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

The result was delete. -- RoySmith (talk) 01:14, 23 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

State transition algorithm[edit]

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

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

All the concerns from the first deletion Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/State_transition_algorithm (by Ruud Koot) still apply, in particular WP:GNG HelpUsStopSpam (talk) 22:26, 15 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Mathematics-related deletion discussions. Ceethekreator (talk) 23:38, 15 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete All the same attendant problems as before. scope_creep^Talk 11:27, 16 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, possibly speedily if it's just a recreation of the page that went before (can somebody check?). This is one of those cases where the title sounds like it's referring to something much more general than what the article is actually talking about, so the article is essentially squatting on a title. XOR'easter (talk) 21:34, 16 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • The draft created in December 2017 is essentially the same as the version that was deleted from the AfD in August 2016. You can see the changes since then, but they appear more or less cosmetic (cleaning up badly worded text without adding actual new content) to me. —David Eppstein (talk) 01:07, 17 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, possible G4 speedy (see above). I don't see any reason to change the decision from the first AfD. None of this content would be useful for a proper article on state transition algorithms. And although the original work on which this is based has a moderately high number of citations (70 on Google scholar) many of them are self-citations and I strongly suspect many of the others are low-quality cites based on the title rather than the content of the cited paper. —David Eppstein (talk) 01:10, 17 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 14:10, 22 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Math Genie[edit]

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

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

Subject lacks notability and is only mentioned in passing in reliable sources. Meatsgains^(talk) 22:22, 15 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete the article because it's not notable itself. It's look like the goal of article is commercial and advertising, too.Forest90 (talk) 23:05, 15 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as per above. HelpUsStopSpam (talk) 23:10, 15 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. Ceethekreator (talk) 23:35, 15 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Ceethekreator (talk) 23:35, 15 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. Ceethekreator (talk) 23:35, 15 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of New Jersey-related deletion discussions. Ceethekreator (talk) 23:35, 15 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Speedy delete as advertising. DGG ( talk ) 16:40, 16 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Non-notable local math tutoring business. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 16:51, 16 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Speedy delete as advertising. The fact that it's not notable is also true but irrelevant in the evidence of unmitigated advertising. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 01:25, 17 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Notwithstanding any issues with WP:NORG and WP:GNG, the article meets the criteria speedy for deletion WP:G11. (In that it was clearly created for promotional purposes and would need to be fundamentally rewritten to conform with NPOV and NOTPROMO guidelines). Guliolopez (talk) 02:29, 19 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, Fails WP:GNG and WP:NORG Alex-h (talk) 07:34, 21 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete and I'd say speedily but let's just kill two birds with one stone. It's not notable and it's spam. I'm also pretty sure this is a recreation of a previously AFD'd article but am unsure of the exact title. Praxidicae (talk) 19:27, 21 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, why not just speedy delete this? It seems a prime A7 candidate as well as G11? Praxidicae (talk) 19:37, 21 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. No valid deletion reason given in nomination and the only delete !vote doesn't really give a valid policy based argument as there are sources given in the article. (non-admin closure) Dusti^{*Let's talk!*} 06:02, 22 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Turkey slap[edit]

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

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

DELETeNNN Her Catharsis (talk) 23:04, 15 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment Please use the ((subst:afd2)) template when initiating AfD discussions. –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 23:16, 15 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, I'm a bit rubbish at all this. Not entirely sure of the correct proceudres. Her Catharsis (talk) 23:18, 15 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 23:41, 15 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sexuality and gender-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 23:41, 15 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment - The reasons for the nomination? --John B123 (talk) 16:39, 16 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Cos it should be deleteted Her Catharsis (talk) 17:39, 16 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

You need to be more specific than that. --John B123 (talk) 18:38, 16 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Thjis article! Turkey salp! Her Catharsis (talk) 18:55, 16 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Last attempt - We know which article you are referring to, but need to know why you think it should be deleted. --John B123 (talk) 19:03, 16 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Id id already. NNN Her Catharsis (talk) 19:07, 16 May 2019 (UTC)]][reply]

Delete due to paucity of reliable sources. Mango Mapes (talk) 19:17, 16 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Why isnt this deleeted yet? I shall do it myseflHer Catharsis (talk) 00:57, 18 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy keep. Vexatious nomination by blocked user. Lard Almighty (talk) 08:00, 18 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• keep weird article, but even the nomination doesn’t give a reason to delete and I’m not seeing one. Newcastlepanic (talk) 10:49, 21 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Improper deletion nomination with no rationale. In addition the nominator is indefinitely blocked. GNG subject with mainstream appearance on network tv and in secondary references. Lubbad85 (☎) 19:55, 21 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. -- RoySmith (talk) 01:15, 23 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Nathaniel Hone (cricketer, born 1847)[edit]

Nathaniel Hone (cricketer, born 1847) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

DePRODed without a reason given. I originally PRODed as the player in question played no first-class cricket and is a minor footnote in Irish cricket. He made 9 minor appearances for Ireland. Precedence is set by the deletion of three relatives who also played minor matches, with William (first-class cricketer) and Leland (Test cricketer) remaining - however, having a notable relative doesn't imply notability, and the subject fails WP:CRIN. StickyWicket (talk) 21:37, 15 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. StickyWicket (talk) 21:37, 15 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Cricket-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 21:50, 15 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Ireland-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 21:50, 15 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per nom, for want of a suitable list article to merge this into. Reyk _YO! 07:22, 16 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Now the confusion with a cricketer of pretty much the same name has been removed, it's clear this fails WP:CRIN. Johnlp (talk) 23:05, 16 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - should never have been deprodded without any form of due diligence - there are no sources which show any hint of notability for this chap, but plenty for his notable namesakes. The deprod is, frankly, ridiculous given that it takes less than two minutes to check the sources. Blue Square Thing (talk) 08:42, 19 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Lack of substantive sources establishing notability. Reywas92^Talk 16:37, 21 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 04:08, 23 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

