk) 22:32, 2 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 22:38, 2 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 22:38, 2 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 22:38, 2 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep until a better solution is found The cold logic says delete- but this is more complex. Harrogate always was dismissed disparagingly as the 'town of tea-rooms and preparatory schools'. (My grandparents didn't do NPOV) This is one of a cluster of preparatory school articles we have that served the wool belt of Bradford and Leeds and fed into St Peter's School, York founded in 627 AD. See also Clifton Pre-preparatory School, St Olave's School, York, West End Preparatory School, Harrogate defunct, New College, Harrogate (defunct) and elsewhere in Yorkshire, Woodleigh School, North Yorkshire. A possible merge to make [Preparatory schools in Harrogate and North Yorkshire] could be one solution but I think not- or [Harrogate Crescents]. This article has one thing going for it (and against it)- extensive research by an enthusiastic academic. In itself it is not notable, but seen from an architectural perspective it may be, or just as part of the cluster, or by including the sociology/Psychology of textile entrepreneurs.ClemRutter (talk) 11:30, 3 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
For information:-"CLIFTON HOUSE SCHOOL". www.aeden.plus.com. Retrieved 3 March 2019.: is one reference but not RS. ClemRutter (talk) 12:43, 3 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - I would normally agree. However, it is not mentioned there and a redirect to an article where it is not mentioned is bad practice since it would simply be annoying to the reader. That section lists notable secondary schools so adding it there would be inappropriate. Just Chilling (talk) 21:05, 7 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    • I agree with you in that case we shouldn't generally redirect to a page where the topic isn't covered. Unless we normally cover preparatory schools in sections large towns then it should be deleted. We obviously do this for villages but this is more difficult for large towns since its more likely to overload the article. I still think mentioning it in the education section may be viable though. Crouch, Swale (talk) 21:20, 7 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment : I am still looking for a cluster that we could add it to- I Googled Yorkshire Schools and found a rich band of historic material from the 1820s. Dickens used one in setting Nicholas Nickleby. There is a [Naomi Clifford].Sutherland.I haven't any proposals for how we do the link- between todays staid prepschools and pre-Victorian internment! ClemRutter (talk) 22:37, 7 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 13:01, 9 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment The list of schools articles are just that, simply a list, all of the English ones were reduced to this previously (see for example). Personally I think that the lists should be more informative and at least give basic details for each entry as most of them would be classed as non-notable. You can then have a redirect to the list or an article for each entry. Keith D (talk) 15:07, 10 March 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. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 04:09, 17 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Carlton World[edit]

Carlton World (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 channel, similarly to Carlton Kids, has NOT been tagged with sources for over 10+ years. Just like Carlton Kids, I do not believe this channel is notable enough to have its own page. HurricaneGeek2002 (talk) 22:35, 2 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 22:37, 2 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 22:37, 2 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep I'm disappointed that we are having to have this conversation again. The article does contain suitable references and just because the channel was only on air for a relatively short time does not mean that it is not notable. Rillington (talk) 14:43, 3 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 12:55, 9 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak Keep I would tend to agree length of time on air should not be a factor in whether or not the article is deleted. Moreover as this was part of the UK's move into digital broadcasting there is an argument that there is historical importance. However an alternative might be to have one article covering all the digital channels Carlton set up and which folded in the early 2000s. Dunarc (talk) 23:42, 14 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Speedy redirect Unclear why nominator created a stub from a redirect and then AFDed it instead of just re-redirecting it when realizing it already existed. Reywas92Talk 21:29, 9 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Río de la Mina (Rio Grande, Puerto Rico)[edit]

Río de la Mina (Rio Grande, Puerto Rico) (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)

Is a duplicate of Río de la Mina (Río Grande, Puerto Rico) <-- and this one created a little later is in better shape. Thanks. the eloquent peasant (talk) 11:05, 9 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

And besides the one I marked for deletion article title is missing the diacritical mark on the "Río" of "Río Grande, Puerto Rico" so should be deleted. Again, it's a duplicate of a more correct article.--the eloquent peasant (talk) 11:40, 9 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect - to the correctly titled article. This should have been done in the first place, rather than opening an AfD. Onel5969 TT me 13:53, 9 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Oh. Sorry about that. --the eloquent peasant (talk) 14:44, 9 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) DannyS712 (talk) 19:36, 16 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

List of beauty queen-politicians[edit]

List of beauty queen-politicians (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 work of synthesis. People do change their career, but where are the sources discussing any significance in this particular career change? : Bhunacat10 (talk), 09:49, 9 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. : Bhunacat10 (talk), 09:49, 9 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists of people-related deletion discussions. : Bhunacat10 (talk), 09:49, 9 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Beauty pageants-related deletion discussions. : Bhunacat10 (talk), 09:49, 9 March 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. WP:NPASR. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 04:09, 17 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

InCab University[edit]

AfDs for this article:
InCab University (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)

Managed to get through AfD back in 2006 but the only surviving sources I’ve found date from 2006 and just seem to be launch publicity. Doesn’t seem to have lasted long and I can’t find which authority accredited them. I don’t think it’s notable. Mccapra (talk) 22:47, 23 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. ~Ruyaba~ {talk} 23:46, 23 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. ~Ruyaba~ {talk} 23:46, 23 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. ~Ruyaba~ {talk} 23:46, 23 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. ~Ruyaba~ {talk} 23:46, 23 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. ~Ruyaba~ {talk} 23:46, 23 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. ~Ruyaba~ {talk} 23:46, 23 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ~SS49~ {talk} 00:24, 2 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Tennessee-related deletion discussions. J947 (c), at 01:00, 2 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 09:29, 9 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Seems to have died a death in 2008. No coverage, article sources are not resolving. Fails WP:V.
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. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 04:08, 17 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Abdulaziz Al Kuwari[edit]

Abdulaziz Al Kuwari (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)

Struggling to find any independent in-depth coverage in reliable sources - lack of WP:SIGCOV. Fails WP:BIO and WP:NACADEMIC. Run-of-the-mill businessman. Promotional article, created by a possible WP:SPA. Edwardx (talk) 22:41, 23 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. ~Ruyaba~ {talk} 23:49, 23 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Qatar-related deletion discussions. ~Ruyaba~ {talk} 23:49, 23 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - I found this which is the closest I can find to significant coverage in a reliable source and I still feel it falls short. Nothing else out there in English that I can find. --CNMall41 (talk) 02:53, 24 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - This article is work in progress. The subject is a prominent public figure in Qatar. He is a recognized athlete, academic and coach. Being a business man is only one aspect of his biography. More will be added about his sports achievements as soon as more sources are reviewed. There are so many sources in English about his sportsmanship and philanthropic achievements [30] [31] [32].

Constructive input on how to improve the article is appreciated --MGhazi (talk) 05:05, 24 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete, I could not find any coverage. --SalmanZ (talk) 23:37, 1 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ~SS49~ {talk} 00:24, 2 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. J947 (c), at 01:03, 2 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Arabic search does not throw up multiple reliable independent sources. Mccapra (talk) 10:43, 2 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - article just needs more work. The subject of the article is well known public figure. Several sources found notably in cycling and medicine Maha_aboujaoude (talk) 10:58, 3 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 09:29, 9 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was soft delete. WP:REFUND applies. North America1000 03:02, 17 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Imobilien[edit]

Imobilien (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)

Declined for PROD in 2009 but still lacking proper refs. Website dead. Nothing in the article supports notability. Mccapra (talk) 22:27, 23 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Brazil-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 22:34, 23 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 22:34, 23 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ~SS49~ {talk} 00:23, 2 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 09:27, 9 March 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. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 04:07, 17 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Shinobu Akiyama[edit]

