< 4 March	6 March >

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 Nedim Jahic. Ad Orientem (talk) 00:52, 13 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Youth movement "Uprising"[edit]

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

Fails WP:NORG. My source search ("uprising"+"Nedim+Jahic" link) brings up virtually no coverage outside mirrors and forks. SITH (talk) 12:17, 26 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 12:25, 26 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bosnia and Herzegovina-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 12:25, 26 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Nosebagbear (talk) 23:10, 5 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Merge. A brief mention in Nedim Jahic would be adequate. Mccapra (talk) 04:01, 6 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. J 947 ^{^{^(c)}}, at 04:08, 6 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Merge as suggested, per WP:CHEAP. Bearian (talk) 23:24, 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. Xymmax ^{So let it be written} _{So let it be done} 04:07, 13 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Karmaveer Puraskaar[edit]

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

These awards do not appear to meet the general notability guideline as I am unable to find substantial coverage about them in indepdendent reliable sources. SmartSE (talk) 17:42, 26 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 17:50, 26 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists of people-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 11:16, 28 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

What languages did you search in? postdlf (talk) 14:49, 28 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
- @Postdlf: English. I can't see any other possibilites. SmartSE (talk) 17:25, 4 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  - It's about an award given in India. Why would only English-language sources be possible for such a topic? postdlf (talk) 19:59, 4 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    - I meant that all of the links in the article are in English despite being Indian and none of them seem to give Hindu/Urdu spellings that we can search for. SmartSE (talk) 20:40, 4 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Nosebagbear (talk) 23:09, 5 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Delete. WP:A7. --Hiwilms (talk) 13:36, 11 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete While not an A7 situation the subject fails GNG. -Ad Orientem (talk) 00:56, 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 seasons 1905, 1906 and 1907, keep seasons 1908, 1911 and 1917. Information verifying the existence of the team and a history of games played resulted in keeping the 1908, 1911 and 1917 seasons, the others were deleted for lacking such evidence. Xymmax ^{So let it be written} _{So let it be done} 04:00, 13 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

1905 Southwest Texas State Bobcats football team[edit]

Per reason the following are also nominated

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

Per IRC help request, team did not play during 1905-1908, 1911 and 1917. RhinosF1^(chat)_{(status)(contribs)} 22:18, 5 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: IRC user who requested deletion has said they will present evidence in a few days time. Please do not close this if no evidence has been presented until after 7 days. Thanks, RhinosF1^(chat)_{(status)(contribs)} 22:42, 5 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of American football-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 22:54, 5 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 22:54, 5 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Texas-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 22:54, 5 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note. Texas State (new name of the school) is a Division I FBS program, so season articles are appropriate. The issue here is whether these particular seasons even existed. According to the "History" section of the Texas State football media guide (page 127 here), no scores were reported for the seasons that are the subject of this AfD. If the program disbanded and no games were played, I would be inclined to support deletion of these articles. Cbl62 (talk) 23:09, 5 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

On the other hand, the media guide also says no scores reported for 1912, but other sources show that multiple games were played. Compare 1912 Southwest Texas State Bobcats football team. Cbl62 (talk) 23:14, 5 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Cbl62, That is the issue. Establishing whether they exisits during that time. Feel free to nominate other years that didn't exist for the team. There seems to be some confusion as some of those articles list games and that source shows they didn't exist. RhinosF1^(chat)_{(status)(contribs)} 23:15, 5 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Unfortunately, there are several teams of importance where it's "good luck" for finding their own source for a complete season instead of inferring the games from other teams playing them. Central (pre 1901) and Nashville come to mind. Cake (talk) 23:38, 5 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Cbl62, the media guide you linked appears to be several years old, and does not reflect the school's current recording of its history. Here (p. 154) you can see Texas State's most recent media guide, and there are many more games recorded for the period 1908-1918. It does still note that there were no games recorded for 1905-07 and '09, but there are two games recorded for 1908, four games recorded for 1911, and eight games recorded for 1917. There are also more games listed in years that are not listed here for deletion, and appear to already be incorporated into those articles despite listing the old source. Ostealthy (talk) 23:52, 5 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Good catch, Ostealthy. The updated guide provides scores for games played in 1908, 1911, and 1917. So those years ought not be deleted. 1906 and 1907 remain in doubt. Cbl62 (talk) 00:28, 6 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep 1908, 1911, and 1917. Texas State is a Division I FBS program, and its historical seasons are notable. The Texas State Football Media Guide confirms that there were teams in these years. I have added citations to the media guide as well as newspaper articles reporting on the games to these three articles. The articles need further improvement and development but that is not a reason for deletion. Cbl62 (talk) 01:27, 6 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep 1908, 1911, and 1917 per Cbl62. 1905, 1906, 1907 look like they can be deleted. Jweiss11 (talk) 03:23, 6 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep 1908, 1911, and 1917 per Cbl62. 1905-07 has a precedent for keeping here Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/1918 Montana Grizzlies football team.UCO2009bluejay (talk) 15:42, 6 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep 1908, 1911, and 1917 per Cbl62. I am the user that requested the deletion of 1905-1908, 1911, and 1917. After looking through three references with the following links:

1. https://s3.amazonaws.com/sidearm.sites/txstate.sidearmsports.com/documents/2018/8/23/2018_Texas_State_Football_Media_Guide.pdf 2. http://graphics.fansonly.com/photos/schools/txst/sports/m-footbl/auto_pdf/109-FBMGHistory.pdf 3. The 1905-1908, 1911, and 1917 Texas State Normal School pedagogues, I have concluded that there is absolutely no evidence of teams for 1905 and 1907. So I would agree 1908, 1911, and 1917 should be kept with the keeping of 1906 as well. I already added the roster from 1906 to that page. I do think 1905 and 1907 should be deleted though and I fixed those pages up as well as I could. Krhazymonkey83 20:12, 6 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Krhazymonkey83 is the nominator from IRC RhinosF1^(chat)_{(status)(contribs)} 06:31, 7 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep 1908, 1911, and 1917 because they are verified to have been played and information has been found to pass WP:GNG. Delete 1905 and 1907 as no evidence seems to exist to pass WP:GNG. If data/sources are uncovered in the future, there should be no prejudice to re-create at that time. I'd like to point out that it may be possible for a season that is "not played" to be notable if it were to garner enough press in reliable sources for not being played (similar to the 1940 Summer Olympics)) but that doesn't seem to be the case here.--Paul McDonald (talk) 14:10, 7 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep 1908, 1911, and 1917, per Cbl62. I am neutral on the other three, though I would note that this would point towards redirection as a likely option for the other three articles. Ejgreen77 (talk) 04:00, 8 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep 1908, 1911, and 1917, Cbl62 and Paul McDonald have made terrific points on this. Neutral for 1907 as I don't have much of a stance on that article. As for the rest, I say delete 1905 and 1906. No information, and it is a mile (or meter if you like the metric system) away from WP:GNG. James-the-Charizard (talk) 02:08, 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 keep. Strong consensus that, though a poor article, it was just beyond WP:DICDEF and clearly notable. (non-admin closure) Nosebagbear (talk) 21:46, 12 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Restaurant management[edit]

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

Nothing but a dictionary definition and a list of external links. HGK745 (talk) 21:42, 5 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Food and drink-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 21:45, 5 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 21:46, 5 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep This is a poor quality article about a clearly notable topic. Several books about the topic are already in the article, and a Google Books search shows that there are dozens of books specifically about restaurant management. The solution is to expand the article and add references, not to delete it. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 00:46, 6 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep This is a stub not a dictionary definition. See WP:DICDEF, which explains the difference: "One perennial source of confusion is that a stub encyclopedia article looks very much like a dictionary entry...". Andrew D. (talk) 11:28, 6 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep As per above. Most likely to be searched for quite often. Further reading section is good quality. Good starting point for an expansion. Unoc (talk) 02:10, 7 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Management-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 10:45, 7 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Definitely a notable topic. Needs expansion, not deletion. At present it is a functional stub with useful external links. Icewhiz (talk) 11:00, 7 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: In addition to what others said, the field is notable enough to have degree programs built on it. Just needs a better article. Beginning (talk) 08:11, 8 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per WP:BEFORE and per Beginning - whole courses and degrees at culinary schools and community colleges are offered. Bearian (talk) 23:30, 9 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Obviously encyclopedic topic. --Doncram (talk) 03:18, 12 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Clearly a notable topic, although a poor article. Britishfinance (talk) 10:44, 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. — RHaworth (talk · contribs) 22:38, 9 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Ste Richardsson[edit]

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

Not seeing coverage in independent sources. Tacyarg (talk) 21:17, 5 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 21:22, 5 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. J 947 ^{^{^(c)}}, at 04:11, 6 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Religion-related deletion discussions. J 947 ^{^{^(c)}}, at 04:11, 6 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. J 947 ^{^{^(c)}}, at 04:11, 6 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Fails WP:BIO.--Pontificalibus 06:57, 7 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note The article is an autobiography ([1]). I have nominated Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Terri O'Sullivan, a page created by the same user about an associate with a similar level of notability.--Pontificalibus 10:31, 7 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete This man has not received coverage from a reliable source. ―Susmuffin ^Talk 11:05, 7 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and WP:SNOW as per nom and Pontificalibus. Mramoeba (talk) 13:24, 7 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
This just came up on my watchlist which I think is probably meant to go here. Mramoeba (talk) 14:52, 7 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete fails WP:SIGVOV.E.M.Gregory (talk) 20:55, 8 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
note the author seems to agree the article wasn't a good idea, this can be G7'd per [2] 78.28.54.83 (talk) 22:11, 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} 21:33, 12 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Ajay Ahuja (businessman)[edit]