All for the Game (Series)[edit]

All for the Game (Series) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

Article about a self-published novel series by an author who does not have a biographical article, and not reliably sourced as passing WP:NBOOKS. Two of the three citations here are to the books' directory entries on WorldCat, which are not notability-supporting sources -- and while the other citation is to a real media outlet, that's not enough all by itself. It takes considerably more than just one source to get a topic over WP:GNG, if it's not verifying a hard notability claim like winning a notable literary award -- but the source quantifies the books' "success" in terms of popularity on Smashwords and an Amazon genre chart and GoodReads, rather than a genuinely notability-making bestseller list like The New York Times. And furthermore, this article as written consists almost entirely of in-universe plot detail, rather than any real evidence of real-world context or critical analysis. All of which means that nothing stated here is "inherently" notable enough to exempt the series from having to have much, much more coverage in real media sources than this. Bearcat (talk) 20:58, 15 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. Bearcat (talk) 20:58, 15 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete lacks notabiilty per GNG or any criteria of NBOOK. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 01:52, 17 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment, "an author who does not have a biographical article", not really relevant to whether an author's books are notable, actually i would suggest that WP:NBOOK is easier to achieve (2 or more reviews than WP:AUTHOR (significant/well known books that have been reviewed), so there are numerous wikiarticles on books without author articles (yours truly has created quite a few :)) that said, i am not saying that this series is notable, btw Bearcat luv ya work. Coolabahapple (talk) 02:04, 18 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Well, no, I'm not saying that the author having a biographical article is necessarily a notability criterion that books have to pass per se — that said, the artist having a biographical article is a core condition that an album has to meet to be notable, and I'm not clear on why we should treat books differently than albums in that regard, but I digress. If the book's article isn't making any notability claims at all, however, then the presence or absence of a biographical article about the author is a useful metric by which to gauge the prospect of the book's salvageability. Bearcat (talk) 19:23, 21 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

thanks for explanation, and agree that it is a useful indicator.Coolabahapple (talk) 07:29, 22 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete two of the three references in the article are the books themselves. Best, GPL93 (talk) 19:39, 21 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment Hi everyone. Thanks for your input so far. I am Altinky and this page is my work. If you check out my userpage you'll see that I am a student, and this page is part of an assessment getting a notable article on Wikipedia mainspace. I think I might have jumped the gun a little and moved it to mainspace instead of draft. I do have a significant number of book reviews that satisfy the WP:NBOOK criteria, some of which I have now added to the page and will continue to add as I work on it. Bearcat and others, I'd love your input if there is anything else that would help keep this page up as I think it is sufficiently notable and verifiable. Thanks heaps!--Altinky (talk) 00:50, 22 May 2019 (UTC).[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 04:11, 23 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Richard Ludlow[edit]

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

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

Blatant Promotion for Non notable businessman/musician. Lacks coverage in independent reliable sources. Article is bombarded with multiple sources but none are independent reliable sources with any depth of coverage of the individual. A lot with him speaking about things but not others writing about him. Closest is a local indiscriminate puff piece, look what this local boy is doing type things. 30 under 30 lists are not significant. Awards are not major, HMMAs are not credible. Probable UPE. duffbeerforme (talk) 11:38, 30 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

See also Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Hexany Audio and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Matthew Carl Earl. duffbeerforme (talk) 11:42, 30 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Video games-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 11:45, 30 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 11:46, 30 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 11:46, 30 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 11:46, 30 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep Having scanned the topic via google search, I believe this passes WP:GNG. This is without prejudice to the suspected COI issue. Another volunteer editor without COI tag can further tone down the page to suit WP:NPOV. Having a look at the remaining two related pages as given above.Germcrow (talk) 05:58, 2 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

WP:VAGUEWAVE. Guessing and seems and believing. Not a good way of going about things. How does it pass GNG? duffbeerforme (talk) 01:20, 4 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Weak Keep or Draftify A look at Google reveals another "Richard Ludlow" of Ebor Academy Trust who is indeed notable. For this "Richard Ludlow of Hexany Audio, he is still not there. A case of WP:TOOSOON. I only found these two 3rd party sources 1 and 2.

The rest are interviews from Audio production industry. They include 1, 2, 3, 4 and 5.

Indeed, these sources are not enough. But the current page has issues of refbomb. It requires clean up if it must be kept. Otherwise, I recommend incubating in the draftspace for more reworking. Outright delete is not the best for me. I stated this in other two related pages as well.Benleg4000 (talk) 14:39, 4 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Benleg4000: Isn't the combination of industry sources and general media sources enough? François Robere (talk) 11:03, 8 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Source 1, nerdreactor, quote from Ludlow only, not coverage about him. 2, berklee, PR from berklee about a lecture at berklee, nothing independent there. The rest as stated are interviews with him or his partner, nothing independent there. Note also the repeated use of the same promo photo of Ludlow as used here, pure spam. duffbeerforme (talk) 12:09, 8 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Draftify or Delete First, I don't agree with a Draftify or Keep !vote - the article either passes or fails. The reason for Draftifying is because the article shows promise but does not yet meet the criteria for Keeping. HighKing⁺⁺ 11:20, 7 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete This is what happens when people throw shit at the wall and sees what sticks. None of the sources give notability or are independent yet there was a hell of a lot of original research that went into this. Trillfendi (talk) 22:26, 8 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Soft delete. Their portfolio is noteworthy, and coverage by industry sources, which is typically PR-ish, suggests they're somewhat notable within their industry. However, all of the sources refer to projects that are from 2018 onwards - indeed, their most notable projects (H1Z1, Blade Runner, PUBG) are from last year - suggesting WP:TOOSOON. Another problem is that big productions often involve multiple studios working in tandem on different aspects of the production (eg. character design and character animation), meaning just by the credits listed here we can't discern whether he was the sound producer, or a sound producer, which has implications for WP:NOTABILITY. Unless it can be shown that he was in a key position in each of these notable projects, then we should "soft" delete as "too soon", otherwise "weak keep". In either case the credit list should be trimmed to only include major projects. As for WP:COI and WP:SPS - these issues should be handled separately. François Robere (talk) 11:13, 9 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment: would there be any value in merging this article and Matthew Carl Earl into Hexany Audio? All three are up for deletion, and it's because they each have a couple of reliable sources but no more – as far as I can see Mr. Earl and Mr. Ludlow's notability comes from their company, so perhaps if they were all included in one article which would then have have a dozen reliable sources, there would be a better chance of keeping the verifiable information, instead of deleting all three. Richard3120 (talk) 21:17, 9 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep passes WP:GNG nominated for notable awards and featured in Forbes. Work is represented in mainstream productions. Lubbad85 (☎) 22:14, 9 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