Shinobu Akiyama (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 hesitate to nominate these scientist stubs, because I like having them in the encyclopedia (certainly more than many other things); but I don't think this researcher meets either WP:GNG or WP:NACADEMIC. She is a productive botanist with some species descriptions to her name, but unfortunately that's not equal to prestigious honours, substantial impact on the field, or widespread personal coverage, which is what we require. --Elmidae (talk · contribs) 16:47, 23 February 2019 (UTC) Elmidae (talk · contribs) 16:47, 23 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 19:09, 23 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 19:10, 23 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Japan-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 19:10, 23 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. —David Eppstein (talk) 19:19, 23 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. What do you think of my article Albert Callay, on an 1800s amateur botanist whose described species have all been synonymized? Abductive (reasoning) 04:38, 25 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Based on the references given, I'd say borderline; although ref #2 appears to be the kind of source that, when present in multiples, does suffice for establishing coverage requirements. --Elmidae (talk · contribs) 15:25, 25 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
So, Shinobu Akiyama has to wait for her obituary to become notable? Because Albert Callay was no more notable after his obituary than he was before. Abductive (reasoning) 05:23, 26 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Yes to the first, in the worst case; no to the second. If the obituary is the occasion on which someone deems the person a fit subject for in-depth treatment, then that's what it would take to document notability. In effect, the person only becomes notable by our criteria once someone writes about them in this manner - whatever level of hero/genius/saint they are in reality. Remember that part about us merely summarizing what the rest of the world has decided is worthy of coverage (i.e., our definition of "notability")? - Note that I'm not demanding that Shinobu Akiyama will have to die before there can be an article, just that based on what is present in sourcing and what I can find, there is insufficient coverage to meet the notability threshold at the moment. --Elmidae (talk · contribs) 15:13, 26 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - I generally agree with deletionists, but in this case, I think the benefits outweigh the costs. This article, stub though it is, would help add context to anyone googling the synonymous species. And it doesn't really do much harm to exist, does it? I know Jimmy Wales is concerned about server space...but by virtue of it being a stub, it takes up so little!--Shibbolethink (♔ ♕) 16:57, 25 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ~SS49~ {talk} 00:18, 2 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak keep. May not meet WP:NACADEMIC, but there are many articles on taxonomists that may not meet those criteria. Taxonomists are usually linked from the species they describe, deleting taxonomist articles will result in red links. Plantdrew (talk) 17:51, 3 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Fair enough, and that may be a useful criterion. It would be highly useful to codify it somewhere though; if there's no established consensus behind it, I don't see how it could (or should) trump notability guidelines, as a general practice. And it will keep coming up at page review (there's quite an influx of these currently). Let's get a discussion going once this is done? --Elmidae (talk · contribs) 18:24, 3 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Without commenting on the merits of this specific individual, I think a reasonable alternative would be to create a series of "List of" articles collecting taxonomists by class (or at some other level, if that is too broad), to which individually non-notable taxonomists could be redirected. bd2412 T 23:08, 8 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 09:24, 9 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. I don't have any preference on merge, redirect, or creating a list somewhere, but I'm just not finding significant secondary coverage of this person, which is what ultimately matters. Describing nine new species isn't exactly high either, but I don't like editors using publication/"works" counts arbitrarily to assess notability either. If we're concerned about redlinks in other articles, helping with searches, etc., I feel like that's getting into WP:ISNOT territory. Kingofaces43 (talk) 22:54, 11 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong keep She's one of the authors of 170 taxon names according to this search of IPNI. She's clearly a highly productive and active taxonomist in her field. Peter coxhead (talk) 17:13, 15 March 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. Closing as soft delete per low participation in the discussion. North America1000 03:10, 17 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Calamity Adventure 2: People and Traditions[edit]

Calamity Adventure 2: People and Traditions (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 video game, no third party sources, never got a real release. Wizardman 16:17, 23 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Video games-related deletion discussions. Bakazaka (talk) 18:50, 23 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. Bakazaka (talk) 18:50, 23 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ~SS49~ {talk} 00:17, 2 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: normally I would suggest a merge or redirect to the developer, Lightspan, except that article doesn't exist despite the company being more notable than any of their individual games. Notability for the company and their games as a whole from [33] and [34] and enough academic studies to warrant a metastudy [35] (which I sadly don't have access to, beyond seeing that it exists). If anyone feels like having a go at creating Lightspan then that would be great, especially if they have access to the academic literature. If not, then deletion is probably the best option here. Lowercaserho (talk) 11:36, 2 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 09:15, 9 March 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. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 04:06, 17 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Nancy Moran[edit]

Nancy Moran (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 the notability guideline for musicians and bands and the general notability guideline due to a lack of significant coverage in independent, reliable sources. De-PROD-ed by Michig along with several others. I was going to bundle these as nearly all of them cite no reliable sources that suggest they pass WP:BAND aside from database-style entries in AllMusic or affiliated sources and were created by the same user, however I am mindful of avoiding a trainwreck so I am nominating each of them individually. SITH (talk) 10:53, 23 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. SITH (talk) 11:16, 23 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Pennsylvania-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 12:39, 23 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Tennessee-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 12:40, 23 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep or merge to Four Bitchin' Babes. One of a spate of prods by the nominator in a short space of time. I indicated when I deproded it that I found coverage, which they haven't asked about. Coverage includes [36], [37], and more paywalled sites. Editors in the US may be able to find more, as a lot of US news articles are blocked over here. --Michig (talk) 12:43, 23 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 13:01, 23 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment The Nom may have avoided a trainwreck by nominating articles individually, but 25 at once is far too many! Not citing reliable sources is not a reason to delete, per WP:NEXIST. I have already added one source to this article, and will try to find and add more to this and the other 24 articles, in order to assess whether they do meet notability guidelines. RebeccaGreen (talk) 13:11, 23 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    RebeccaGreen, and in the paragraph above, WP:NRV, verifiable evidence is required. Otherwise it's just faith. And not citing reliable sources is not my rationale, my rationale is that WP:MUSICBIO is not passed. SITH (talk) 15:15, 23 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, verifiable by some editors, even if not by all. We can't know whether WP:MUSICBIO#C1 is or is not passed without knowing what reviews exist, for example. Quotes in other sources indicate that Moran was reviewed in the magazine Dirty Linen, but as that's not online, it's probably not possible to confirm that, unless someone has access to the back copies. Finding evidence requires digging, which takes time. RebeccaGreen (talk) 15:56, 23 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ~SS49~ {talk} 00:15, 2 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 09:14, 9 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep I have added some more sources, and I think she has enough to pass WP:GNG. If the article is not kept, it should be merged to Four Bitchin' Babes, of which she is a longtime member. RebeccaGreen (talk) 16:55, 15 March 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. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 04:05, 17 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Jim Henry (musician)[edit]

Jim Henry (musician) (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 the notability guideline for musicians and bands and the general notability guideline due to a lack of significant coverage in independent, reliable sources. De-PROD-ed by Michig along with several others. I was going to bundle these as nearly all of them cite no reliable sources that suggest they pass WP:BAND aside from database-style entries in AllMusic or affiliated sources and were created by the same user, however I am mindful of avoiding a trainwreck so I am nominating each of them individually. SITH (talk) 10:51, 23 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. SITH (talk) 11:18, 23 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Satisfies WP:GNG. One of a spate of prods by the nominator in a short space of time. I indicated when I deproded it that I found coverage, which they haven't asked about. Coverage includes [38], [39], [40], [41], [42], plus some I can't access in the UK. --Michig (talk) 16:48, 23 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Some of the recent "coverage" is basically identical to the Wikipedia article, see e.g. [43]. Bakazaka (talk) 22:23, 23 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ~SS49~ {talk} 00:14, 2 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 09:14, 9 March 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. Xymmax So let it be written So let it be done 19:27, 16 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Mark of Cain (novel)[edit]

Mark of Cain (novel) (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)