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

Vanity page - almost exclusively contributed to by an SPA. Most of the sources don't exist or are only tenuous links to him, or do mention him but are more about finding case studies for the BTL industry, with several different examples, for none of whom does it infer notability by virtue of their appearance in these article. How are they going to get the picture of him like this? How is it encyclopaedic his car was in a magazine? And how would someone know? Because it isn't in the source!! The article also fails NPOV because there is a LOT of negative information about him on the internet, but this article is of course glowing and full of praise. Rayman60 (talk) 21:15, 5 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 21:20, 5 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 21:20, 5 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 21:20, 5 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 21:20, 5 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I thought I’d seen it all. Mccapra (talk) 21:28, 5 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Entirely nn. Fails WP:BIO. scope_creep^Talk 10:51, 6 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete a non-notable businessman.John Pack Lambert (talk) 00:47, 9 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - totally run of the mill self-published author and landlord. How is this guy notable? Really? Bearian (talk) 23:31, 9 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete for reasons well stated by Bearian.E.M.Gregory (talk) 23:45, 9 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete a total vanity page. Sources do not indicate notability. Fails WP:BIO. Also, how is being a "buy to let landlord relevant" to notability? Ridiculous. Steve Quinn (talk) 02:00, 11 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete. WP:A7. --Hiwilms (talk) 13:26, 11 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. The WP:AUTHOR defence not even being attempted (unlike this case here). Britishfinance (talk) 13:29, 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 keep. Ad Orientem (talk) 01:18, 13 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Banktivity[edit]

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

Software with references to either passing mentions on a list, interviews, or unreliable sources, falling short of WP:NSOFT. A preliminary WP:BEFORE didn't unearth much more than press releases. Drewmutt (^ᴥ^) talk 19:45, 5 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Finance-related deletion discussions. Icewhiz (talk) 20:21, 5 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. Icewhiz (talk) 20:21, 5 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Mac Life and Macworld reviews look like good RS, I´m leaning to keep. Pavlor (talk) 10:20, 6 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The Macworld article doesn't even mention the subject. Drewmutt (^ᴥ^) talk 18:06, 6 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

From the lead: Banktivity, formerly known as iBank . Pavlor (talk) 19:33, 6 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep It passed WP:NSOFT. Not much in the way of promotion, just a nice wee article. Copyedit needed. scope_creep^Talk 10:53, 6 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep A notable piece of Mac software that changed its name - however there is plenty of coverage: Macworld article cited above Review from independent evaluator AIII 2012 review Forbes mention AlasdairEdits (talk) 21:03, 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 List of Christina Aguilera concert tours#Concert tours. -- Patar knight - ^chat/_{contributions} 21:34, 12 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The X Tour (Christina Aguilera)[edit]

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

Non-notable event which hasn't happened yet. The references are all promotional. ColinFine (talk) 19:16, 5 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. Icewhiz (talk) 20:20, 5 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. Icewhiz (talk) 20:20, 5 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Merge and redirect to List_of_Christina_Aguilera_concert_tours#Concert_tours. Per nom, WP:TOOSOON. A merge and redirect allows the info to be preserved so article can be recreated after the tour actually occurs. Only very succinct info is required for now. TimTempleton ^(talk) ^(cont) 23:28, 5 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Merge and Redirect Agreed with above. Actaudio (talk) 23:36, 5 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Merge per WP:TOOSOON, without prejudice to recreation once the tour happens --DannyS712 (talk) 06:29, 6 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Merge and redirect to List_of_Christina_Aguilera_concert_tours#Concert_tours per above. Aoba47 (talk) 19:37, 6 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. Ad Orientem (talk) 01:19, 13 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Ready Set Word[edit]

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

Does not appear to meet either WP:NVG, WP:NSOFT or WP:GNG due to a lack of major reviews in independent, reliable sources. SITH (talk) 11:36, 26 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 12:42, 26 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Video games-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 12:42, 26 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Vanamonde (Talk) 18:26, 5 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I searched for sources under both of the games supposed titles, and found nothing to indicate that the game was ever released. The information on this title is so sparse outside of this wikipedia article, that I can't even be sure if it ever even existed, or was just a rumor that turned out to be false. Regardless, though, the utter lack of reliable sources out there means that the article fails the GNG completely. 169.232.162.112 (talk) 19:28, 5 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete It was WP:TOOSOON to even create this article and it shows. Besides the usual routine announcements back in 2007 as Spelling Spree, it does not pass WP:GNG for lack of significant coverage in reliable secondary sources and it seems it will stay unreleased. Jovanmilic97 (talk) 17:56, 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. Ad Orientem (talk) 01:20, 13 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

No Slack Productions[edit]

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

De-PROD-ed by an IP address which also removed the extant COI template. Original PROD rationale was "No+Slack+Productions" Source search indicates failure of WP:NCORP. SITH (talk) 18:11, 5 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 21:28, 5 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 21:29, 5 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 21:30, 5 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete no evidence of significant coverage needed to meet WP:GNG --DannyS712 (talk) 06:29, 6 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - music producers and production companies are almost always deleted at AfD, because they are so common. If they are also a musical artist, we keep them for that reason; being a producer is secondary to their notability even if that gets them to be a Grammy voter, as may be in this case. I also note there are no reliabale sources to prove general notability. Bearian (talk) 23:37, 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. Already deleted by another admin. -- Patar knight - ^chat/_{contributions} 21:33, 12 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Ambreesh Cosmetics[edit]

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

Promotional and non notable. I removed material that comprised claims sourced only to their own website or to an inaccessible source of dubious reliability, but they're in the page history. I checked for additional sources on Google, because I wouldn't expect anything in a search of anything else, and found nothing relevant. The ed. , who has edited no other articles, moved it from Draft to Mainspace themselves, a clear evasion of the AfC process. DGG ( talk ) 17:25, 5 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Icewhiz (talk) 17:34, 5 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I can't find much of substance here in terms of sourcing to satisfy WP:NCORP. Icewhiz (talk) 17:37, 5 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 21:32, 5 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, does not meet WP:NCORP, teensy weensy private concern with no significant coverage found. Coolabahapple (talk) 09:48, 7 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete The user created a Wikipedia account for self promotion of a private company! Proof https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/Meruv_Lieng AmericanAgent (talk) 19:01, 9 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - NN - bordering on spam. Bearian (talk) 23:39, 9 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: A WP:SPA article about a company. No notability attaches to the entries included in a Vegan Action company list, and searches are not finding better than further routine listings and social media. Fails WP:NCORP. AllyD (talk) 19:02, 11 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Promotional article about a company that fails WP:NCORP. Lapablo (talk) 18:44, 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 soft delete. WP:REFUND applies. Ad Orientem (talk) 01:23, 13 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Sarah Simonds[edit]

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

This article was created by a SPA. It was originally redirected to the husband's article as the wife not being sufficiently notable for a standlone article. More material was added by an IP. I toyed with the idea of reverting it back to a redirect, but I didn't feel comfortable doing that, so I am nominating it for deletion as failingWP:GNG. Everything she does is derivative of her husband or the fact she is married to him. Bbb23 (talk) 13:13, 26 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe it should be added as a section on Kenneth Simonds' page? 2605:E000:100D:879E:D1E7:C213:2C04:AFC8 (talk) 23:50, 2 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. Icewhiz (talk) 13:37, 26 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. Icewhiz (talk) 13:37, 26 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 11:00, 28 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 17:22, 5 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Searches for both Sarah Simonds and Sally Simonds convince me that the subject fails WP:GNG. There's not enough independent coverage. I checked three sources from the article (Hidden Harvest Fall Lunch, 2008 Awardees, ETSU Gets $1 Million), and they're only mentions of her. BlackcurrantTea (talk) 09:34, 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. Ad Orientem (talk) 01:24, 13 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Samrat Yashovarman(Maukhari Samrajya Ka Itihaas)[edit]

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

Not finding any reviews or other indications of notability for this work. Admittedly can't tell whether the given title is overspecific and/or unsuitable for searching; nothing coming up with it, in any case. Fails WP:NBOOK in absence of demonstrated impact and/or reviews. --Elmidae (talk · contribs) 17:20, 5 March 2019 (UTC) Elmidae (talk · contribs) 17:20, 5 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. Icewhiz (talk) 17:22, 5 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. Icewhiz (talk) 17:22, 5 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Icewhiz (talk) 17:22, 5 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - I don't see any evidence of being encyclopedic - no significant coverage in NPOV sources. Smmurphy^(Talk) 19:51, 5 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete -- An advert for a NN school text book; and badly written at that. Peterkingiron (talk) 16:49, 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. Ad Orientem (talk) 01:24, 13 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Raju Desale[edit]

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

Not seeing significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject and no evidence of satisfying WP:NPOL. GSS (talk|c|em) 16:59, 5 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. GSS (talk|c|em) 16:59, 5 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. GSS (talk|c|em) 16:59, 5 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Being leader of a minor political party can get a person into Wikipedia if he can be referenced well enough to clear WP:GNG, but is not an automatic free WP:NPOL pass that guarantees him an article just because he exists. The references here aren't cutting it in terms of getting him over GNG, however: they're all either glancing namechecks of his existence in coverage of other things, or tangential verification of stray facts that doesn't even mention him at all, not substantive coverage about him. Bearcat (talk) 17:01, 6 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Reluctantly Delete. I had high hopes for this one, but I could not find a single WP:RS that mentioned this person more than twice. Clear failure of the WP:GNG per Bearcat above. –MJL ‐Talk‐^☖ 05:15, 7 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. ~ Amory (u • t • c) 17:28, 12 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Judeopolonia[edit]

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

Non-notable conspiracy theory that has very little coverage in WP:RS.