What notable awards? duffbeerforme (talk) 12:23, 16 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep The copy contained content not relevant to the subject's notability. Have done a clean-up and removed some articles that were not relevant at all to make it WP:NPV compliant. The subject has notable references like Forbes and has accomplishments recognized by Forbes 30 under 30 which helps meet WP:GNG for sure. Have trimmed 'Filmography' section to relevant projects only. The film table has positions which I don't understand. Other community editors can contribute to that and improve it. Splice999 (talk) 22:51, 9 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

OK so it's cleaner but you haven't actually said how they are notable. duffbeerforme (talk) 12:23, 16 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep There are significant sources per WP:GNG, here are some that meet that criteria^{[1][2][3][4][5][6][7][8]}. This shows that there are a few independent, reliable, significant, and secondary that seem to meet a minimum threshold for notability (prevoiusly cited). In this particular case WP:COMPOSER apply as well with the numerous credits (and for which purpose for production credits they can be checked via game credits, press mentions, and other verifiable sources.) There simply isn't a glaring, obvious lack of coverage in the sub-genre of "game music" also, and then there are pathways to notability because of the repeated, independent coverage to satisfy WP:NMUSIC as well, "Is frequently covered in publications devoted to a notable music sub-culture", which their music product is, quite clearly, as shown by the citations. The page should be kept so it can be improved (itself a different issue entirely; for example, a source column is often used for audio credits) or added for improvement through Wikipedia:WikiProject Music, but it does meet the criteria of notability.--Nubtrazolacine (talk) 15:59, 10 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Throwing more shit sources against the wall. No new good sources here. You make a vague wave at WP:COMPOSER but don't actually say how he satisfies it. duffbeerforme (talk) 12:23, 16 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment. Yes, there are multiple sources that mention him. Sources like that. My very best wishes (talk) 05:17, 15 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. I am not impressed. No in-depth coverage. Mentions in passing. Few interviews, not all of them about him. Nominated for a few minor awards. Nothing suggest he is encyclopedic (notable). Just someone with an average (maybe a bit better) career in the video game industry. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 03:37, 15 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Weak Keep, I think the main subject is notable, but the Article really need to revise, and find independent reliable sources.Forest90 (talk) 23:11, 15 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Yet another vague wave. duffbeerforme (talk) 12:23, 16 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Merge to Hexany Audio. Honestly, I can't see how Mr. Ludlow is notable outside of the company he founded, and the few good sources about him also talk about his company. Richard3120 (talk) 23:04, 16 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep I definitely feel the subject is notable after achievements like Forbes 30 under 30. As far as the page is concerned, it looks WP:NPV compliant and maintains a neutral tonality. If this is not notable, then I fail to understand how pages like https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nicolai_Belokosov and https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Natus_Ponnie are existing on Wikipedia. Quite a few back links which demonstrates he was part of notable projects. I also see almost every information backed with a citation. I did see some of the citations not helping establish this guys notability, but he has got recognition at Forbes and other platforms. Citations like https://www.berklee.edu/people/hexany-audio should be removed as it is not detailed enough. Overall, looks notable. Page trimming may help further neutralise the tone. Brenthaven (talk) 16:39, 17 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Another newly created account chiming in here. "Achievements" like 30 under 30 do not make people notable and it lacks any depth of coverage about Ludlow. On Belokosov and Ponnie see WP:OTHERSTUFF.

• Comment Here is a closer examination of the currently known sources which establish notability per WP:GNG:

--Nubtrazolacine (talk) 21:05, 17 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

What is about some paid promo pieces on Wikipedia that attracts so many dishonest keep !votes. Undeclared Paid Voting? Let's look at the above. Uses a cherry picked quote from a random editor and falsely represents it as policy. That quote is not policy, it is not even an essay, it's just one persons opinion which is not in step with general consensus. Above also demonstrates dishonesty regarding what is a reliable source and what is independent. Let's look at one. ProSoundEffects. See their about. "Pro Sound Effects® (PSE) develops highly curated sound effects libraries for sound artists, editors, designers, audio engineers, media companies, schools and nonprofits." It's a business selling things, not a reliable source. Let's also look at their client list, on that same page. Amongst those clients is "Hexany Audio" so clearly not "unaffiliated with page subject, Richard Ludlow." duffbeerforme (talk) 09:12, 18 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep I agree, the sources clearly prove this passes the general notability guidelines. Dream Focus 02:30, 19 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Yet another vague wave. duffbeerforme (talk) 21:54, 20 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

How is that vague? Look up at where the sources are listed and information why they are valid. Someone even made a nice box chart to organize it all. You can also click on them, and most links work without having to sign up or anything. Dream Focus 23:36, 20 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The sources? Which sources? Can't mean the one by him because it's by him. Can't mean Berklee and ProSoundEffects as they are affiliated so not independent. Can't mean anything based of that fraudulent table because no one honest would say that table was worth anything. So which sources then and why. Given the amount of discussion given to individual sources just saying "The sources" is a vague wave. duffbeerforme (talk) 03:26, 23 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment: what nobody has demonstrated to me so far is how Mr. Ludlow is independently notable from the company that he founded – all the sources that purport to show notability talk about his work with Hexany Audio, which is why I think his article should be merged there. Richard3120 (talk) 17:13, 21 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Certainly no consensus for deletion; if people think this should be merged somewhere (there is not quite enough support for that here) a dedicated merger discussion can continue on the talk page. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 20:37, 22 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Tri-glide slide[edit]