Declined PROD, courtesy ping MarkZusab. Fails WP:NBOOK due to lack of major reviews, awards or other significant coverage in independent, reliable sources. SITH (talk) 13:53, 1 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 14:22, 1 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Israel-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 14:22, 1 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. It was Israel's "leading paperback for five weeks, and spent a total of 19 weeks on the list" (Jerusalem Post). --Michig (talk) 14:56, 1 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. Along with the coverage mentioned by Michig, the book has been called the "fastest selling book in Israeli history" by the Federation of American Scientists ([44]) and garnered attention from Publishers Weekly ([45]). In 1998, the book was on the Jerusalem Post bestseller list. ([46][47][48]) Given that the book was published in 1996/1998, there are also likely sources of offline reviews. MarkZusab (talk) 22:42, 1 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    • The book is also discussed in Modern Hebrew Literature, Issues 16-21 ([49]). MarkZusab (talk) 23:19, 5 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment, being a bestseller ticks one box in WP:NBOOK, and one would expect reviews (a second tick:)), but i have been unable to find any english language ones thru a gsearch, hopefully a hebrew speaking editor can list some, until then ..... Coolabahapple (talk) 02:57, 5 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 08:36, 9 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • WP:HEY I added a couple of sources directly to the page. I only found one review in English (JPost). Both JPost and Haaretz seem more interested in this book as part of Oren's successful career as a writer of thrillers who made a comfortable living by regularly producing thrillers that he published himself - thus earning enough to be a writer. Unless more attention on the book (reviews, literary analysis in later years) is found, it might make more sense to integrate this to Ram Oren, not a particularly long article at present, it is thin and poorly sourced.E.M.Gregory (talk) 18:22, 12 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was speedy G5 deleted and salted by admins Bbb23 and Lectonar. (non-admin closure) Alpha3031 (t • c) 07:10, 16 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Dharmendra Kumar[edit]

Dharmendra Kumar (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 do not see why this person is notable. The only claim seems to be 100000 yourube subscribers. Might qualify as a speedy, but a history shows that similar concerns have been raised before, therefore an AfD seems a better venue to deal with the article. Ymblanter (talk) 08:26, 9 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. GSS (talk|c|em) 13:54, 9 March 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 Tékumel. Xymmax So let it be written So let it be done 19:24, 16 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The Journal of Tékumel Affairs[edit]

The Journal of Tékumel Affairs (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)

Lacks all notability. User:BOZ, please stop creating articles based only on "capsule reviews" in Space Gamer, the subjects of these reviews often are of extremely limited notability and finding better sources seems to be next to impossible. Fram (talk) 14:50, 1 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep if more sources can be found, otherwise merge to Tékumel. BOZ (talk) 15:05, 1 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of News media-related deletion discussions. Bakazaka (talk) 19:09, 1 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Games-related deletion discussions. Bakazaka (talk) 19:09, 1 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete completely fails WP:GNG. SportingFlyer T·C 19:44, 5 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep The worst case here is obviously merger with Tékumel per WP:ATD and WP:PRESERVE. There's no case for deletion as the nomination is self-contradictory. Andrew D. (talk) 20:13, 5 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge to Tékumel. The single source presented here is not enough to establish independent notability, and I have found no other sources talking about the publication in any significant way. Merging this small amount of information to the main "Tékumel" article is an appropriate action. 169.232.162.112 (talk) 17:14, 6 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ansh666 07:44, 9 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge to Tékumel, as above. While I view this article as perfectly harmless and regret that we're devoting our energy to arguing over whether to delete it rather than doing productive editing, I recognise that it's hard to justify as standalone article according to the notability criteria. Alarichall (talk) 01:59, 16 March 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. Xymmax So let it be written So let it be done 19:14, 16 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

MXW Pro Wrestling[edit]

AfDs for this article:
MXW Pro Wrestling (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)

Appears to not meet WP: CORP or WP: GNG. Promotion was only active six years and did not do anything significant. Not much coverage in reliable sources. StaticVapor message me! 08:02, 23 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Sheldybett (talk) 10:37, 23 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. Sheldybett (talk) 10:37, 23 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Wrestling-related deletion discussions. Sheldybett (talk) 10:37, 23 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. Sheldybett (talk) 10:37, 23 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ~SS49~ {talk} 00:11, 2 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Coverage all appears WP:ROUTINE - Galatz גאליץשיחה Talk 15:44, 4 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sheldybett (talk) 07:31, 9 March 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.
For the AfD that was mistakenly started on this page after the original discussion, see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Krtin Nithiyanandam (2nd nomination).
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. Michig (talk) 07:11, 16 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Krtin Nithiyanandam[edit]

Krtin Nithiyanandam (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 is about a student at university who is not notable in any way. The number of students who have won awards at science fairs is very high, and just having won awards at school science fairs does not indicate a notable researcher making contributions to the field. The page is serving as a resume booster at the moment, and I propose its deletion. 128.12.255.132 (talk) 07:07, 9 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep the article has multiple independent sources and its subject is plainly an exceptional individual whose name is very likely to be searched. I can’t see any reason at all for deletion. Mccapra (talk) 10:23, 9 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Keep I have news articles with a simple search on four continents, including The Telegraph, The Guardian, Wired, Huff Post, Japan Times, CNN International, Time, London Express, Medical Daily, NBC, Financial Express, USAToday, La Repubblica, Scientific American, CNN Philippines, and so on. 128.12.255.132, it might be worth withdrawing the nomination. scope_creepTalk 12:19, 9 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Keep - to say he "won awards at "school science fairs" is rather insulting. He has serious achievements and more media coverage than most full Chairs have. Notability extremely clearly demonstrated. Nom - could you clarify why they felt the in-article sources weren't good enough? Nosebagbear (talk) 13:32, 9 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep as per the extensive coverage in reliable sources as outlined above so that WP:BASIC is clearly passed Atlantic306 (talk)
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 02:58, 10 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 02:58, 10 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep per WP:SNOW. I do not think the nominator acted in bad faith when they made this nomination. However, I think that the nomination is sufficiently flawed and that Shahidul Hasan Roman would not be the only editor to point out that the subject meets the notability criteria. —C.Fred (talk) 18:43, 9 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Nafisa Kamal[edit]

Nafisa Kamal (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)

She is not even notable person to list in the Wikipedia!

This article is biased and created by admin some unauthorized site information in different language

Wikipedia:Notability (people) policy does not follow this article An admin created this article,please remove it! Mrittika.mehjabin (talk) 05:01, 9 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep It's look like pure vandalism by the nominator of this Articles for deletion page creator (Mrittika.mehjabin ). Currently he/she is with an expiration time of indefinite (account creation blocked) (Clearly not here to contribute to the encyclopedia) reason. The user is doing general pattern of disruptive behavior and editing as a battleground. Nafisa Kamal is enough notable for staying in wikipedia & the article is written with enough and trusted news source.
  • Has a large fan base or a significant "cult" following.
  • Has made unique, prolific contributions to a field of entertainment(sports).
  • The person has created or played a major role in creating a significant or well-known work.
  • The person has made a widely recognized contribution that is part of the enduring historical record in his or her specific field. (women empowerment in Bangladesh)
  • He has been writing enough in the newspaper.
  • All the references to the article are written about her. --Shahidul Hasan Roman (talk) 21:50, 9 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Whilst the keep votes are technically correct that the player passes NFOOTY, the stronger arguments presented here are that the presumption of GNG that this provides is incorrect in this case. No sources indicating sufficient coverage to satisfy GNG have been presented. Given the player is now retired it seems unlikely this situation will change in the future. There is consensus through AfD that where players only barely pass NFOOTY and have retired that they need to clearly show GNG. This is not the case here. Fenix down (talk) 08:52, 16 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Jeremy Cheeseman[edit]

Jeremy Cheeseman (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)