The only sources cited are themselves fringe or only barely mention the theory itself.

The entire article is very vulnerable to anti-semitism and fringe editing. Coverage in very few sources or of antisemitism in Poland is not enough to say that this specific theory is notable. Shibbolethink ^(♔ ^♕) 15:48, 5 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Poland-related deletion discussions. Shibbolethink ^(♔ ^♕) 15:48, 5 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Judaism-related deletion discussions. Shibbolethink ^(♔ ^♕) 15:51, 5 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. Shibbolethink ^(♔ ^♕) 15:51, 5 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Conspiracy theories-related deletion discussions. Shibbolethink ^(♔ ^♕) 15:53, 5 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Keep We'd been discussing this at WP:FRINGE/N and it is possible that this article is a notable conspiracy theory. But in keeping with the tenets of WP:FRINGE we need to make sure the article is a description of a notable conspiracy theory rather than expressing it as if it were part of mainstream dialog. Simonm223 (talk) 16:04, 5 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Keep Does appear to have enough sourcing to meet WP:GNG as a notable conspiracy theory, but I hope a few folks will keep it on their watchlist to make sure the conspiracy theory description stays in. PohranicniStraze (talk) 16:14, 5 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Oh it's on mine now. And I'll probably add it to WP:NONAZIS on the list of at-risk pages. Simonm223 (talk) 16:21, 5 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Unfortunately, this is a notable conspiracy theory (note alt. spelling of Judeo-Polonia). See for instance: [3], [4], [5], [6], [7]. Icewhiz (talk) 17:20, 5 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Agree with Simonm223. Mccapra (talk) 21:47, 5 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per coverage.E.M.Gregory (talk) 19:05, 11 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Good points above. The subject is of historic interest and the recent revival of the idea shows the notability of this topic. --mikeu ^talk 21:34, 11 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Plenty of Polish language sources, and academic sources, referring to this term (and related terms). This article could be materially developed. Britishfinance (talk) 00:44, 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 redirect to List of Dance Dance Revolution video games per ATD and CHEAP. Ad Orientem (talk) 01:25, 13 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Dance Dance Revolution Disney Grooves[edit]

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

Does not pass WP:GNG which says we need significant coverage in multiple reliable sources. Besides IGN's review [8] and press release [9] (which does not contribute to GNG as it comes from Konami itself and it thus WP:PRIMARY), I am not able to find anything else. The article included a reference from a forum (posted by some eddie) which is unreliable. Jovanmilic97 (talk) 14:40, 5 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Video games-related deletion discussions. Icewhiz (talk) 15:58, 5 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - As should be done with most of the DDR articles (and Beatmania too). Only a few games are notable independently. Redirect would also be fine. TarkusAB^talk 16:44, 5 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to List of Dance Dance Revolution video games. The game does not appear to be independently notable enough for a standalone article, as the one IGN review included as a reference appears to be the only review that was written by a reliable third party source. However, the game is a valid search term that should redirect to the main list of DDR games. 169.232.162.112 (talk) 17:27, 5 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Comment TarkusAB I agree, though it is ironic something actually notable like Dance Dance Revolution Universe got redirected to the list of all games article (I just restored it with a rewrite and addition of many reviews of the game), but this survived for some odd reason. I would be fine with a redirect I guess. Jovanmilic97 (talk) 22:07, 5 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) 17:29, 12 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Anatole Jenkins[edit]

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

Much like the recently-deleted Emmy Ruiz, created by the same editor that created this page, the subject of this article appears to fail WP:GNG and WP:NPOL. All reference are either primary only mention Jenkins in passing and a further search didn't turn up much besides more passing mentions. GPL93 (talk) 13:43, 5 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. Icewhiz (talk) 13:56, 5 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Washington, D.C.-related deletion discussions. Icewhiz (talk) 13:56, 5 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete look like promo: clearly fails WP:GNG and WP:NPOL. Hninthuzar (talk) 12:31, 6 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Political strategists can get Wikipedia articles if they can be reliably sourced as the subject of enough substantive media coverage to clear WP:GNG, but are not guaranteed Wikipedia articles just because they exist. The sources here simply aren't cutting it, however: three of the five footnotes are glancing namechecks of his existence in coverage of other things or people, and the other two are short "person gets job" blurbs in employment announcement columns. And while there's one other reference being wrongly listed as an external link instead of a cited footnote, it's a Q&A interview in which he's giving advice on how to train volunteers, not substantive coverage about him. These sources aren't getting him over the GNG bar, and the article says nothing about him that's "inherently" notable enough to exempt him from having to get him over the GNG bar. Bearcat (talk) 17:09, 6 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete does not have enough significant coverage to pass WP:GNG Reddragon7 (talk) 04:31, 7 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete inadequate sourcing to show notability.John Pack Lambert (talk) 00:48, 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} 21:32, 12 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Madison (wrestler)[edit]

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

No notable wrestler. Only worked for small, independent promotions. She won the NWA Women's Title two times, but her reign was during the dark age of NWA, when he promotion had barely coverage. HHH Pedrigree (talk) 11:28, 5 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 12:03, 5 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 12:03, 5 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 12:03, 5 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Wrestling-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 12:03, 5 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Non-notable pro wrestler Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 13:05, 5 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Appears to fail WP:GNG but its an impossible search term so I may be missing stuff - Galatz גאליץ ^{שיחה Talk} 15:24, 5 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I could not find anything to establish notability criteria. StaticVapor message me! 18:40, 5 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
delete No significant independent coverage to meet the GNG and nothing to show notability as an entertainer.Sandals1 (talk) 22:43, 5 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of British Columbia-related deletion discussions. J 947 ^{^{^(c)}}, at 04:16, 6 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Alberta-related deletion discussions. J 947 ^{^{^(c)}}, at 04:16, 6 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. Ad Orientem (talk) 01:26, 13 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Alikiona[edit]

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

Lacking sources and possibility of failing the WP:ARTS or something else. Sheldybett (talk) 11:14, 5 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 12:05, 5 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Africa-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 12:06, 5 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, two books cited in the article presumably describe the subject in quite some detail, and they both seem to be reliable sources.--Ymblanter (talk) 15:35, 5 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Keep - the various other books with content about Alikonia that can actually be read all only have fairly minimal detail. However, as well as the two in-article, there are a couple of others with snippet previews and potentially additional content about it. Nosebagbear (talk) 15:54, 6 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Comment, this play is arguably by Tanzania's foremost Swahili playwright (so criteria 5 of WP:BOOKCRIT may apply?), and, along with Wakati Ukuta, is studied in school (page 61 of Ebrahim Hussein: Swahili Theatre and Individualism) (criteria 4), ps. not sure that Alikiona translates as "Consequences", the book Swahili Beyond the Boundaries (page 34) has it as "She Learned Her Lesson", while gtranslate goes with "He Saw It", pps. it was published in Michezo ya kuigiza, not sure why the Hussein article has it separate from that, ppps.:)) funny that Kinjeketile doesnt have its own article, his more well known work? Coolabahapple (talk) 15:12, 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. Fenix down (talk) 11:29, 12 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Ivan Bilus[edit]

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

Footballer who fails WP:GNG and WP:NFOOTY (no appearances in fully-pro leagues). PROD is being contested by the player himself, apparently. BlameRuiner (talk) 10:56, 5 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Germany-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 11:07, 5 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Croatia-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 11:07, 5 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 11:07, 5 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 11:08, 5 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions.CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 11:10, 5 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - fails WP:GNG (no significant coverage) and WP:NFOOTBALL (no appearances in a fully-professional league, as confirmed by Soccerway.) Giant Snowman 11:25, 5 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Fails GNG, and apparently doesn't pass NFOOTY as he never made a 1st team appearance (though he was on the roster) in a NFOOTY eligible club. Icewhiz (talk) 15:57, 5 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete – Per above, fails GNG, fails NFOOTY. Leviv ich 19:45, 5 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 University of Colorado Boulder#Residence halls. (non-admin closure) Jovanmilic97 (talk) 18:08, 12 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Kittredge West Hall[edit]