Tri-glide slide (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

Just because something exists and is useful, doesn't mean it warrants an encyclopedia article, especially when there aren't sufficient sources on which an article can be based. Fails WP:GNG. --Pontificalibus 20:04, 15 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. A fastener that is almost as ubiquitous as humble nuts, bolts and screws. Note this device goes under many other names including tri-glide buckle and 3-bar slider, or just slider. SpinningSpark 22:35, 15 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

There are plenty of ubiquitous things which may be mentioned in a dictionary but which don't have an encyclopedia article. WP:WHYN explains why we need significant coverage in reliable sources in order to have the latter.--Pontificalibus 07:14, 16 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. If these didn’t exist, neither would adjustable bras, harnesses, fanny packs, or anything else that has adjustable straps. Sorry there aren’t more references, but this definitely should be notable. I believe that it may just be something that we have taken for granted and never thought much of since its invention. — Preceding unsigned comment added by SaltySemanticSchmuck (talk • contribs)
• Comment, not exactly in-depth, but these book RS are at least enough to verify most of what is currently in the article: Backpacker, General Repair of Tents, Canvas, and Webbing, Field Guide to Wilderness Medicine, Bare Essentials: Bras. Additionally, this patent, "Firearm sling and method of making", although it says of the tri-glide slider that it is well known and commercially available and will not be described in detail herein actually goes into some detail of its operation. SpinningSpark 14:28, 16 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 01:20, 19 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Merge to Buckle#Types of buckle, not sufficiently notable for a stand-alone page. Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 12:16, 20 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 20:33, 22 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Robert Fucci[edit]

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

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

Doesn't meet WP:NFOOTY (no games in fully-professional leagues) or WP:GNG (my search is not uncovering any significant coverage). Leviv ich 20:00, 15 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Leviv ich 20:00, 15 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. Leviv ich 20:00, 15 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Maryland-related deletion discussions. Leviv ich 20:00, 15 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. Leviv ich 20:00, 15 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Leviv ich 20:02, 15 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - Article about semi-pro footballer who isn't the subject of significant coverage in reliable sources (there appears to be as much coverage of his exploits playing soccer on an amateur firefighter's side than his time with Long Island or Baltimore). Jogurney (talk) 13:34, 16 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Doesn't pass NFOOTY, fails GNG. I'm unable to find much on the soccer player - I did find a professor in Amsterdam, a journalist who writes/photographs about spots in the Millbury Sutton Chronicle ([1]), and a few other individuals with the same name - but I wasn't able to connect any of them to our subject - nor is it clear that any of them passes GNG (or PROF).Icewhiz (talk) 20:09, 16 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - fails WP:GNG and WP:NFOOTBALL. GiantSnowman 11:30, 20 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, Per above, subject does not meet WP:GNG. Alex-h (talk) 07:42, 21 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Tone 19:48, 22 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Party for Animal Welfare (Ireland)[edit]

Party for Animal Welfare (Ireland) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

A political organisation that has not registered as a party, has not put forward any candidates for any elections, has received little to no coverage, and generally falls short of all the related notability guidelines. Specifically, in terms of:

• WP:SIGCOV, all of the news coverage that the group has received is actually linked from the article. Being this piece in a regional paper. Which is more than a little promotional in tone (ending as it does with an invite to click through to the group's EventBrite page). And this piece about an appearance on a non-national radio station. Which is all of three sentences in length.
• WP:NPOL, none of the groups members have held political office. Local, national or otherwise. The article was created in the lead-up to the Irish local and European elections. With a note that the group would be standing candidates in both. But then the group didn't put forward candidates. For either. There are ~2000 candidates standing for ~1000 local council seats, and ~60 candidates standing for ~13 European Parliament seats in the upcoming elections. Many of them, with the greatest of respect, not exactly household names. That this group hasn't put forward even 1 such candidate would suggest a gap between (what the article sets out as) its aspirations and (actual) reality.
• WP:ORGDEPTH, none of the other coverage that I can find covers the organisation in any depth. I can find no academic or book sources, and the only news sources are passing mentions (like this piece in The Journal). This lack of in-depth coverage is probably understandable. Given that this is such a very very new group. Which brings me to the last point...
• WP:TOOSOON, it's just too soon. This article was created before the group had done anything of note. Other than to form as a group. Guliolopez (talk) 18:24, 15 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Ireland-related deletion discussions. Guliolopez (talk) 18:27, 15 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. Guliolopez (talk) 18:27, 15 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Whatever. I give up. EricthePinko (talk) 20:03, 15 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per nom. Not a notable organisation. No significant coverage. Spleodrach (talk) 20:41, 15 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 01:09, 19 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per nom. I also did a quick Google search and found no sources that mentions the party. The sources in the article are mostly primary. The ones that are secondary are not sufficient enough to pass [[WP:GNG]. INeedSupport ^:3 13:08, 22 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Tone 19:48, 22 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Jokūbas Jankauskas[edit]