28-year-old footballer played 3 pro games in 2012–2013 for a total of 23 minutes (SW). No SIGCOV at all. The closest is this three paragraph local newspaper article about him doing a guest clinic for 8-year-olds, and the rest is game report, college game report, high school game report, high school game report, and this article about a different guy with the same name who robbed a bank, which is honestly the most interesting part of the BEFORE search. 3 games, 23 minutes is too weak of an NFOOTY pass, and this subject completely fails GNG. Leviv ich 04:47, 9 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Leviv ich 04:48, 9 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. Leviv ich 04:48, 9 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Leviv ich 04:48, 9 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of New Jersey-related deletion discussions. Leviv ich 04:48, 9 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. Leviv ich 04:48, 9 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Ohio-related deletion discussions. Leviv ich 04:48, 9 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Leviv ich 04:50, 9 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as nom. Leviv ich 04:51, 9 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment You can't cast a second delete vote, your AfD nomination is considered a delete vote. Govvy (talk) 09:04, 9 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep – Dayton Dutch Lions were a fully professional club during his appearances for the team, therefore he meets NFOOTY guidelines. UncleTupelo1 (talk) 12:52, 9 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. (Nom consulted me prior to nomination) NFOOTY merely creates a presumption of notability. In this case it is clear we do not have SIGCOV, and not do we expect any future coverage here. Subject had played a bit in the lower rungs of the US minor leagues (pro in terms of play, but not competitive and hardly covered by anyone - the almost sole purpose of these minor leagues is player farming). To put the lack of interest in perspective - avg. atttnedance for the Dutch Lions is around 500. Has since retired. Absent sourcing establishing SIGCOV, this is a clear delete.Icewhiz (talk) 18:14, 9 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment The USL gets a reasonable amount of coverage? It's certainly not solely in existence as a "farm league". He played in a league that meets the NFOOTY guidlines, so not sure the team's attendance at the time comes in to it. UncleTupelo1 (talk) 23:53, 9 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Does the USL get coverage? If so, produce in depth sources on this player (who did not play all that much). NFOOTY merely states which leagues are likely to meet GNG. This guy is borderline for NFOOTY (did not play that much, borderline league). If there were SIGCOV - producing 3-4 high quality, independent, reliable sources would be easy.Icewhiz (talk) 04:36, 10 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per prior consensus (see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Abdoulaye Sanogo among others) a minimal amount of play in a fully-pro league is not enough to meet WP:NFOOTBALL when the article comprehensively fails WP:GNG as this article does. I could only find the local Patch article mentioned above in terms of non-routine coverage, but there's simply not enough there. Jogurney (talk) 00:04, 11 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - meets WP:NFOOTBALL; needs improving, not deleting. GiantSnowman 11:53, 11 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    Absent significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject - which are lacking here (failing WP:GNG) - such an improvement is unlikely - impossible even given sourcing quality required for a WP:BLP. Keep by NFOOTY (merely presumption of GNG) means nothing for borderline NFOOTY players who are being challenged for not having anything approaching SIGCOV. Show us the sources, if you want it kept. At least 3-4 high quality in-depth sources. Icewhiz (talk) 12:18, 11 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete fails WP:GNG. SportingFlyer T·C 00:13, 16 March 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. North America1000 05:45, 16 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

International Product Development[edit]

International Product Development (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 local organization. Most of the references are to the company's own website or do not discuss the company directly. I have not found any sources that satisfy WP:ORGDEPTH. Lord Bolingbroke (talk) 23:36, 22 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 12:34, 23 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Oregon-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 12:34, 23 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: Per nom. Just not enough notability. Heavily doctored with primary sources. I read one source all the way to the bottom just to find brief passing mention. Otr500 (talk) 05:35, 24 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment The article could no doubt do with some attention; their fairly generic company name makes searching for sources a bit harder than usual. However, searching for 'IPD + Volvo' found this, this and this - they seem like in-depth product reviews in independent publications, which might go some way to satisfying WP:NCORP. What I'm not seeing is much coverage of the company themselves - just product reviews. GirthSummit (blether) 10:37, 27 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@Girth Summit: The salient point here is that these sources are reviews of specific products, not the company that makes them. I don't think that qualifies as significant coverage for the company. The article from Automobile could be used to add some info on IPD's 2006 SEMA concept. But other than that, it doesn't seem like these sources could be used to expand our article or verify its existing content. Lord Bolingbroke (talk) 23:49, 3 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
After looking into this a bit further, it appears that the section on the IPD's 2006 SEMA concept was copy-pasted from Volvo C30#2006 SEMA concepts (2006). The Automobile source is more relevant there than it is in this article. The same thing applies to the Autoweek and Road & Track sources you linked—those can be incorporated into our article on the Volvo S40. Again, these sources don't seem to satisfy WP:ORGDEPTH. Lord Bolingbroke (talk) 01:07, 4 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ~SS49~ {talk} 00:20, 1 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Tymon.r Do you have any questions? 02:19, 9 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - I second what Otr500 laid out Graywalls (talk) 11:37, 9 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per Otr500 and His Lordship. Fails WP:GIG.E.M.Gregory (talk) 18:15, 11 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete I am unable to locate any sources that meet the criteria for establishing notability, topic fails GNG and WP:NCORP. HighKing++ 14:43, 12 March 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. Michig (talk) 07:08, 16 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Shayne Workman[edit]

Shayne Workman (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)

Self published a couple of Kindle books, uncredited roles in some minor TV stuff. Doesn't meet the GNG. Original malformed AFD submission by an IP. QuiteUnusual (talk) 09:35, 22 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Bakazaka (talk) 16:45, 22 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. Bakazaka (talk) 16:45, 22 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Theatre-related deletion discussions. Bakazaka (talk) 16:45, 22 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Ohio-related deletion discussions. Bakazaka (talk) 16:45, 22 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of West Virginia-related deletion discussions. Bakazaka (talk) 16:45, 22 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - no sign of meeting WP:NACTOR or other relevant guideline. The sources have the most fleeting of passing mentions. This one, that had his name in the title, seemed promising... but is it just me or is there no actual article there? --Nat Gertler (talk) 16:02, 23 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ~SS49~ {talk} 00:12, 1 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Tymon.r Do you have any questions? 02:19, 9 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete uncredited film roles, self-published book, and I can't find him in searches.— Preceding unsigned comment added by E.M.Gregory (talk • contribs)
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. ansh666 07:55, 9 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Ansar Channel[edit]

Ansar Channel (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 meet WP:N/WP:ORG. Juggler Juggler (talk) 07:06, 15 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Malaysia-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 07:25, 15 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of News media-related deletion discussions. CASSIOPEIA(talk) 07:25, 15 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. CASSIOPEIA(talk) 07:25, 15 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, DannyS712 (talk) 07:18, 22 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as next to no view, no assertion of notability and suggests is already historical. Bungle (talk • contribs) 09:19, 22 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ~SS49~ {talk} 00:12, 1 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Tymon.r Do you have any questions? 02:19, 9 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. This article is a translation of an article on ms.wiki to which I’ve now linked it. However I looked for sources in Malay (which I can’t read) but searching for ‘Ansar Channel’ or ‘Saluran Ansar’ produces only a couple of passing mentions here and here and no other mentions of the channel, so it definitely does not meet our notability requirements. Mccapra (talk) 03:33, 9 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. No one asserted that the subject met WP:NCORP, so the real issue was whether the GNG was met. While there were a number of sources produced, the analysis provided by the editors favoring deletion find them unsuitable was not rebutted. Xymmax So let it be written So let it be done 19:09, 16 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Sexuality Policy Watch[edit]

Sexuality Policy Watch (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:NCORP which states:-A company, corporation, organization, group, product, or service is notable if it has been the subject of significant coverage in multiple reliable secondary sources that are independent of the subject........The depth of coverage of the subject by the source must be considered. Trivial or incidental coverage of a subject is not sufficient to establish notability. Deep or significant coverage provides an overview, description, commentary, survey, study, discussion, analysis, or evaluation of the product, company, or organization. ....