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

Fails WP:GNG. In relation to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/University of Colorado Boulder student housing and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Cheyenne Arapaho Hall. Hiwilms (talk) 10:39, 5 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Colorado-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 11:09, 5 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 11:09, 5 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Architecture-related deletion discussions. Bakazaka (talk) 19:21, 5 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. Necrothesp (talk) 11:58, 6 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect. Exactly as I just wrote at similar Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Cheyenne Arapaho Hall: Consistent with the decision at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/University of Colorado Boulder student housing, this should be redirected to University of Colorado Boulder#Residence halls (or merged if there is any super-interesting content worth putting into the UCB main article. Note it is possible that in the future a list-article of UCB residence halls or of a mix of UCB buildings will be split out from the UCB article again, as a matter of basic editing if the sourced coverage there gets too long. It's just proper to leave the edit history in place and redirect. As noted in the close of the UCB student housing AFD, however, probably no one should split out such a list-article without trying to get some consensus at the UCB talk page. --Doncram (talk) 05:56, 9 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect and selectively merge non-trivial content to University of Colorado Boulder#Residence halls.E.M.Gregory (talk) 10:40, 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 keep. After extended time for discussion, the trend towards preferring to keep this article is now clear. bd2412 T 03:25, 13 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

North American Women's Baseball League[edit]

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

No longer notable: a metropolitan dues-paying baseball club that has not played a game in 9 years. Both independent baseball clubs that sponsored it no longer exist. Contact pages are inoperative. No citations, nor will there ever be. Spike-from-NH (talk) 13:33, 18 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2019 February 18. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 13:56, 18 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Massachusetts-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 14:35, 18 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 14:35, 18 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Baseball-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 14:35, 18 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 14:36, 18 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Amateur local leagues are not notable. Spanneraol (talk) 17:08, 18 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Mhhossein ^talk 14:02, 26 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Notability is not temporary; it doesn't matter whether it no longer exists. There are sources, including Encyclopedia of Women and Baseball [10], Chasing Baseball: Our Obsession with Its History, Numbers, People and Places [11], A Game of Their Own: Voices of Contemporary Women in Baseball [12], and some newspaper articles, including the Boston Globe, especially [13]. I have not yet checked academic and other journals. If it is not kept, it should be merged to an article about women's baseball. RebeccaGreen (talk) 14:37, 26 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Those sources are all behind pay walls so i can't verify if they mention this league in detail or it's just listed in some chart of amateur women's leagues. Spanneraol (talk) 17:22, 26 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The Google Books search results are not behind paywalls! Per WP:PAYWALL, subscription sources can be used to establish notability. RebeccaGreen (talk) 21:45, 26 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

There is/was a women's baseball movement; it stemmed from the wartime women's league; its goal was to get more women and girls playing baseball (not softball); and some of the NAWBL people viewed their league as an important piece of that movement. During the NAWBL, more women in the area played baseball; afterwards, less, unless they found somewhere else to do it. Nine years later, I don't see evidence that the NAWBL led to anything, except in individual players' lives. I have run into two NAWBL players in the last few years when they came to a summer league to scout on behalf of Major League Baseball. Citations at this point ought not just prove that the NAWBL existed, but show how it was an evolution and that the evolution continued, as more than such personal anecdotes. Absent that, I think that notability of a private club can expire. Rebecca, are you voting on the page, or on the movement? Spike-from-NH (talk) 03:52, 27 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

This page, which is what the AfD is about. Some of the sources I linked above do indeed show how the NAWBL was connected to earlier and other contemporary leagues. RebeccaGreen (talk) 15:37, 27 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 07:31, 5 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. 3 articles about NAWLP in the Boston Globe and more in smaller newspapers should be enough to establish notability. Also, its inclusion in 3 books cited by RebeccaGreen above. Also, Notability is not temporary, so doubts about its present-day impact are irrelevant to its notability at the time it existed. PS. I have added 2 citations in the article now. Krubo (talk) 18:13, 5 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Subject has sufficient coverage to ring the WP:N bell. -Ad Orientem (talk) 01:30, 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 no consensus defaulting to keep and w/o prejudice to a speedy renomination. Ad Orientem (talk) 01:33, 13 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

PriMedia Inc[edit]

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

An unremarkable private business. Does not meet WP:NCORP; significant RS coverage not found. Created by Special:Contributions/LibraTech currently indef blocked for abusing multiple accounts. K.e.coffman (talk) 02:00, 19 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I haven't searched yet for sources elsewhere, but, of the sources cited in the article, all but two were either written by one of the company's founders or obituaries for Barry Becher. Of the last two, one of them is behind a paywall and the other mentions neither PriMedia nor its original name, Dial Media (though it does mention the Dial-o-matic—wow, that takes me back). Largoplazo (talk) 02:50, 19 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Rhode Island-related deletion discussions. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 03:56, 19 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 03:56, 19 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Move to Dial Media. There does seem to be significant coverage of this company under its earlier incarnation (Dial Media) which goes beyond what's covered in the Ginsu article. The Barry Belcher obituary reference (from ABC News/WaPo/LA Times) is solid in terms of establishing the company's significance to the history of infomercials, and in talking about products/endeavours other than Ginsu. Another interesting source (not currently cited) is this 1983 NYT piece reporting on Dial Media's involvement with the Democratic Presidential campaign. "Primedia" may technically be a new name for the same company, but it seems to be engaged in a substantially different business activity and its activities since the switch to media buying and rename have not attracted any coverage. The article should be rewritten to reflect a focus on the Dial Media era. Colin M (talk) 19:22, 19 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Jovanmilic97 (talk) 11:42, 26 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 07:29, 5 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Advertising-related deletion discussions. Icewhiz (talk) 17:54, 5 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I am unable to locate a single reference that meets the criteria for establishing notability, references are mainly Primary sources failing WP:ORGIND or mentions in passing failing WP:CORPDEPTH. Topic fails GNG and WP:NCORP. HighKing⁺⁺ 19:16, 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 07:25, 12 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

LUMS Rugby Football Club[edit]

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

Fails WP:GNG. Störm (talk) 09:00, 26 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. Icewhiz (talk) 09:14, 26 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. Icewhiz (talk) 09:14, 26 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Rugby union-related deletion discussions. Icewhiz (talk) 09:14, 26 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Icewhiz (talk) 09:14, 26 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 07:29, 5 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. J 947 ^{^{^(c)}}, at 04:20, 6 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - while there are a couple of news sources mentioning it, LUMS' team only makes up a couple of lines, and wouldn't satisfy the appropriate NSPORTS requirements either. I'd redirect, but there isn't actually anything really relevant in the university's page. A merge wouldn't be insane, but I don't think there's anything in it to make it particularly worthwhile. Nosebagbear (talk) 16:09, 6 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I came to the same conclusion as Nosebagbear. I didn't find anything to support a claim this rugby team is notable or that it has the significant independent coverage to meet WP:GNG. I thought about a redirect to the school's WP article, but there isn't a section about athletics or non-academic activities and there's not enough info about this team to warrant its own section. The team exists but doesn't meet any WP notability criteria. Papaursa (talk) 01:00, 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, after extended time for discussion, without prejudice to a future article being created at this title if cohesive reliable sources describing a specific topic become available. bd2412 T 03:24, 13 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Micropipelining[edit]

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

This unreferenced article appears to be about a neologism. There are numerous instances of this term on Google Books, but they're from different contexts. The concept as it's defined in this article doesn't appear to be an established term of art. This article's definition of the term, and its description of computer technology appears inaccurate. For example, Intel's NetBurst-based processors of the early- and mid-2000s, exceeded 20 pipeline stages, and later variants ended up with around 30, if I recall correctly. It appears that several valid concepts have been vaguely alluded to and then combined in a way that may be improper synthesis. In computer science and engineering, the question of limits to pipeline length and the optimal pipeline length, in respect to performance, power, and organizational effectiveness is obvious and well-known. This article doesn't appear to discuss this issue. The article also defines a micropipelining–macropipeling dichotomy. This is most certainly unverifiable, nonexistent, and erroneous. 99Electrons (talk) 02:56, 26 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Language-related deletion discussions. Bakazaka (talk) 04:06, 26 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. Bakazaka (talk) 04:06, 26 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 07:24, 5 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Vague article with 0 sources - agree with nominator. Pmlineditor (t · c · l) 15:34, 5 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment A case could made that an article on Micropipelines is needed, but the text here doesn't meet that need. See Ivan Sutherland's Micropipelines. For background and an overview see Entering the Micropipeline. I would rate the topic as discussed at those links as slightly notable from a computer history perspective. It appears in papers during the 1990s such as A Micropipelined ARM (1993) and it is consistently used in the sense of refering to "Sutherland's Micropipelines." It doesn't appear in the literature much after 2000. But there are a few later references to this usage.[14] I'm not sure if I could find enough references to write more than a stub to replace what is here. --mikeu ^talk 02:51, 10 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I came across Sutherland's micropipeline concept before I nominated this article, and a quick look at the sources about it didn't suggest that it matched the concept described in this article. Since you mentioned it, I read Sutherland's Comm. ACM paper, and it's clear that Sutherland's concept is about logic and circuit design, whereas the one described in this article is about computer organization/processor microarchitecture. A quick Google Scholar search suggests that Sutherland's concept is notable (as you said), with 1,775 citations. In my experience, Google Scholar is sometimes unreliable (for example, it can list many duplicates, but the ACM Guide of Computing Literature says it has 223 citations. Whether 223 citations satisfies Wikipedia's notability guidelines is a matter I'll leave for others to debate. If somebody is willing to replace the current article with Sutherland's micropipeline concept, I'll be happy to withdraw my nomination if that's acceptable Wikipedia practice. 99Electrons (talk) 07:02, 11 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

weak delete I think that the idea of a micropipeline article is somewhat notable, however the current text does not meet wp guidelines. Given that the subject could be incorporated into an existing article such as Instruction pipelining I can't support a standalone page that lacks a clearly defined focus. The term is somewhat archaic. It was historically used in a very specific context but has more recently been used in a more casual and inconsistent manner as reflected in the current article. I don't see a pressing need to focus attention on this topic and it doesn't appear (few edits in 7 years) that other contributors are willing to address the shortcomings of this page. I support deletion if no one is willing to address the issues with the page. --mikeu ^talk 13:42, 11 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Article is a completely unsourced microstub that has been tagged since 2012. It fails WP:V. -Ad Orientem (talk) 01:36, 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 no consensus. Ad Orientem (talk) 01:39, 13 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Thyra von Westernhagen[edit]