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

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

Jankauskas may be well known in Kretinga, but none of the sources provided offer more than trivial mentions, and searching for sources I find none that would make an article pass WP:BASIC/WP:GNG. None of the competitions mentioned are sufficient for a pass under WP:ANYBIO. Article was deprodded by creator as is their right, so bringing it here. Sam Sailor 18:25, 15 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Sam Sailor 18:25, 15 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lithuania-related deletion discussions. Sam Sailor 18:25, 15 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 19:38, 15 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 19:38, 15 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Speedy delete per WP:A7 and/or WP:G11. —⁠烏⁠Γ ^(kaw) │ 22:21, 15 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as WP:TOOSOON as still performing at schools and bars and has won minor competitions but needs to become better known in terms of significant coverage in reliable sources Atlantic306 (talk) 21:49, 16 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom. The article rather lacks in neutrality, which of course isn't a reason to delete, but speaks to me that someone close to the subject is trying to promote him well before he's ready for an article here. Nothing here to sustain notability per WP:NMUSICIAN. --Hammersoft (talk) 19:49, 19 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete It does not meet any criteria in WP:MUSICBIO for now. INeedSupport ^:3 15:14, 22 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Tone 19:49, 22 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Jibrandar[edit]

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

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

Non-notable contestant from a reality show. Only "coverage" is about a complaint that something was rigged and nothing substantial. Also worth noting that this should probably be salted as it's a spammy recreation of Jibran Dar. Praxidicae (talk) 18:23, 15 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 19:39, 15 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 19:40, 15 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 19:40, 15 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 19:40, 15 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete.This actor does not appear to meet WP:ACTORBIO. And no sources that discuss the subject directly and in detail. Akhiljaxxn (talk) 02:53, 16 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Tone 19:49, 22 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

LJ Create[edit]

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

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

non-notable company; very little coverage - nothing that can be considered significant; page created and almost all content added by an employee Rayman60 (talk) 18:18, 15 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Rayman60 (talk) 18:18, 15 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. Rayman60 (talk) 18:18, 15 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. Rayman60 (talk) 17:37, 19 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. Rayman60 (talk) 17:37, 19 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete I was originally going to vote draftify, but I see that the author hasn't been active for a year. I think the article has potential, but for now I vote for deletion. There are no sources that are outside the location of the company, thus failing WP:GNG. INeedSupport ^:3 17:31, 21 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Withdrawn by nominator. (non-admin closure) Mhhossein ^talk 12:58, 21 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Samuel Hazo[edit]

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

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

Cannot find coverage of this very prolific composer. Tacyarg (talk) 20:35, 1 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 21:35, 1 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Pennsylvania-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 21:35, 1 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 21:35, 1 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment I have found some coverage, and will add it. The article needs editing and reshaping into the usual sections. Searching for "Samuel Hazo", I found many sources for his father, Samuel John Hazo, so will add those to his article. I presume that this Samuel Hazo gets the shorter version of his name as the article title because the article was started before his father's article, otherwise I can't see why the unquestionably notable father's article is not called Samuel Hazo and the son's Samuel Robert Hazo. RebeccaGreen (talk) 17:23, 6 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak keep - no cited sources so does not meet WP:BASIC, "People are presumed notable if they have received significant coverage in multiple published secondary sources that are reliable, intellectually independent of each other, and independent of the subject" - does not meet WP:COMPOSER, National Band Association awards are not a major music competition - "over four million hits on YouTube" is not "performed in a notable theatre" and does not establish notability - to offset that, his works have been performed by Hartford Symphony Orchestra and VOCE Singers, the Tokyo Kosei Wind Orchestra, the Birmingham Symphonic Winds, the Klavier Wind Project and at the London Summer Olympic Games - notability is questionable, but he seems to be an established composer - conclusion: a weak keep - Epinoia (talk) 04:08, 7 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep as the article has been significantly improved with the addition of many new references to reliable sources coverage so there is no longer an imperative for deletion and the article can be kept Atlantic306 (talk) 22:04, 15 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Just realised that I did not actually state keep! He meets WP:GNG - more work might show that he meets WP:COMPOSER, but I don't have the time to spend on that (or on improving the article, which could certainly use some editing). RebeccaGreen (talk) 09:43, 21 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Withdraw (as nominator). Thank you for improving the article, and I'm sorry I didn't find the sources. I'll do some editing on the article. Tacyarg (talk) 12:11, 21 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 04:16, 23 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

David R. Hawkins[edit]

David R. Hawkins (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

Not one independent RS. Slatersteven (talk) 16:48, 8 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete, no improvement from (how many?) years ago.Slatersteven (talk) 17:12, 8 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Why did this not open up a new AFD?Slatersteven (talk) 17:17, 8 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete, possibly speedily depending on whether the claim to notability is deemed credible. @Slatersteven: The Page Curation tool is regrettably not programmed to handle second and subsequent AfD nominations, so your attempt to nominate using the tool appended to the first discussion and linked to it rather than creating a new one. This is far from the first time I've seen it happen. --Finngall ^talk 20:46, 8 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Someone needs to update the tool then.Slatersteven (talk) 10:24, 13 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep, His work as an author and in the field of Orthomolecular Psychiatry makes him notable. See updates to page. Millandhouse33 (talk) 08:51, 10 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

  Just noting that Millandhouse33 is the page creator. -- Netoholic @ 01:14, 11 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. KCVelaga (talk) 06:00, 9 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Wisconsin-related deletion discussions. KCVelaga (talk) 06:00, 9 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Speedy delete. No indication of importance. --Tataral (talk) 19:11, 9 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. His book "Power vs Force" does seem to be reasonably well known and influential. See for example [2], [3], [4], [5]. Polyharrisson (talk) 04:12, 10 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Ironically that means (not sure its true) that his book is notable, not him.Slatersteven (talk) 08:44, 10 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I would support making the article about the book instead of him.Polyharrisson (talk) 11:25, 10 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I think there are now sufficnent grounds for a page about the man. Millandhouse33 (talk) 11:44, 10 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I would strongly suggest that you reconsider this course. Sources for the book are likely to be as unreliable (WP:FRINGE) as for the author. -- Netoholic @ 01:16, 11 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

That is an assumption, but I am none to impressed so far with the sources provided.Slatersteven (talk) 10:25, 13 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per nom. Speedy delete per WP:G4 unless someone can show where recreation was discussed ahead of time. -- Netoholic @ 01:14, 11 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