Let's analyse the current sourcing:-

(1, 3 and 5)--.A BBC news piece, an IPS one and another one from Guardian inwhere two-line bytes from people belonging to SPW have been featured. None devotes any minimal coverage to the subject of the article. ☒N

Ref 2 and 6--. Both are the About us page on their own website. ☒N

Ref 4--> Genderit.org shows page missing. ☒N


I performed a thorough search to the best of my abilities but did not locate any significant coverage that satisfied NCORP. ∯WBGconverse 12:53, 14 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. ~Ruyaba~ {talk} 13:01, 14 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. ~Ruyaba~ {talk} 13:01, 14 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sexuality and gender-related deletion discussions. ~Ruyaba~ {talk} 13:01, 14 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I searched on the group's previous name, "International Working Group on Sexuality and Social Policy" in google news and found nothing valereee (talk) 13:41, 14 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment As someone who's been a women's rights activist from the global South for many decades, I know from experience that this is a significant global organisation doing important policy work, but as always, organisations that are based in the global South or in areas of less obvious public attention (like women's rights) tend to have fewer significant mentions in secondary sources and certainly not always in English. This is a deeper structural imbalance that we need to be aware of, and work to correct as Wikipedians and beyond. As the original author of the stub, I take the concerns on board. I'll certainly update the gender.it link (thanks for pointing that out), and I'm looking at PT sources that may bolster the article. In the meantime, I'm grateful to Joalpe for improving Sonia Corrêa's article with some of the content from this one. Anasuyas (talk) 23:55, 14 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • I quite concur with your observations but wikipedian writers don't have any huge part in the battle to counter it. If I see at-least 2 sources of enough reliability that significantly covers the organization, I can understand but as things stand, we have nothing.
  • On a sidenote, AfDs don't discriminate between English and non English sources, so if you see a reliable source in some other language covering it significantly, by all means mention them.
  • As to working to correcting the bias, the best way is to do the groundwork so that these organizations do get mentioned across RD and we will reciprocate over here. ∯WBGconverse 09:58, 15 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. I’ve added some more references, including a couple of Portuguese ones. Mccapra (talk) 07:40, 15 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    Please re-read NCORP which is miles more rigid than what you are providing us with.
    This source yet again accords a trivial mention; as one among 5 organisations that collaborated to give a report on a certain issue. Most importantly; the report was sketched of their own will. I would have given more thoughts; if they were appointed by some highly reliable organisation to write it or anything similar.
    Another of your source covers Sonia; not the subject and the sole mention is utterly trivial. (vide Sonia Corrêa is a feminist and researcher in gender studies, with numerous publications in the area of ​​women's sexual and reproductive rights. Since 2002, she has also co-coordinated with Richard Parker (USA / Brazil), the global forum Sexuality Policy Watch and an associate researcher at the Brazilian Interdisciplinary AIDS Association (ABIA) and the Department of Gender Studies at the London School of Economics and Political Science.
    Yet again a biography of Correa and a mention like the above one. ∯WBGconverse 09:58, 15 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep appears to both satisfy our notability requirements and to be a significant international academic organisation. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 14:00, 16 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    It's amazing about how you equate a piece published by Correa (who heads the organisation) about itself to lend to notability. Textbook violation of intellectual independence.
    Thus, explain how this passes NCORP, please.∯WBGconverse 17:30, 16 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as lacking in-depth coverage in independent reliable soruces as required by WP:CORPDEPTH. A Google News search for "Sexuality Policy Watch" yield a grand total of 22 hits (a mixture of passing mentions, blogs etc.) but nothing that would satisfy WP:GNG or WP:CORP. GSS (talk|c|em) 10:45, 19 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. I can't find anything that rings the WP:N bell. -Ad Orientem (talk) 03:02, 22 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Please note that claims of notability are insufficient to establish notability; claims that an organization meets NCORP need to be backed up by substantive coverage in independent, reliable sources.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Vanamonde (Talk) 05:32, 22 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ~SS49~ {talk} 00:10, 1 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Ritchie333, after all the bytes spent on this page, you can be assured that I know of exploiting a news-search. From when did notability boil down to having Ghits in News? Where do you see significant coverage? ∯WBGconverse 18:59, 8 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
The trouble is, some of the useful sources are in Portuguese. However, this one, showing the group's opinion about the press commenting on Marcela Temer, could also be used to expand the article. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 19:03, 8 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Please read the stuff that has been already discussed above. It's the same old story about Sonia Correa (who is damn notable) saying something or an interview of her or a profile or her and SPW is thrown in as a qualifier. FWIW; Sonia Correa, who coordinates the local website Sexuality Policy Watch, says XYZ does not mean SPW says XYZ. It's a typical habit of media units to describe the relevant activities of a person, in a phrase or so, when quoting them. Notability is not inherited.
I again ask for 2 sources of enough reliability that significantly covers the organization. ∯WBGconverse 19:10, 8 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Especially in view of yesterday's comments more consensus need to be established.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Tymon.r Do you have any questions? 02:19, 9 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete No indepenedent sources discussing the subject directly in detail. --Pontificalibus 08:24, 9 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: does not meet WP:NORG / WP:ORGDEPTH. --K.e.coffman (talk) 03:35, 10 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per Ritchie333 . It's a highly influential global forum founded by three of the worlds most elite activist academics. I agree sources are a little thin, especially as the forum has been such a key actor in the quest for erotic justice. They'd probably have got much more coverage in the regular press if only they'd titled themselves Sexual Justice Watch. There does though seem to be quite extensive coverage in academic sources, albeit it takes a while to ferret it out. To point out the requested specific two sources that cover the forum in depth, I'm suggesting it would be sufficient to consider the spotlight profile and the Routledge book Technologies of Sexuality, Identity and Sexual Health (2012), which devotes many pages to very indepth description of SPW's work. Also, while WBG well describes the reasons why most of the other sources confer little notability, they do seem to add a little when taken collectively, along with the many other sources not yet added to the article that Ritchie summarises. FeydHuxtable (talk) 08:39, 10 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    The claims of raising this to GA is absolute bunkum. You've been here for long long enough to know our GA standards.
    Also, someone writing in the preface of his book, that he was inspired to write the book after attending a conference, one of whose organizers was SPW, is not enough to impart notability to SPW. And, please don't add such stuff to the article which resembles an attempt to ref-bomb and spam.
    A write-up (~ a paragraph) by all of it's co-founders in a self-written-book (though published by Routledge) does not demonstrate notability either; for it is the textbook definition of violation of intellectual independence. FWIW, the passage states:-Since 2002, inspired by both local and international initiatives, the three of us have worked together to found and develop Sexuality Policy Watch (SPW), a global forum of researchers and activists from a wide range of countries and regions. SPW aims at contributing to sexuality-related global policy debates through strategic research and analysis, and at promoting more effective linkages between local, regional, and global efforts to change prevailing unjust policies.
    I am willing to look at any other source, that you dig out.∯WBGconverse 11:15, 10 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for evaluating my two sources. I skimmed several others, but the Manderson book looked by far the best for conferring notability, and as you weren't impressed with that it seems pointless to submit the others. Hopefully someone else will find a better source. Per SPW's work in a good cause, it seems a shame for this article to be destroyed. FeydHuxtable (talk) 20:29, 10 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • I see this is still being discussed. After reading the various comments posted since my last, I still see nothing that would ring the WP:N bell. Accordingly I reaffirm my delete !vote. -Ad Orientem (talk) 16:52, 10 March 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 Star Awards. There doesn't seem to be any sourced material to merge, but the suggestion would otherwise be appropriate. ansh666 07:57, 9 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Star Awards for Young Talent[edit]

Star Awards for Young Talent (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 on non-notable award - we have an article on the parent awards ceremony which barely establishes significance, the individual awards appear to have received next to no independent discussion and only two of the awardees in this list have articles. Guy (Help!) 12:16, 14 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. Bakazaka (talk) 14:32, 14 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. Bakazaka (talk) 14:32, 14 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Singapore-related deletion discussions. Bakazaka (talk) 14:32, 14 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ad Orientem (talk) 03:05, 22 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ~SS49~ {talk} 00:09, 1 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Tymon.r Do you have any questions? 02:18, 9 March 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 09:24, 16 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Kid Buu (rapper)[edit]

Kid Buu (rapper) (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, rapper with questionable notability. Wgolf (talk) 02:14, 9 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 00:22, 10 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Chile-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 00:22, 10 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Article is a one-sentence stub with only one source.TH1980 (talk) 03:33, 10 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Fails WP:NMUSICElekiq (talk) 17:17, 10 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete A search for sources turned up nothing reliable, just tabloid stuff. He has a TMZ article, a people article, and a couple of pieces in XXL. None of them seem to really cover the artist in depth or to cover his discography. They only report that he has a criminal history (which per WP:BLPCRIME is not enough for a standalone article), that he's dating someone famous (notability is not inherited tho so that doesn't work either), and that he claims to be a clone (weird for sure, but I don't think theres a special notability guideline for nutjobs). Captain Eek Edits Ho Cap'n!⚓ 07:45, 16 March 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. Michig (talk) 07:04, 16 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Turf War (Banksy)[edit]