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

Notability concerns - does not appear to be the subject of substantial coverage. References mention her in the context of her husband. Having a title of nobility does not automatically make one notable for the purposes of Wikipedia. power~enwiki (π, ν) 22:13, 18 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Germany-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 23:18, 18 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 23:18, 18 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Notability isn't inherited by marriage. I do wonder whether the author may need more time as this is a relatively new article? On what there is now, it's a straightforward delete. W C M_email 12:11, 19 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
- I am searching for more sources in German and French. -- Willthacheerleader18 (talk) 17:23, 22 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:GNG. Wikipedia is not a genealogical database. Colin M (talk) 02:13, 21 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, no in-depth coverage of the person, just a list of genealogical facts. —Kusma (t·c) 11:03, 21 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep or draftify. Poorly referenced but notable by virtue of her rank. Deb (talk) 13:07, 21 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

WP:INVALIDBIO notability isn't inherited by marriage. She must be notable in her own right. W C M_email 13:18, 21 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I know what the rules say, but I don't agree with your interpretation. Deb (talk) 13:31, 21 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Lol an inherited now-meaningless rank does not automatically give notability. Reywas92^Talk 20:53, 21 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
- "Now meaningless rank"? Wikipedia has many articles on members of formerly sovereign families. -- Willthacheerleader18 (talk) 17:22, 22 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  - Yes, absolutely. Those other members still have multiple substantive independent reliable sources about them. There is not automatic notability for being nobility. Reywas92^Talk 20:37, 22 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep subject is a prominent landowner in Germany and a senior member of a Germanic-British royal house through marriage. She is the daughter-in-law of the former Head of the House of Hanover. -- Willthacheerleader18 (talk) 17:22, 22 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
- Wow, simply owning land makes you notable now?! Where is this land and what is on it? Do they live in a castle? Hell, none of the sources even assert that she, rather than her husband, owns any of this land! Her husband appears to be more notable for running a publishing house and writing books, rather than owning land, though it's somewhat weak too. Notability through marriage is NOT automatically inherited. All of the sources are passing mentions of generic biographical stats about her marriage and having had children, nothing to be gleamed about her life. Redirect to Prince Heinrich of Hanover, sources provide nothing about her independent of the marriage to him. Reywas92^Talk 20:37, 22 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
- @Willthacheerleader18: I could not see any mention of being a land owner in the references you gave. I find it strange that biographical facts about Thyra (like what she studied and where) are not mentioned, but trivial things like whose weddings she attended are. I do not think the lawsuit against Desiree Nick is sufficient to establish notability. —Kusma (t·c) 17:01, 25 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep agree with user Willthacheerleader18 and she is a senior member of a Germanic-British royal house by marriage. Hninthuzar (talk) 11:28, 25 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
- Unclear what makes one a "senior member"; appears to have no official duties but merely WP:INHERITED a title. Can you point to the guideline that makes any member of a royal house automatically notable, regardless of substantive sources? Reywas92^Talk 20:08, 25 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  - Comment documenting her notability as a member of two prominent European families, one by birth - the "House of Westernhagen", one by marriage the "House of Hanover". Hninthuzar (talk) 04:23, 28 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) 01:31, 26 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Notability is not inherited... not even for royalty. Trillfendi (talk) 02:33, 26 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Royalty is notable. Xxanthippe (talk) 03:05, 26 February 2019 (UTC).[reply]
Keep I read through the article, I think royalty holds a certain amount of notability and is very well recorded. She is a Princess of the Blood via marriage, which makes her a high ranking member of the House of Hanover and royalty is almost always notable. That's not WP:NOTINHERITED, that's membership of a group which makes its members implicitly notable. PopaMedaw (talk) 09:08, 26 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I do not find any significant coverage, apart from genealogical (eg Debrett's Peerage), or in connection with her step-son's mother. I voted to Keep the article about Princess Christina Margarethe of Hesse because there has been significant coverage of her - no doubt because of her relationship to Prince Philip, but anyway a reason for authors and journalists write articles or sections of books about her. For Thyra von Westernhagen, I have not found any news items apart short notices of her marriage, and mentions in relation to her stepson's mother, and nothing in books. So although she is related by marriage to the British royal family, and holds the title of Princess, it seems that she hasn't been considered significant enough to write about. If there is coverage in sources I'm not aware of, then she might well qualify for a WP article, but without that, she does not meet any notability guidelines. (Someone mentioned this AfD in the AfD for Jeanne-Françoise de Coeme, Lady of Lucé and Bonnétable, but while it seems entirely reasonable to find fewer sources for someone who lived in the 16th century, but for someone born in 1973, one would expect to find a lot more.) RebeccaGreen (talk) 09:42, 26 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. Willthacheerleader18 (talk) 13:05, 26 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment As far as I’m concerned, anyone who wasn’t born royalty has inherited notability via who they marry, until they estabilish their own. She hasn’t done that. Trillfendi (talk) 23:14, 26 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
To be fair, she may not have been born into a royal house but she was born into a noble house (the House of Westernhagen is much older than the House of Hanover). -- Willthacheerleader18 (talk) 02:30, 27 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The Westernhagens trace their male-line back no earlier than to the 1100s, whereas the House of Hanover, aka the House of Guelph (Welf), extends back in the female line to the first known Welf, who was Count in Linzgau from 842 AD. His descendant and heiress, Kunigunde Welf, wed Azzo II of Este, Margrave of Milan in c.1030, being himself a male-line descendant of Adalberto Obergtenghi who already held the Margraviate of Liguria in 950 AD. Azzo's descendants divided the dynasty's vast possessions into German and Italian realms. The present House of Hanover is the German branch, which reigned within and post-Holy Roman Empire as dukes, prince-electors and then kings until 1918. The wife of the current head of the Hanovers, Princess Caroline, was the heiress presumptive of the Principality of Monaco until the birth in 2014 of legitimate children to her brother, Prince Albert II. By contrast, the Westernhagens, although certainly Uradel, never rose above the minor German nobility, not even attaining the lowest title of baron, and they never exercised sovereignty. The historical significance of the two families is not even remotely comparable. If Thyra is "notable", that status derives entirely from her marriage into the House of Hanover, whose doings continue to be documented in reliable sources because of their historical significance, vast wealth and royal descent. Until the late 1960s, her marriage to the heir would have been deemed morganatic by the Hanovers' house rules. FactStraight (talk) 04:11, 27 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I am aware, but thank you for the history lesson. As I stated, the House of Hanover, as its own independent house, is younger. I did not say that it made them inferior (and there is really no reason to mention the House of Grimaldi in a conversation about the age of the House of Hanover). I also am aware that her family is of the minor nobility, hence her not having a title at birth (in the German system baron is not the lowest title, as Edler and Ritter are both hereditary titles conferring nobility that are lower ranked). All I was saying is that she is from an established, noble family. I did not say I believe that makes her notable, but was clarifying she wasn't of "common" birth, which was seeming to be implied. -- Willthacheerleader18 (talk) 04:28, 27 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

There are no hereditary titles in Germany. Georg Friedrich, Prince of Prussia has no title, but the last name "Prinz von Preußen". The only special thing about families with names of this type is that the last name changes with gender, and his daughter's last name is "Prinzessin von Preußen". "Hereditary titles conferring nobility" have been a fiction for almost 100 years now. —Kusma (t·c) 10:15, 27 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment documenting her notability as a member of two prominent European families, one by birth - the "House of Westernhagen", one by marriage the "House of Hanover". Hninthuzar (talk) 04:24, 28 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. From the above, notable in her own right.--Ipigott (talk) 12:03, 4 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 07:02, 5 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per above as a member of two different European royal houses. Ejgreen77 (talk) 03:33, 8 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
- Statement is a false misunderstanding. The van Westernhagen family is nobility, not royalty. This is an argument based purely on inheritance and there are not substantive sources about her. The German WP article on the family de:Westernhagen (Adelsgeschlecht) does not even recognize her as a notable member. Reywas92^Talk 07:52, 9 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per above, This article needs time and attention, not deletion. "KoKoChitChit" (talk) 15:01, 9 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. IMHO, Royalty are always notable. Bearian (talk) 23:47, 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. 78.26 _{(spin me / revolutions)} 15:30, 12 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Tia Cherie Polite[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