G4 does not apply here as this page is not an identical copy or substantially identical to a previous one. Millandhouse33 (talk) 14:54, 11 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Didn't meet notability standards the first two times, still doesn't now. While his book may meet notability standards I'm still not entirely sure. best, GPL93 (talk) 18:35, 11 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep- I’m sorry, I’m feeling a little confused here. I hear the !votes for deletion saying the book meets the guidelines for meeting notability and inclusion here at Wikipedia, but the author of the book does not. Is it only me, but is there a certain disconnect there. If not for the author there is no book and viscera without out a book there cannot be an author. If one is notable, both are notable. Again, just my thoughts, thanks for listening. ShoesssS ^Talk 18:57, 15 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Yes there is, it is also true, (see The Death Guard, the novel is notable, the author is not.).Slatersteven (talk) 09:28, 16 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

This sounds like WP:INHERITED, Shoessss. How do you reconcile your position with our guidelines on the matter? 142.160.89.97 (talk) 04:10, 18 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete and salt. He's been deleted twice, and nothing has changed since the last deletion. And while it may seem confusing to some, it is possible for a book to be notable, and yet not the author. Just like it's possible for a film to be notable, and the star (or director, or screenwriter) of that film not be notable, if that is their only notable work. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 23:40, 18 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 00:08, 19 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

books and films are different. Films have a diffuse responsibility--normally the director is considered chiefly responsible, but insome case it might be the star or the screenwriter, etc...The only potentially notable person in connection with a book is usually the author -- though in this instance there are two authors, and WorldCat describes them as just editors: " "edited by David Hawkins and Linus Pauling." DGG ( talk ) 01:09, 19 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Worldcat clearly lists Hawkins as the author of Orthomolecular psychiatry Millandhouse33 (talk) 07:42, 22 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment, according to the article some of Hawkin's books are bestsellers, is this correct? only a couple are held by libraries in any numbers ie. Orthomolecular Psychiatry (this was jointly authored by Linus Pauling hence the high number?) in around 440 libraries, Letting Go in 150 libraries, editors may say he ticks the 1st part of no. 3 of WP:AUTHOR (works well known), but where are the reviews in reliable sources? btw, The Skeptic's Dictionary does have a quite a large piece on him (here). Coolabahapple (talk) 01:04, 19 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I was unable to confirm"best-seller" --at least, I was able to determine that none of his books was on a New York Times bestseller list, which is the usual standard. DGG ( talk ) 04:36, 19 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Further to the libraries comment, Power vs Force is in 560 libraries, that site doesn't include Korea where he has sold the most copies. Millandhouse33 (talk) 22:04, 19 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

apologies for not including PvF library nos.Coolabahapple (talk) 23:59, 19 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete when a person is listed as "editor" of a book, their relationship to the work is complex. Clearly it is not a sign of notability and we clearly lack sourcing that shows that Hawkins is notable.John Pack Lambert (talk) 21:53, 19 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hawkins is listed as author of the books mentioned, not the editor as this comment suggests. Millandhouse33 (talk) 22:04, 19 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep This noted author and psychologist has been repeatedly targeted be the GSoW (Guerrilla Skeptics on Wikipedia) for years - now again. Whether your beliefs align with his or not, he is a notable author and his books are still being published after his death. There are no grounds for deletion here, other than the 'it was deleted before' circular logic. That should tell you something - he still keeps coming up after his death for a reason - because 'HE IS NOTABLE'. There is also the well-developed German Language Wikipedia entry for Hawkins which has never been deleted. You should look into that (it is also targeted by the Guerrilla Skeptics movement). And just for good measure, he was interviewed by Oprah Winfrey for his best-selling book, so at least she found him 'notable' for his work. Go do the research.Iconoclast.Horizon (talk) 02:56, 22 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

There is also a Korean page about him.

A coordinated attack would certainly explain the completely false reasons given for deletion, eg people below falsely claiming he is the editor not the author of his books, false claims that page is identical to a previous one. Millandhouse33 (talk)

You will find that a lot, with hundreds of entries that the GSoW wish to purge from Wikipedia. Even a case where a well-known alternative author was consulted and he himself gave his birth information only to be told by the deletionists working his entry that he was not a reliable enough source to obtain that information from - he was told he was not credible enough to give his own birthdate -simple tactic to add more suspicion about the validity of the entry. Just be aware of what you are dealing with for the longevity of this article. Best. Iconoclast.Horizon (talk) 16:21, 22 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

- this is an issue that comes up frequently on Wikipedia:Help desk where people ask for personal information in articles to be changed - Wikipedia depends on published secondary sources and people are not always reliable sources about themselves - it does not only affect alternative authors and is not a means of targeting, it's following guidelines - Epinoia (talk) 00:45, 23 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was merge to GCTools. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 04:27, 23 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

GCconnex[edit]

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

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

A governments generic internal platform isn't notable, as is the case here. Praxidicae (talk) 14:56, 8 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• The irony here is that all of these articles — GCconnex (AfD discussion), GCpedia (AfD discussion), and GCcollab (AfD discussion) — all start with a sentence of the form "X is a GCtools platform" and it is GCtools, which we do not have an article about, that is the actually notable thing, having (for just one example) 10 pages devoted to it in Clarke 2019, pp. 131 et seq. harvnb error: no target: CITEREFClarke2019 (help). I like to think that were we doing this properly, we'd have an article at GCtools and all of these would redirect to it. Uncle G (talk) 15:34, 8 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Clarke, Amanda (2019). Opening the Government of Canada: The Federal Bureaucracy in the Digital Age. UBC Press. ISBN 9780774836951.