Turf War (Banksy) (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 graffitist Banksy is notable and perhaps some of his shows are particularly notable. This article, along with Barely_Legal_(Banksy), The Village Pet Store and Charcoal Grill are articles for his shows. I am new here but from what I am reading, I can't see how there should be an article for each one of his art shows. Graywalls (talk) 02:11, 9 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 23:59, 9 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 23:59, 9 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 23:59, 9 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Redirect to Banksy. Changing my cast after reading discussion. Graywalls (talk) 19:35, 11 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment, at the very least even without looking for sources, this could be a redirect (struck out as now article shows notability) to the artist instead of an outright deletion as a search term by wikireaders. Coolabahapple (talk) 00:03, 10 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    • Agreed. Even if the exhibition is not independently notable, redirecting and merging are better options than deleting. ---Another Believer (Talk) 18:48, 11 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

*Redirect to Banksy. In fact, Redirect the other two mentioned by Nom to Banksy as well. there is just not enough material to warrant separate articles.E.M.Gregory (talk) 18:28, 11 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

:::That is a list of works that independently pass WP:GNG. The article under discussion here, and the two mentioned above are lightly sourced stubs.E.M.Gregory (talk) 18:42, 11 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

  • Redirect The exhibitions can be mentioned in the relevant Year in Art articles, if they aren't already. Deb (talk) 18:37, 11 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    Deb, Ok, but did you even attempt to review existing coverage before voting here? ---Another Believer (Talk) 18:55, 11 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    What are you implying? Deb (talk) 19:06, 11 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    Deb, Your vote says nothing about secondary coverage, so I'm curious if you reviewed available sourcing before voting to redirect. No offense meant. ---Another Believer (Talk) 19:08, 11 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    Tell you what, instead of repeatedly going on about how many sources there are, why don't you just add them to the article and save everyone else a lot of time. Deb (talk) 19:10, 11 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    Deb, That's not a constructive comment in this particular discussion. ---Another Believer (Talk) 19:12, 11 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Actually, it is an excellent suggestion. The most constructive thing you can do in teh case of a page that you think should be kept is simply to source and improve the page.E.M.Gregory (talk) 19:29, 11 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Sure, in general the sentiment is helpful, but I just meant more insight into why Deb voted they way they did without specifically referring to secondary coverage would also be helpful. ---Another Believer (Talk) 19:34, 11 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep This first Banksy has WP:SIGCOV. Just tag for sourcing an keep.E.M.Gregory (talk) 18:46, 11 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    E.M.Gregory, Exactly, thank you. ---Another Believer (Talk) 18:46, 11 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep (disclaimer, article creator): I believe this article should be kept, or if deemed not notable enough for a standalone article, then redirected. There's no need to totally delete pages when redirects serve a purpose. ---Another Believer (Talk) 18:53, 11 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge a bit to Banksy, which already has more on it. User:Another Believer, this is pretty pathetic really - you don't even say what year it was (2003 per his biog). Johnbod (talk) 20:48, 11 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
      • Or Keep - certainly improved now. Johnbod (talk) 03:57, 12 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    • Yeah, yeah, I created a sub-stub. Doesn't mean the topic isn't notable and I'm working to add additional sourcing. Thanks! ---Another Believer (Talk) 21:08, 11 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • WP:HEYMANN upgrade satisfies all objects raised by Nom and editors above. We can now keep per WP:SIGCOV added to article.E.M.Gregory (talk) 22:05, 11 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    E.M.Gregory, I've asked Graywalls and Deb to revisit. ---Another Believer (Talk) 22:12, 11 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per the research done by Another Believer. The exhibition is the specific focus of the 2003 articles from BBC News and The Observer and the undated article from Artnet. The show is also mentioned prominently in the 2003 Guardian article. Other sources, while not providing significant coverage, contain useful details and help contextualize the exhibition in the arc of Banksy's career. The sustained coverage in later sources pushes this article past the minimum requirements of WP:GNG, in my view. Lord Bolingbroke (talk) 00:49, 12 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Keep per topic and above discussion. And an obvious Keep per historic significance. Good save by the author. Randy Kryn (talk) 03:41, 13 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, have struck out my "redirect" at the very least comment way near the top of this afd as article improvements now easily show that this is notable for a standalone article. Coolabahapple (talk) 15:29, 14 March 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 09:23, 16 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Adobe TrapWise[edit]

Adobe TrapWise (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 and WP:NPRODUCT. PROD removed by creator in 2017. No sources beyond passing mentions, usually in the context of a list of trapping software examples. The most substantial source I could find was an Infoworld article which briefly mentioned the software in the context of a company merger. – Teratix ₵ 13:42, 22 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. – Teratix ₵ 13:54, 22 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ~SS49~ {talk} 00:15, 1 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete , per nom. Legion X (talk) 19:00, 1 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Tymon.r Do you have any questions? 02:02, 9 March 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. North America1000 05:49, 16 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

RockAbilly.US[edit]

AfDs for this article:
RockAbilly.US (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 the notability guideline for musicians and bands and the general notability guideline due to a lack of significant coverage in independent, reliable sources. SITH (talk) 13:00, 22 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. ___CAPTAIN MEDUSAtalk 13:07, 22 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. ___CAPTAIN MEDUSAtalk 13:07, 22 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Florida-related deletion discussions. ___CAPTAIN MEDUSAtalk 13:07, 22 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Agreed. Quick search couldn't find anything newsworthy Actaudio (talk) 07:10, 27 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ~SS49~ {talk} 00:15, 1 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Tymon.r Do you have any questions? 02:02, 9 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. I can't find any mentions of this band in reliable sources, let alone significant coverage. Looking through the revision history, it seems that the only references the article ever had were this press release, obviously not independent coverage, and this dead URL, which I couldn't find an archive for. The other external links I checked from old versions of the article are either broken or not relevant to the band. Lord Bolingbroke (talk) 17:48, 10 March 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. Michig (talk) 07:00, 16 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Robert Dunn (screenwriter)[edit]

Robert Dunn (screenwriter) (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)

Screenwriter who may or may not be notable. Out of his 3 films, only one of them has any notability at all. Which he could be a redirect to Heartbreakers. Though I am kind of iffy on this, I'm leaning towards redirect or delete. Wgolf (talk) 02:02, 9 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete No evidence of personal notability DannyS712 (talk) 03:51, 9 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • No objection - at this stage I cannot remember why I created the article. S a g a C i t y (talk) 11:22, 9 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 23:41, 9 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 23:41, 9 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Obviously screenwriters can be notable if they get an Oscar or Canadian Screen Award or BAFTA nomination for Best Screenplay, or if they receive reliable source coverage in media — but they're not automatically deemed notable just because the films they wrote exist, and this features neither the notability claim nor the sourcing it would take to get him over the bar. I too have sometimes supported the deletion of my own past contributions to Wikipedia, due to changes in our notability and sourcing standards and/or the evolution of my understanding of how best to present a notable topic, so I sympathize with the creator's inability to remember what they were thinking 11 years ago. Bearcat (talk) 20:15, 12 March 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. ansh666 07:57, 9 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Brighter AI[edit]

Brighter AI (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 do not believe this company meets WP:CORPDEPTH as I can find no substantial coverage in reliable independent sources. The article has been created by a single-purpose account with a likely conflict of interest and is just a free advertisement for the startup company. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 13:51, 15 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment. Dear @Cwmhiraeth:, please consider the source from the updated version of the page: [1]. This is an article from a German newspaper, Die Welt Kompakt, a reliable and independent source, which is dedicated solely to Brighter AI.
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. ~Ruyaba~ {talk} 13:55, 15 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. ~Ruyaba~ {talk} 13:55, 15 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. ~Ruyaba~ {talk} 13:55, 15 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. ~Ruyaba~ {talk} 13:55, 15 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. ~Ruyaba~ {talk} 13:55, 15 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Germany-related deletion discussions. ~Ruyaba~ {talk} 13:55, 15 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  1. ^ Kugoth, Jana (2018-10-17). "Das Geschäft mit dem Datenschutz". Die Welt Kompakt (in German). Axel Springer SE. Retrieved 2019-02-19.
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Jovanmilic97 (talk) 14:26, 22 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Could only find press releases. Nothing from any reliable source. Fails WP:CORPDEPTH Lapablo (talk) 11:46, 23 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ~SS49~ {talk} 00:17, 1 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Tymon.r Do you have any questions? 02:00, 9 March 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 charts mentioned don't seem to be suitable per WP:CHART. ansh666 08:09, 9 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Jack Be[edit]