I nominated this several months ago, was a no consensus due to lack of participation, and just noticed this again. She fails WP:ENT and WP:FILMMAKER and she still fails WP:GNG - no secondary independent coverage of her from anything that isn't a blog. SportingFlyer T·C 06:29, 5 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 06:43, 5 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Washington, D.C.-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 06:44, 5 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 06:44, 5 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Maryland-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 06:49, 5 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Africa-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 06:50, 5 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete No reliable sources found for the subject, nothing on GNEWS or GBOOKS that might show a little coverage towards her notability. I have seen a list of awards of which are all local awards not even covered by media. Doesn't meet WP:FILMMAKER. Lapablo (talk) 10:22, 5 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete fails WP:GNG. Hninthuzar (talk) 11:37, 5 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I'm not seeing anything to show WP:GNG is met and there's no indication on meeting the notability criteria for performers or filmmakers. I thought being the subject of a short documentary, The Journey of Tia might help show notability, but it's just a short documentary about her made by her partner--nothing that shows WP notability. Papaursa (talk) 00:36, 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 07:14, 12 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Manfredi Aliquò[edit]

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

An Italian voice actor. No coverage other than lists of roles found. None of his film roles appear prominent enough to meet WP:ENT. power~enwiki (π, ν) 20:17, 18 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 23:24, 18 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 23:24, 18 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Italy-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 23:24, 18 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, DannyS712 (talk) 00:06, 26 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sheldybett (talk) 06:23, 5 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. Issues with content should be discussed on the talk page -- Patar knight - ^chat/_{contributions} 23:52, 12 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Yazdânism[edit]

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

violation to WP:NOR and OR by Mehrdad Izady Kaiduo (talk) 04:31, 5 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Iran-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 05:57, 5 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Religion-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 05:57, 5 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment can the nominator please explain how this is OR? The article provides abundant sources, some scholarly, to demonstrate the notability of the theory. The creator of the article did not engage in OR, they wrote a properly-referenced article about a novel theory. Mccapra (talk) 06:37, 5 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Comment the article is about a WP:FRINGE theory, which I think is pretty clear when you read it. Plenty of editors have worked on this over the years but if the consensus is that it’s still unbalanced, it’s not difficult to make further edits to emphasise this, and perhaps fill out more detail about critical reception. But it’s certainly not OR. Mccapra (talk) 07:00, 5 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Of course it‘s violation to WP:NOR and also violation to WP:NPOV. This article is a POV and theory by Mehrdad Izady. In the one-sided sources in which the imaginary name "Yazdânism" occurs are not available.—Kaiduo (talk) 12:24, 5 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Comment ok I see that this article has lots of sources that don’t actually make any reference to the theory of Yazdanism so the creator seems to be trying to give the impression of scholarly authority when the sources cited don’t support it. Nevertheless I think this topic is notable, not least because it is referred to on the website of the Kurdistan Regional Government, so it’s reasonable to think that users will search for this term. In addition there are sources for this theory here, here, here, here and here so I don’t think that just deleting it is the right answer. It should maybe go back to a stub, stripping out most of the current content but making use of the third party sources I’ve found. I’d be happy to work on that. Mccapra (talk) 21:24, 5 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Comment The article is pure POV. Not all Yazidis, Alevis and Kaka‘i (Ahl-e Haqq or Yarsan) identify themselves as ethnic Kurds. There are Yazidis who identify themselves as a distinct ethno-religious group. There are Alevis of Kurdish, Turkish and Zaza origin, and also Alevis who identify themselves as a distinct ethno-religious group. There are Kaka‘i who also speak Arabic as their mother language. The article is a term establishment and religious nationalism by some people to define a pan-Kurdish history with several religious groups belonging to one „Kurdish“ religion. There are also attempts by Kurdish nationalists to define a pan-Kurdish language with several dialects. This is Kurdification. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kaiduo (talk • contribs) 02:40, 6 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Comment well this is obviously a contentious area. The kurdification article looks like worse POV to me because it assembles unrelated events over many centuries and tries to work them into an alleged overall process. Mccapra (talk) 04:26, 6 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. The article needs work, and much of the current content needs to be cut. However the theory of Yazdanism, albeit fringe, is notable and ought to be covered in the encyclopaedia. The fact that some people have strong views opposing the theory is not a reason to delete the article. Mccapra (talk) 04:26, 6 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I think Wikipedia space is not an area to manipulate the historically and globally accepted subjects. This article is POV and OR. Yazidis, Alevis and Yarsans do not use the term „Yazdânism“ in history or in their religion.—Kaiduo (talk) 16:27, 6 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - The article needs work, since the theory of Yazdanism which is a CULT OF ANGELS, is notable and ought to be covered in the encyclopaedia. I'm confidence to keep it, but currently content is weak. - MA Javadi (talk) 13:43, 8 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Clearly notable topic and suitable in WP. Question marks over the content but it is not at a WP:TNT stage. Britishfinance (talk) 13:32, 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 merge to Bazar de la Charité#Fire of 1897. Limited to the notable victims. This seems to be the solution acceptable to the most people here. Sandstein 09:09, 12 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

List of victims of the Bazar de la Charité fire[edit]

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

Delete per WP:CSC. I had previously redirected this to Bazar de la Charité#Fire of 1897, where the only two notable victims are mentioned, but the redirection was reverted. UnitedStatesian (talk) 13:55, 25 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists of people-related deletion discussions. Bakazaka (talk) 18:01, 25 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. Bakazaka (talk) 18:01, 25 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. Bakazaka (talk) 18:01, 25 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of France-related deletion discussions. Bakazaka (talk) 18:01, 25 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. On my reading this pretty conclusively meets WP:CSC's description of a list that functions as an "avenue for the retention of encyclopedic information that does not warrant separate articles", in particular the rubric of "created explicitly because most or all of the listed items do not warrant independent articles". Sourcing to four different newspapers and two books (which could easily be expanded by anyone with access to a French research library) shows that the list as such is notable even if most individual items are not. It is certainly not among the sorts of lists deprecated by CSC as "a directory, repository of links, or means of promotion, and ... indiscriminate lists" --Andreas Philopater (talk) 18:13, 25 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Wikipedia isn't a memorial site. Only notable names should be mentioned and that can be done so on the parent article. Ajf773 (talk) 18:50, 25 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
- Bear in mind that "the retention of encyclopedic information that does not warrant separate articles" is explicitly given as a reason for a stand-alone list in the relevant guideline. And it's not because this is a list of people who died in a fire that it's a memorial of them. --Andreas Philopater (talk) 18:57, 25 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
- There is nothing inherently unencyclopedic about a list of victims of a notable disaster. The Encyclopedia Britannica, for instance, printed a list of the people who died when the Titanic sank. -208.81.148.195 (talk) 22:25, 25 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Keep - A number of additional victims are encyclopedic, in spite of not yet having an article. These include fr:Camille Moreau-Nélaton, fr:Gustave-Joseph Munier, and Hélène Bernard-Dutreil, and significant "indirect" deaths include fr:Léon de Poilloüe de Saint Mars and Henri d'Orléans, Duke of Aumale. The list as a list has been the subject of reliable sources. The lack of detailed sources as well as the excessive length of the list may suggest the list is less encyclopedic (and is the reason I'm voting weak), but I do not find those issues overwhelming. To me, the list is encyclopedic and doesn't fail OR or NPOV. The article is weak on sources, but sources are plentiful. A list of victims and short biography of many can be found in chapter 4 of Jules Huret, La Catastrophe du Bazar de la Charité (4 mai 1897) [archive], Paris, F. Juven, 189?, p 52. Smmurphy^(Talk) 18:54, 25 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
- Thanks for the support. I'm hoping you might drop the "weak" when considering that the list is much shorter than that at Passengers of the RMS Titanic, and that there are plenty of French sources, it just being a question of access to them. --Andreas Philopater (talk) 09:50, 27 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  - I don't think the policies support considering relative merits at articles for discussion against other articles. I understand that others disagree with that idea and WP:OUTCOMES is a policy supplement which implies the opposite of this view. I agree that relative merits arguments can help expose biases in peoples !voting. I also acknowledge that I may occasionally make such arguments. That said, I do not intend to be making one here. Long lists, especially those with limited sourcing and non-encyclopedic inclusion criteria, are often deleted not because they fail to meet our policies and guidelines strictly applied, but because they are aesthetically poor and do not strike readers as having encyclopedic merit (in short, I think aesthetics/taste is a more important factor at AfDs than some like to admit). This article is about a group of people who happen to have a few things in common, making this arguably a form of "list of X who are Y". I think that many members of "high society" who are on this list are likely encyclopedic in-spite of not yet having articles (that is, a concerted effort utilizing French society pages from the era could be made to create articles for many of these individuals). Their co-occurent deaths are notable and covered at the page on the Bazar. I tend to think that their co-membership in a certain type of society in late 1800s France is also encyclopedic, and I don't have any problem with creating a list article related to their presence at a particularly important and historic event especially one which led to their deaths (so I do not think this is a "list of X who are Y"). Given these concerns, I hesitate to strongly support keeping without being shown some interest and effort by someone to improve the page - either a full WP:HEY or at least a proof of concept for a WP:HEY. So you may read my weak as encouragement to make the article more expressive about why the individuals were present and possibly to make it less exhaustive in listing as many deaths as possible regardless of sourcing and of the encyclopedic value of including their name (see WP:LISTPEOPLE and WP:FLCR - this article has no lede, is poorly sourced, includes mostly subjects with no shown encyclopedic merit, gives no detail on their commonalities and variances relative to the rest of the list, etc). I understand this partially is in conflict with WP:AFDISNOTCLEANUP, but in practice it is hard to !vote keep on articles with weak claims to encyclopedic merit and with no hope for improvement; a significant cleanup is a good way to illustrate that there is good hope for future improvement and ideally to better show the encyclopedic merit of the subject. Smmurphy^(Talk) 19:05, 27 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Bazar de la Charité, but only notable victims. This isn't on a par with the Titanic passengers. Clarityfiend (talk) 20:10, 25 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
- Really? Seems like a textbook WP:NOTPAPER situation to me, as long as the information is sourced and verifiable... -208.81.148.195 (talk) 14:53, 26 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
- Not "on a par with" but certainly comparable to. This fire was a pretty big deal in French social and cultural history (as well as the history of forensics). --Andreas Philopater (talk) 09:42, 27 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete (at worst merge to Bazar de la Charité#Fire of 1897) -- That article has an external link to a series of lists. It was certainly a terrible disaster, but that does not make the individual victims notable. I could only see one person with her own bluelink. Her death should certainly be noted in the main article. Peterkingiron (talk) 17:11, 27 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
- Peterkingiron, there are actually two bluelinks but, as Smmurphy has noted above, there could easily be several more. That aside, the premise that each member of the list should be notable does not correspond to the relevant guideline (WP:CSC) which specifies the exact contrary: that one of the accepted purposes of a stand-alone list is to provide an overview of individuals who are collectively notable but not individually notable enough for stand-alone articles. I hope this clarification will lead you to reconsider your view. --Andreas Philopater (talk) 18:16, 27 February 2019 (UTC) I would also add that the lists that we link to are none of them strongly sourced and mostly provide a list of names (some misspelled or inaccurately OCRed) with none of the accompanying detail available on the list here. --Andreas Philopater (talk) 18:21, 27 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  - I stand corrected, but it does not change my vote. There are websites that list the 9-11 victims, but I do not think that justifies a WP article. Peterkingiron (talk) 16:11, 3 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    - Nor have I suggested that they should, Peterkingiron. You said "That article has an external link to a series of lists" as though that was a reason not to have a list here. I'm simply pointing out that we have a sound list, and the links you mention are to poor lists. Far from their existence justifying this list, their poorness means that a link to them is no substitute for this list. --22:41, 5 March 2019 (UTC)
Keep as meeting the criteria of a list in WP:CSC, as noted by Andreas Philopater. If not kept as a separate article, I would suggest that it could be incorporated into Bazar de la Charité#Fire of 1897, which is not overly long. RebeccaGreen (talk) 11:35, 4 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Delete The issue of lists of non-notable victims of WP:EVENTs has been a source of endless controversy and debate. The community is deeply divided on the appropriateness of these kinds of lists either in stand alone lists or within articles about the EVENT. Several attempts have been made to clarify our guidelines on the subject and all have failed with proponents of retaining such lists arguing they should be resolved on a case by case basis. I believe such lists are inherently un-encyclopedic and contrary to at least the spirit of NOTMEMORIAL and the letter of NOTEVERYTHING and INDISCRIMINATE. -Ad Orientem (talk) 00:48, 5 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
- Ad Orientem, it would be helpful if you could specify which words of NOTEVERYTHING and INDISCRIMINATE you take this to contravene. I've already had to explain that CSC, given in the deletion rationale, actually says the opposite of what its citation there suggests. --Andreas Philopater (talk) 22:41, 5 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 02:52, 5 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Merge the notable deaths into the parent article and delete the rest of the article. We don't include lists of victims per WP:NOTMEMORIAL and considering the short length of the article would be an improper fork anyways. Some of the information on the non-notable victims may itself be salvageable SportingFlyer T·C 06:34, 5 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I also want to mention this fails WP:CSC, as "short, complete lists of every item that is verifiably a member of the group" mentions being under 32k (which this passes) but also useful or interesting to readers (i.e., for navigation reasons.) A majority of these entries simply list the name and age of the victim without providing useful navigation. Whether it's interesting I guess would be up to each user to decide on an individual basis, but WP:NOTMEMORIAL to me seems helpful in identifying it's not useful. If a complete list would include "hundreds" of entries - 126 in this list - then the scope should be limited to only those notable victims. The proper place for this would be on the main page of the fire, including only the blue linked entries. SportingFlyer T·C 22:56, 5 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