Uncle G I have some concerns that a book written in 2019 can establish notability for articles that have been rotting for a decade and I am more concerned that the mention in the book is circular and taken from WP as opposed to a random independent publisher seeking out the information themselves. Praxidicae (talk) 16:44, 8 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

UBC Press is an academic publisher, so there's no actual prospect of the book representing circular referencing — the quality of the writing in these articles would never pass muster in a piece of academic literature, an academic publisher would never let a footnote that cited Wikipedia through the editorial process without demanding changes, and it's hard to see how an academic writer could even extract ten pages worth of content out of what little substance or depth our articles about these topics actually contain. Bearcat (talk) 20:58, 8 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 16:27, 8 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 16:29, 8 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Merge with GCpedia and GCcollab into a larger omnibus article on GCtools. I agree that we don't really need separate articles about each individual component of it, but between the UBC book and the additional sources that have been proffered in the GCpedia deletion discussion, we've got enough sources to render a keepable article about the overall thing. Bearcat (talk) 21:03, 8 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Merge with GCpedia and GCcollab. Significant overlap. The combination of the three articles meets WP:GNG. — Newslinger talk 18:58, 16 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was merge to GCTools. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 04:27, 23 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

GCpedia[edit]

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

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

Totally non-notable private wiki. How has this page managed to survive for ten years? — RHaworth (talk · contribs) 14:41, 8 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete it's not notable. Praxidicae (talk) 14:45, 8 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. Ceethekreator (talk) 14:51, 8 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. Ceethekreator (talk) 14:51, 8 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. Ceethekreator (talk) 14:51, 8 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• See commentary in Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/GCconnex. Uncle G (talk) 15:34, 8 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Meets WP:NWEB per coverage here, here, here, and here, as well as in the following books: [6] [7] IntoThinAir (talk) 19:09, 8 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge with GCconnex and GCcollab into a larger omnibus article on GCtools. I agree that we don't really need separate articles about each individual component of it, but between the sources listed here and the the UBC book that was proffered in the GCconnex discussion, we've got enough sources to render a keepable article about the overall thing. Bearcat (talk) 21:00, 8 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Merge with GCcollab and GCconnex. Significant overlap. The combination of the three articles meets WP:GNG. — Newslinger talk 18:58, 16 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was soft delete. WP:REFUND applies. Spartaz ^Humbug! 05:26, 23 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The Mostar Diving Club[edit]

The Mostar Diving Club (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

This article makes no attempt to assert the band's notability or give a coherent timeline, and not much more than the sources already given can be found. The one footnoted reference is a record company promo. The external link from Broadway World is a fairly descriptive intro but serves mostly as a gig announcement, and their album "Here Comes Joy" received a couple of brief reviews ([8], [9]). Otherwise only the typical routine listings can be found. It might be too soon for this band. ---DOOMSDAYER520 (Talk|Contribs) 14:40, 8 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. ---DOOMSDAYER520 (Talk|Contribs) 14:41, 8 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. Ceethekreator (talk) 14:54, 8 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. Ceethekreator (talk) 14:54, 8 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. The points you raise are very well-taken! I had created the stub article hoping others would jump in, but only a few new contributions have rolled in. I have added a basic timeline, mentions of their music appearing in film and prominent commercials, and provided a richer set of references to support the content in this entry. I hope this goes some way towards resolving the concerns raised. Thank you for flagging this once again. Fanyavizuri (talk) 16:57, 10 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete I appreciate the initial editor's enthusiasm, but unfortunately the sources provided don't pass muster. Sources added since this article was first nominated include more citations to the same music blog previously cited: forfolkssake.com, to IMDb (unreliable), and [10] which does not look like reliable secondary source coverage. I would also add that Rough Trade is a record label and the content cited there does not include a byline, leading me to suspect that it is less a review and rather a promotional blurb from a source that is trying to sell you the album. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 21:23, 11 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was merge to GCTools. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 04:27, 23 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

GCcollab[edit]

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

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

Theroadislong thinks this is spam. Certainly, I think it is non-notable. — RHaworth (talk · contribs) 14:37, 8 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete I think it's both. Spam and not notable. Praxidicae (talk) 14:38, 8 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• See commentary in Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/GCconnex. Uncle G (talk) 15:34, 8 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge with GCpedia and GCconnex into a larger omnibus article on GCtools. I agree that we don't really need separate articles about each individual component of it, but between the sources that have been proffered in the other deletion discussions, we've got enough references to render a keepable article about the overall thing. Bearcat (talk) 21:20, 8 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. Bearcat (talk) 21:23, 8 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. KCVelaga (talk) 06:01, 9 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. KCVelaga (talk) 06:01, 9 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I made the updates to all the 3 of the pages, and I agree with the previous proposition to merge with GCpedia and GCconnex into a larger omnibus article on GCTools. I'm fairly new to wikipedia editing and I tried creating a GCTools page and it got flagged for speedy deletion, for understandable reasons. I've caught up on the guidelines and would be able to contribute more effectively on the merged "GCTools page"

Jason.Henri (talk) 13:45, 9 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Merge with GCpedia and GCconnex. Significant overlap. The combination of the three articles meets WP:GNG. — Newslinger talk 22:01, 11 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Malcolmxl5 (talk) 08:34, 22 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Ben Canham[edit]

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

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

Non notable individual. Wikipedia is not a tabloid. duffbeerforme (talk) 12:28, 8 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Paranormal-related deletion discussions. ...William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 13:11, 8 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. ...William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 13:11, 8 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The individual is obviously notable, else why would the article have been approved by an administrator after being nominated for speedy deletion. The references given satisfy WP:GNG. Qualitee123 (talk) 21:47, 8 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Promotional article - when the External links out number the citations that is a red flag. The BBC is the best source, but really how is he notable? How does he stand out amongst the rest of the paranormal investigators? He collects dolls that he says are creepy, his parents died when he was a teenager and he says he feels them around him ... and? If this is all you got then it isn't even close to being enough to prove notability. Sgerbic (talk) 06:11, 10 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete fringe theorists require quality sourcing, not just fly by night spur of the moment coverage, we lack the latter here.John Pack Lambert (talk) 19:11, 11 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - has enough refs to reliable independent sources to satisfy WP:GNG and WP:BASIC - Epinoia (talk) 00:16, 13 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Speedy delete per WP:A7. —⁠烏⁠Γ ^(kaw) │ 21:59, 13 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - definitley WP:PROMO, potential WP:G11. Kirbanzo ^{(userpage - talk - contribs)} 19:16, 15 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Passes WP:GNG. Subject has substantial recognition in numerous reliable sources. Qualitee123 (talk) 21:48, 15 May 2019 (UTC) You can only vote once. Best, GPL93 (talk) 02:02, 17 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete This is a WP:BLP1E situation at best. Best, GPL93 (talk) 02:02, 17 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - as WP:PROMO and not GNG. Lubbad85 (☎) 14:53, 19 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect to List of hazing deaths in the Philippines. Randykitty (talk) 10:35, 23 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Horacio Castillo III[edit]