Jack Be (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 really my area, but I cannot see how this passes Wikipedia:Notability (music). Edwardx (talk) 08:05, 15 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Bakazaka (talk) 08:13, 15 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. Bakazaka (talk) 08:13, 15 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Jovanmilic97 (talk) 14:25, 22 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ~SS49~ {talk} 00:16, 1 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hi! New here, but it appears his album debuted on the Billboard charts, which is a nationally recognized music chart. According to those rules, this article should stand then, right? Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Bebnor (talk) 04:31, 1 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment That applies to entries on the main Billboard chart. His album "appeared in the Billboard Independent Albums and Top Heatseekers at numbers 41 and 10 respectively". Edwardx (talk) 10:26, 1 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Tymon.r Do you have any questions? 01:55, 9 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was speedy keep. After the discussion, I withdraw the nomination. (procedural close) (non-admin closure) Tymon.r Do you have any questions? 14:03, 10 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Habiba Djilani[edit]

Habiba Djilani (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 not established, per WP:ANYBIO. Tymon.r Do you have any questions? 01:37, 9 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep. Her significance is clear from the content. Her notability is supported by a number of publications on Researchgate and co-authorship of several pages worth of search results of scientific papers. Coverage in the national press here and in the medical press here indicate that her memorial event was of national significance, attended by the Health minister and other senior dignitaries. She is one of the few Women in Red Project Tunisian women to be bluelinked. Mccapra (talk) 04:06, 9 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. This article was written during a WikiGap workshop with Wikimedia Tunisia. Habiba Djilani was on this list. She is a very important woman in the history of medicine not only in Tunisia but also in the arab world and Africa. There are enough references added that prove her notability and all details mentionned about her.Houssem Abida (talk) 12:35, 9 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 23:31, 9 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Africa-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 23:31, 9 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 23:31, 9 March 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. Michig (talk) 06:58, 16 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Brenda Dyer Szabo[edit]

Brenda Dyer Szabo (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 not established, per WP:AUTHOR. Tymon.r Do you have any questions? 01:34, 9 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 22:41, 9 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 22:41, 9 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Architecture-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 22:41, 9 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Afghanistan-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 22:41, 9 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete with regret. I just can't find sources. Xxanthippe (talk) 23:40, 9 March 2019 (UTC).[reply]
  • Delete, sadly, unless someone can find offline sources about her. While I can find sources which confirm that she had a Fulbright-Hays scholarship, [50] that she was an architect with Szabo Associates and did consultation work and research in Afghanistan [51] [52], and a "Home of the Week" article about a house she designed, which has more about the gardens than the house [53], I can't find sources about her or her work. Hopefully she will be included in works about women architects, Modernist architects, etc, so that Wikipedia can source an article about her. RebeccaGreen (talk) 02:10, 16 March 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. Whilst the keep votes are technically correct that the player passes NFOOTY, the stronger arguments presented here are that the presumption of GNG that this provides is incorrect in this case. No sources indicating sufficient coverage to satisfy GNG have been presented. Given the player is now retired it seems unlikely this situation will change in the future. There is consensus through AfD that where players only barely pass NFOOTY and have retired that they need to clearly show GNG. This is not the case here. Fenix down (talk) 08:50, 16 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Karo Okiomah[edit]

Karo Okiomah (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)

29-year-old player had 3 pro appearances for 2nd-tier team back in 2012 (SW); barely meets NFOOTY. He was named Big South Conference Player of the Year and third-team All-American; not sure if that's enough for ANYBIO #1. There is no independent SIGCOV that I can find. From his college days, his university website has routine write-ups about his draft and signing, a bio on the college website, and he's mentioned in the head coach's bio. Brief mention in this game report. Doesn't appear to meet GNG, barely meets NFOOTY, I'd argue doesn't meet ANYBIO #1. Should be deleted. Leviv ich 01:07, 9 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Leviv ich 01:08, 9 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. Leviv ich 01:08, 9 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Leviv ich 01:08, 9 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. Leviv ich 01:08, 9 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of North Carolina-related deletion discussions. Leviv ich 01:08, 9 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Leviv ich 01:12, 9 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom.John Pack Lambert (talk) 01:15, 9 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep – Rochester Rhinos were a fully professional club during his appearances for the team, therefore he meets NFOOTY guidlines. UncleTupelo1 (talk) 12:52, 9 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. (Nom consulted me prior to nomination) NFOOTY merely creates a presumption of notability. In this case it is clear we do not have SIGCOV, and not do we expect any future coverage here. Subject here played college (more coverage actually) and then a few gamees in the lower rungs of the US minor leagues (pro in terms of play, but not competitive and hardly covered by anyone - the almost sole purpose of these minor leagues is player farming). Has since retired. Absent sourcing establishing SIGCOV, this is a clear delete.Icewhiz (talk) 18:07, 9 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Are we able to establish the arbitrary number of games required to have played in the 2nd division of professional soccer in the United States & Canada that allows you to meet NFOOTY requirements? One, Ten, Twenty Five? I'd also take issue that the league is solely a farm league. UncleTupelo1 (talk) 23:52, 9 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    • This guy was drafted by a MLS team in 2012. He was placed in an associated minor league team where he made a total of 2 appearances (for 122 minutes).[54] Hasn't been heard from since. Unlike other countries, the US minor league system is almost solely for farming purposes - as other sports in North American - Major League Soccer has no Promotion and relegation. The minor league teams bounce between minor leagues and the minor leagues themselves change according to farming requirements. In other American sports - e.g. the much more popular WP:BASEBALL/N (with an extensive minor league system) and WP:NHOCKEY (also has an elaborate minor league system) accord no notability at all to minor leagues (but do for college play in some cases). Can we set a numeric bar? I'm not sure. What I am fairly certain is that this particular individual simply doesn't have substantial coverage sufficient for GNG - nor is he likely to have such coverage - AFAICT he hasn't done any football since 2013. Icewhiz (talk) 08:25, 10 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per prior consensus (see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Abdoulaye Sanogo among others) that a minimal amount of play in a fully-pro league does not meet WP:NFOOTBALL when the article comprehensively fails WP:GNG. I can't find any significant coverage at all. Jogurney (talk) 20:57, 10 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Meets NFOOTY by plying in an FPL. Getting into "minutes played" as a reason to delete discriminates against modern day players that Soccerway actually bother to keep stats for. Dougal18 (talk) 22:29, 10 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    It's not discrimination to require significant coverage. This footballer is simply not notable based on a career highlight of two or three appearances in a fully-pro league. If someone can identify some non-routine coverage in reliable sources I'll gladly reconsider. Jogurney (talk) 23:55, 10 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - meets WP:NFOOTBALL; needs improving, not deleting. GiantSnowman 11:52, 11 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    Absent significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject - which are lacking here (failing WP:GNG) - such an improvement is unlikely - impossible even given sourcing quality required for a WP:BLP. Keep by NFOOTY (merely presumption of GNG) means nothing for borderline NFOOTY players who are being challenged for not having anything approaching SIGCOV. Show us the sources, if you want it kept. At least 3-4 high quality in-depth sources. Icewhiz (talk) 12:18, 11 March 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 09:15, 16 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Salahuddin Choudhudy[edit]

Salahuddin Choudhudy (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 guy could be notable, he sounds like it at least, but I can't find ANY info to back up this claim at all, other then wiki mirrors. (Page has been around since 2006 with very little to add) If these claims can't be found I say either delete or redirect to Hindustan Contessa. Wgolf (talk) 00:49, 9 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Definitely a delete as not a very notable person as per WP:GNG AmericanAgent (talk) 18:47, 9 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 21:59, 9 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. He seems notable but there are basically no sources, the few of them are an exact copy of the text here. Fails WP:RS. Mosaicberry (talk) 00:28, 13 March 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 09:14, 16 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Distant Shores (Canadian TV series)[edit]