This is already a complete list of 126 items (well short of "hundreds") and is, you say, under 32k. To me, the fact that more than one biographical compilation on the victims has been published in print (and a memorial to them has been built in Paris, Notre-Dame de Consolation) suggests that the victims collectively and by name pass the general notability guideline. --Andreas Philopater (talk) 23:07, 5 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Absolutely disagree with you, sorry. A memorial built to victims does not make the list of victims notable. It's possible every victim may be notable if there have been multiple biographical works published on them, but even assuming the list passes WP:GNG, that guideline is still trumped by WP:NOT. SportingFlyer T·C 23:46, 5 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

It's helpful if you actually answer the point being made, namely that a memorial and several independent publications list the victims, making the list of victims notable (not the individual victims; but the individual items on a list need not each be notable, as per WP:CSC). You cite WP:NOT, but WP:NOTPAPER is a more relevant part of that than WP:NOTMEMORIAL: this is not an attempt to preserve the memory of people who would otherwise be forgotten, because there are already a church in Paris and several independent publications already dedicated to preserving that memory. You, and others above, citing "notmemorial", are going against the spirit of that very policy by reading "not the place to memorialize deceased friends, relatives, acquaintances, or others" to mean we should avoid any mention of the deaths of non-notable individuals even when their deaths are notable. When 126 people die in a disaster and those 126 people are lastingly memorialised in newspapers, books and monuments, a list of those 126 people is hardly at odds with Wikipedia's notability requirements. I can't help thinking a lot of the responses here are led by a feeling that "I've never heard of it, so it can't be that notable", rather than a consideration of the enormous impact of this particular disaster in France. --Andreas Philopater (talk) 10:22, 9 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I feel as if I did answer the point being made already. I'd also like to note that based on a review of the List of victims category, the only article we have which might include victims who aren't otherwise notable is the Passengers on the RMS Titanic article, which is not presented purely as a list of victims. Even (for the sake of argument) if WP:NOTMEMORIAL doesn't apply here WP:NOTDIRECTORY would. We do not or should not just blindly reprint victim lists, especially because there are many disasters with published victim lists and memorials. SportingFlyer T·C 18:04, 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 08:29, 12 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Alreja[edit]

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

After extensively searching online for significant coverage in independent, reliable sources on this group of people by all six of the names listed (Alreja, Alrenja, Alrenga, Aneja, Talreja, Taneja), I then tried book source searches for sources meeting the same threshold (Alreja, Alrenja, Alrenga, Aneja, Talreja, Taneja) and nothing which suggests meeting the general notability guideline came up. SITH (talk) 12:44, 24 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Ethnic groups-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 13:05, 24 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 13:05, 24 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete – fails WP:GNG. I tagged it for notability in 2016, as I couldn't find even a passing mention of it in any reliable source. Nothing has changed since, and I am unable to find any passing mention even today. BTW, for caste/clan related articles, we use those sources which comply with WP:HISTRS. - NitinMlk (talk) 20:49, 28 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 02:32, 5 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nomination. Mccapra (talk) 06:45, 5 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete It doesn't have enough reliable sources --at least based on my research!-- Moreover, this article has not mentioned any reference to support it. Ali Ahwazi (talk) 07:45, 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 and redirect to Chaldal.com. Sandstein 09:07, 12 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Zia Ashraf[edit]

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

Fails WP:BASIC or WP:ANYBIO. The Prothom Alo article was written by the subject himself, both articles on Corporate News and Bhorer Kagoj are identical to each other so I suspect that was corporate promotion. Most of the sources, I found on the web are talking about his e-commerce site. ~ Nahid ^Talk 02:22, 5 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. ~SS49~ {talk} 02:31, 5 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. ~SS49~ {talk} 02:31, 5 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bangladesh-related deletion discussions. ~SS49~ {talk} 02:31, 5 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Seems like cheaply written (short) WP:VANITY spam referenced with low quality sources. You can pay to get a promo feature in such outlets, but it is not enough for us. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 05:06, 5 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Comment This page was previously redirected with Chaldal.com. So it can be again redirect with Chaldal.com article. Roman talk 06:04, 5 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. --আফতাবুজ্জামান (talk) 19:41, 8 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Instead of removal It is better to redirect the article with Chaldal.com again. Shafi Azim talk 21:04, 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 redirect to List of online encyclopedias. Yes, it doesn't currently fit there, so either the target page's scope needs to be expanded, or another redirect target found, or failing that the redirect can be RfD'ed. Sandstein 09:06, 12 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Ulitzer[edit]