Distant Shores (Canadian TV series) (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 about a television show, not reliably sourced as notable per WP:TVSHOW. This is referenced entirely to its own primary source content about itself, not to any evidence of media coverage -- even the one citation that is to a media outlet is still to an article that had this show's hosts as its bylined authors, not coverage that has the show as its subject. As always, however, the notability test for TV shows is not simply that its own self-published web presence metaverifies its existence -- the notability test requires independent coverage about it, such as in media outlets or books, but I can't find any of that anywhere else either. Bearcat (talk) 00:21, 9 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete Yes, it may have aired and met WP:BROADCAST as something aired on a national cable channel (though I snort at that idea for Wealth TV, which is a low-viewed network), but this reads as a vanity series an ultra-rich couple paid to write, produce and shoot, in order to promote themselves being ultra-rich and buying multiple boats around the world to show that they're ultra-rich. This isn't the usual type of 'travelogue' series where a show neutrally shows you the sights, sounds and food of the world; this is a couple literally buying time on TV networks to show a disinterested world their home movies, and is the very definition of our favorite word, a vanispamcruftisement, where the shows 'producers' were literally the only ones interested in their program and wrote articles about it. Good nomination, Bearcat. Nate • (chatter) 04:02, 9 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 21:43, 9 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 21:43, 9 March 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. Whilst the keep votes are technically correct that the player passes NFOOTY, the stronger arguments presented here are that the presumption of GNG that this provides is incorrect in this case. No sources indicating sufficient coverage to satisfy GNG have been presented. Given the player is now retired it seems unlikely this situation will change in the future. There is consensus through AfD that where players only barely pass NFOOTY and have retired that they need to clearly show GNG. This is not the case here. Fenix down (talk) 08:47, 16 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Charles Rodriguez[edit]

Charles Rodriguez (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 Barely passes NFOOTY and fails GNG. Retired soccer player never played seven games for a third-tier professional team; currently an assistant NCAA coach. Best THREE sources of SIGCOV are this decent write up... and that's really about it. This three-paragraph routine signing report, this one-paragraph mention, this one-sentence mention, and this one-sentence mention don't count as SIGCOV. Although he made the All-American team in 2011, not sure if that counts for WP:ANYBIO #1 (look how many redlinks are on the list), ANYBIO says meeting one or more does not guarantee that a subject should be included. With only one SIGCOV, no barely any NFOOTY, and a maybe ANYBIO, this article should be deleted. Leviv ich 00:11, 9 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Leviv ich 00:12, 9 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. Leviv ich 00:12, 9 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. Leviv ich 00:12, 9 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Leviv ich 00:12, 9 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. Leviv ich 00:12, 9 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of North Carolina-related deletion discussions. Leviv ich 00:12, 9 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Tennessee-related deletion discussions. Leviv ich 00:12, 9 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Leviv ich 00:15, 9 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as nom. (removing nom vote – sorry) Note: after I made my nomination, it was pointed out that at the time Rodriguez played for the Wilmington Hammerheads, they played in a professional league (although they don't anymore). I updated my nom accordingly, taking this from a "no GNG/no NFOOTY" nom to a "no GNG/barely NFOOTY" nom. Leviv ich 00:33, 9 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete a non-notable soccer player.John Pack Lambert (talk) 01:05, 9 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Passes NFOOTY. Playing in a fully pro third tier is no reason to delete. 7 games is more than some players with an article. Dougal18 (talk) 08:20, 9 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Wilmington Hammerheads were a professional team in a fully professional league when he appeared for the, therefore meets NFOOTY requirements. UncleTupelo1 (talk) 14:34, 9 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. (Note nom consulted me prior to the nomination). All the NFOOTY votes should be discounted - NFOOTY merely creates a presumption of GNG. Absent sources showing GNG is met - then in a nom challenging GNG - it is not met. Note this is a US college player who spent a single year in a minor league team (and US minor leaguers are generally non notable in all sports) and has retired from play. Additional coverage here is unlikely.Icewhiz (talk) 16:13, 9 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - meets WP:NFOOTBALL; needs improving, not deleting. GiantSnowman 11:50, 11 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    Absent significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject - which are lacking here (failing WP:GNG) - such an improvement is unlikely - impossible even given sourcing quality required for a WP:BLP. Keep by NFOOTY (merely presumption of GNG) means nothing for borderline NFOOTY players who are being challenged for not having anything approaching SIGCOV. Show us the sources, if you want it kept. At least 3-4 high quality in-depth sources. Icewhiz (talk) 12:18, 11 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. But can be restored if desired for merging into a broader-scoped article. Sandstein 09:13, 16 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

16 Puppies Killing Case[edit]

16 Puppies Killing Case (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)

Criminal event without lasting relevance or coverage. Does not meet the WP:CONTINUEDCOVERAGE or WP:LASTING criteria of WP:NEVENT. All coverage appears to be from within a week of the event itself. signed, Rosguill talk 00:04, 9 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep as this event is supported by significant amount of reliable sources, and is absolutely notable, as per WP:DIVERSE. Secondly, this event gained massive and repeated coverage, and was reported by all the large news agencies of the country, as well as foreign news agencies, as per WP:GEOSCOPE. Third, this event is very recent, and is reported for more than half a month (not for just 2-3 days), which is enough to make the event notable, otherwise events such as January 2017 Melbourne car attack and Zama Suicide Pact Slayings also wouldn't be notable. One may search in google about the event. SouravDas1998t@lk to me? 12:51, 9 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Can you provide any sources of coverage in reliable sources from more than a week after the event? When I looked online, I saw a big flurry of press for the day this hit the news and a day or two after, then nothing. This is pretty common for sensationalist crime stories, which generally are not found to be notable. signed, Rosguill talk 19:33, 9 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I don't see any sources from February onward. Contrasts this with Zama Suicide Pact Slayings (in Nov 2017) - where one finds English sources easily from October 2018, and January 2019. Absent continuing coverage, this article is a clear delete. Icewhiz (talk) 08:01, 10 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep The article is sufficiently sourced. Timing is irrelevant as that's the point of news: it's new. Most stories don't get coverage after a few days. Markvs88 (talk) 02:41, 10 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 19:57, 9 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Animal-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 19:57, 9 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Crime-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:41, 9 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:41, 9 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Lack of WP:SUSTAINED coverage. There was a bunch of single newscycle coverage in mid-January when this broke. This has died down - I don't see anything at all from February onward. Icewhiz (talk) 07:56, 10 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Despite the brief flurry of novelty coverage, fails WP:SIGCOV.E.M.Gregory (talk) 12:11, 10 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. Also, stray dog killings are unfortunately not that uncommon in India. Just in the past few months there were also these news stories:
I think a broader article (such as Street dogs in India, Animal cruelty in India, or even Street dog killings in India) would be more appropriate. Surachit (talk) 18:09, 10 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support I can get behind that as a concept. Markvs88 (talk) 18:13, 10 March 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 Baseball at the 2019 Pan American Games. Michig (talk) 06:51, 16 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Baseball at the 2019 Pan American Games – Qualification[edit]

Baseball at the 2019 Pan American Games – Qualification (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)

Unnecessary article. The information is already available on the main article:Baseball at the 2019 Pan American Games. Sportsfan 1234 (talk) 23:59, 8 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. Sheldybett (talk) 07:35, 9 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Baseball-related deletion discussions. Sheldybett (talk) 07:35, 9 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. Sheldybett (talk) 07:35, 9 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy redirect Just be bold and do that first and if some crazy person thinks such blatantly unnecessary duplication is warranted, then bring it to AFD. Reywas92Talk 07:58, 9 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect per above. Not sure why this really requires AfD unless someone tries to revert you. Smartyllama (talk) 12:55, 11 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect per Reywas92 and Smartyllama. Ejgreen77 (talk) 16:00, 12 March 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.
source: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia%3AArticles_for_deletion%2FLog%2F2019_March_9

Leave a Reply