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

Topic lacks multiple reliable independent sources. The site seems to have stopped adding content in 2012 so it was short-lived and not notable. Mccapra (talk) 00:51, 18 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 01:21, 18 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I started this article, in 2009, all subsequent edits were made by others. I am going to question the nominations assertion the site was "short-lived". Eric S. Raymond's author page says he started editing there in 2003. So, even in the nomination is correct that the site stopped adding new material in 2012, that would still be a decade or so. Geo Swan (talk) 03:26, 18 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Maybe we need a list of failed wikipedia-killers? Google's Gnol was also supposed to be a wikipedia-killer. It stopped accepting new content in 2012, which Mccapra asserts Ulitzer stopped accepting new content. Under what conditions would it make sense to keep the article on Gnol, and delete the article on Ulitzer? Geo Swan (talk) 04:17, 18 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
List of online encyclopedias--Epiphyllumlover (talk) 01:52, 19 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
redirect to List of online encyclopedias Geo Swan (talk) 02:49, 20 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to List of online encyclopedias, don't see notability on its own. Reywas92^Talk 22:46, 21 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: List of online encyclopedias's inclusion criteria is restricted to independently notable encyclopedias (with their own articles)—other options?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, czar 03:39, 25 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Ulitzer may have been an encyclopaedia at one time but from its surviving zombie website it doesn’t seem to have been one at the end of its life, more a kind of blog aggregator. Mccapra (talk) 06:55, 4 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ad Orientem (talk) 01:36, 5 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. 78.26 _{(spin me / revolutions)} 15:28, 12 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Erin Dean[edit]

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

She has only had one significant role, not the multiple ones required by our guidelines for actor notability. We also have absolutely no reliable sources, and a google search brings up none John Pack Lambert (talk) 01:20, 18 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2019 February 18. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 01:46, 18 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Washington-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 02:47, 18 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 02:47, 18 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 02:48, 18 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 02:48, 18 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Draft move to draft space as has potential with two leading roles in the TV series The Journey of Allen Strange and the film Lovers Lane (1999 film) but needs good references for mainspace, thanks Atlantic306 (talk) 20:11, 18 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sheldybett (talk) 05:00, 25 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) 01:35, 5 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep with a rewrite. Supporting actress in Lolita and a few tv series as well as lead roles in The Journey of Allen Strange and Lovers Lane. The nominating editor mentioned no google results, may I suggest using DuckDuckGo, quite a few results show up there.

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

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

The result was no consensus defaulting to keep and w/o prejudice to a future renomination. Ad Orientem (talk) 01:47, 13 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Biswajit Mohapatra[edit]

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

BLP1E - appeared on a season of Odia-language Pop Idol and all coverage is of that show. power~enwiki (π, ν) 18:36, 18 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Icewhiz (talk) 18:43, 18 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. Icewhiz (talk) 18:43, 18 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Icewhiz (talk) 18:43, 18 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete This man is only known for a single event. ―Susmuffin ^Talk 21:42, 18 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep He is a playback singer also,sang many Ollywood songs.I am inserting some reliable citations,please be patient.Ishwar^Talk 22:47, 18 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Sir, Indian Idol is not a regional language show,it is national level show and Hindi is India's national language .

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 12:15, 25 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment please overlook the article thoroughly,it is expanded now.I think it does not fall on WP:ONEEVENT and WP:BLP1E now.I have provided reliable sources from leading newspapers in India for every prose and list.Ishwar^Talk 06:28, 2 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ad Orientem (talk) 01:35, 5 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 defaulting to keep and w/o prejudice to a future renomination. Ad Orientem (talk) 01:48, 13 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Barry Brown (attorney)[edit]

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

BLP:1E person is not notable except for connection with closing a college. HouseOfChange (talk) 16:00, 18 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Massachusetts-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 18:02, 18 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Law-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 18:02, 18 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Merge with Mount Ida College. All of Brown's coverage has been solely due to his role in the closing of Mt. Ida College, and this should probably warrant either a merge or redirect. Gilded Snail (talk) 19:35, 18 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Comment; I became aware of this via Wikipedia:WikiProject Deletion sorting/Law from my interest in law-related articles. From that aspect, I don't see notability of an attorney. However, it looks like to the extent there is a claim of notability, it's not actually as an attorney, but as an academic: president of Mount Ida College and interim president of Suffolk University. I don't really dabble in notability of academics, but it would look like he may meet WP:NACADEMIC criterion no. 6 -- The person has held a highest-level elected or appointed administrative post at a major academic institution or major academic society. -- depending on whether Mount Ida College is considered a "major academic institution" and whether an "interim president" is considered a "highest-level ... appointed administrative post".

I'm not going to take a Keep/Delete position, since, as I said, I don't usually enter into discussions of notability of academics. I'm just throwing that out there. TJRC (talk) 20:00, 18 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 12:16, 25 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. Bakazaka (talk) 18:07, 25 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: This is the bio of PRESIDENT of a college, who CLOSED IT DOWN!! How common is that??? Yet it is not on the academic sort list. Plus if students were left stranded, there must be more media coverage. NB the page views. Johnbod (talk) 20:57, 2 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ad Orientem (talk) 01:34, 5 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. J 947 ^{^{^(c)}}, at 03:42, 5 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per WP:ACADEMIC#6 as the president of Mount Ida College.Thsmi002 (talk) 17:34, 5 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Thsmi002: Quoting WP:ACADEMIC#6: "The person has held a highest-level elected or appointed administrative post at a major academic institution or major academic society." Mt. Ida does not rise to the level of "major." HouseOfChange (talk) 19:55, 5 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I'd have to agree with that. But actually arranginmg to close your college down is highly unusual, and notable. I'm sure somone who can be bothered to research (not me, or anyone here) can find sufficient coverage for gng. Johnbod (talk) 21:49, 5 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 09:02, 12 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Barry and the Penetrators[edit]

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

This article appears to fail WP:NBAND. Band's discography was mainly self-released, the only reference present in the article is obviously not independent of the subject and I was unable to find significant coverage in independent reliable sources for it to clear WP:GNG. RetiredDuke (talk) 00:25, 5 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 02:15, 5 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of New Jersey-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 02:15, 5 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: fails WP:GNG and WP:BAND. No reliable independent sources found, and I can't find any indication that they headlined a major gig, just performing as support act to bigger names when they toured New Jersey. Gigs since 2015 seem to be extremely sporadic, suggesting that the band is no longer a priority. Virtually the entire text is WP:COPYVIO from the band's own website, anyway [15] and therefore should be deleted as soon as possible. Richard3120 (talk) 18:24, 5 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete (even though article has been up for 7 years). Violates WP policies by just being cut and paste text from their website. Overtly promotional. ShelbyMarion (talk) 00:57, 6 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete as per ShelbyMarion, it is a WP:COPYVIO--Rusf10 (talk) 03:43, 6 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Reduce to a stub until someone with an account at Newspapers.com can provide sources (search). - NorthPark1417 (talk) 11:54, 6 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

That's a blog, so it can't be used for the article – so how are you going to create a stub with no reliable sources? Richard3120 (talk) 16:21, 6 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

If you want someone to check Newspapers.com (I suspect all 300 hits are gig listings), try one of these editors: Category:Wikipedians who have access to Newspapers.com. Richard3120 (talk) 19:06, 6 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete- I agree this should be deleted. Fails GNG. I searched the Google database for mentions in the "News" and "Books (Magazine)". I only found two sources that only mention the band but it is not enough to place on the article. They don't have significant coverage on their music other than store links. Horizonlove (talk) 09:50, 8 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. Sandstein 09:02, 12 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Christopher Forgues[edit]

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

Non-notable musician/artist; lacks significant coverage in independent reliable sources, failing WP:ENT / WP:GNG. The provided sources are either brief descriptions of the subject's work or interviews on blogs, not significant coverage of the subject in reliable sources. Puff Viceland interview does not satisfy GNG. -- Wikipedical (talk) 15:27, 18 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Artists-related deletion discussions. Bakazaka (talk) 15:33, 18 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Bakazaka (talk) 15:33, 18 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Comics and animation-related deletion discussions. Bakazaka (talk) 15:33, 18 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Rhode Island-related deletion discussions. Bakazaka (talk) 15:33, 18 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

~~Weak Delete~~ - Did a search and found a few things, but not quite enough to meet ENT/GNG. Here's what I found, FWIW: short review in PW, short review in PW, CBR review, paragraph in a Paste list, interview in The Hooded Utilitarian (appears to be a group blog), Comicsreporter, Vice, and a few lines in this book. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 21:16, 18 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Update: The sources found by Gilded Snail, in addition to the ones I linked, bring me to somewhere between neutral and weak keeping. Regardless, striking my earlier delete. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 23:51, 9 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 18:03, 25 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) 00:23, 5 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Found some decent references, which I have added to the article. It seems to me that C.F. meets GNG (perhaps barely), but part of the issue here is in finding reliable sources for a person with about 12 different aliases and who is mostly active in underground scenes. Gilded Snail (talk) 18:53, 6 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per WP:HEY, work by Gilded Snail. Bearian (talk) 23:41, 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 redirect to Sattvic diet. Content can be merged from history if desired. Sandstein 09:01, 12 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Incompatible foods in Ayurveda[edit]

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

All sources are WP:FRINGE advocacy. I'm struggling to find any reality-based analysis of this nonsense. Guy (Help!) 22:15, 25 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Food and drink-related deletion discussions. Bakazaka (talk) 22:23, 25 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Health and fitness-related deletion discussions. Bakazaka (talk) 22:23, 25 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nomination. Mccapra (talk) 23:25, 25 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, moving content to Ayurveda, as a section, IF properly sourced. AHampton (talk) 03:03, 26 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Hinduism-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 13:24, 26 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to Sattvic diet, or possibly Ayurveda; makes a nice subsection, and sources #1 and #2 are good as far as "objective" coverage of religious practices goes. It's not as if we don't cover religion-based views about food... --Elmidae (talk · contribs) 15:46, 26 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) 00:09, 5 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to Sattvic diet. - Wiki-uk (talk) 10:13, 6 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.