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

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

BLP1e. Non notable student who had no coverage asides from that one event. (BLP guidelines apply to the recently deceased.) duffbeerforme (talk) 12:23, 8 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. ...William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 13:12, 8 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Philippines-related deletion discussions. ...William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 13:12, 8 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment. Perhaps the article should be moved to Death of Horacio Castillo III or Hazing death of Horacio Castillo III. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 13:28, 8 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Speedy keep and rename to Hazing death of Horacio Castillo III, The subject's death is notable in regards to the debate regard hazing rituals of greek letter organizations in the Philippines (even the existence of such groups itself) and widely covered by the national media while the subject/victim himself has no notability outside the incident.Hariboneagle927 (talk) 23:18, 9 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect to List of hazing deaths in the Philippines - while his death is tragic, it is one event WP:BIO1E - not notable if "reliable sources cover the person only in the context of a single event" - his name appears in the List of hazing deaths in the Philippines, so redirect there - not notable enough for a stand-alone article - Epinoia (talk) 00:00, 13 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Rewrite as Death of Horacio Castillo III. --Bluemask (talk) 09:23, 14 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Question for those suggesting a move/rewrite. Is the news event itself notable? duffbeerforme (talk) 12:25, 16 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Redirect per Epinoia Spartaz ^Humbug! 05:28, 23 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. I'd much rather more discussion before closing however this has already been relisted twice and with the comments all being on the keep side of the fence, I don't see a reason to relist this a third time and keep this discussion open. With there being so little conversation on this, I have no problem with a speedy relist. (non-admin closure) Dusti^{*Let's talk!*} 06:07, 22 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Stephen Dau[edit]

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

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

Can't find coverage other than reviews. If not delete, possibly merge to the article about his novel? Tacyarg (talk) 20:29, 1 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Pennsylvania-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 20:31, 1 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Belgium-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 20:32, 1 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Photography-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 20:32, 1 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 20:32, 1 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• 'Keep I added an article from the Pittsburgh Post-Gazette that includes a few bio details. He may not be recluse on the level of J.D.Salinger, but he appears not to have given a single interview despite the awards and praise heaped on his first novel. The page predates the novel by several years, and older versions include material since removed [11]. He's certainly young enough to produce more books in the future. And if he ever decides to give interviews, there will be journals eager to publish them. I think we should keep it, it really was an extremely notable first novel, which does make him notable.E.M.Gregory (talk) 00:37, 2 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Weak Keep One notable book. That makes it borderline, but it is at least a straightforward non-promotional article. The article could be about the book, but, as E.M.Gregory says, it's better about the author, who might write more books. DGG ( talk ) 01:03, 19 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep per E.M.Gregory remarks. WP:NOTPAPER Lubbad85 (☎) 17:08, 19 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Spartaz ^Humbug! 05:29, 23 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Michelle Buswell[edit]

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

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

"But... but... but...the Fashion Model Directory!" No. That BLP sources improve template has stood there for over 9 years unaddressed. It’s not even up for debate at this point. Trillfendi (talk) 23:09, 1 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 04:20, 2 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Florida-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 04:20, 2 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fashion-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 04:21, 2 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Texas-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 04:21, 2 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Ohio-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 04:21, 2 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Missouri-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 04:22, 2 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - not shown to be notable for stand alone article. Trivial bio. Kierzek (talk) 13:21, 2 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Well, it is up for debate, or it wouldn't be here at AfD. The Le Figaro article has all the info about her that's in the biography para (and as it was published in 2013, it was obviously added after the 2010 BLP sources tag, but the tag was just not removed). There are sources verifying that she has modelled for the brands named in the career section - and others, too. I have added some sources and info; more could be added. She meets WP:NMODEL. RebeccaGreen (talk) 19:02, 6 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• keep meets WP:GNG she has been featured in major fashion magazines such as Vogue. It is easy to find many sources which show notoriety so WP:BEFORE. A notable model belongs on Wikipedia Lubbad85 (☎) 02:01, 9 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment I don’t see how a bunch of slideshow images or “look what we found in the forums!” from the Fashion Spot blog do anything at all to contribute to notability. Trillfendi (talk) 02:10, 9 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete The only source with substantial information is Figaro; It is, as expected ,an enthusiastic promotional interview with the magazine's comment in extravagent terms. I was suprised to see the NYT, especially as it did not give a usable ref--I found and added the link. Its not about her--it's a general story about backstage at a fashion show, and she's among the people there (she does get the first 2 paras of a long article, but no photo) ElNorte is a single photograph in an inside page. The others are either a collection of pictures, or documentation that she was a model in one picture in one magazine. DGG ( talk ) 01:01, 19 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Spartaz ^Humbug! 05:31, 23 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Bijay Lama[edit]

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

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

The notability of the subject can not be established. Bulk of the article is a list of events the subject has managed (I guess!?) (is that wikipedia material?) which references self published, archived from dead, web link. The other reference links are no good either. Many editors seem to confuse (even Google knowledge panel) this subject with the notable wikipedia subject Capt. Vijay Lama and add information about him into this article. I have reverted those edits but I don't think this article should exist at all. Probably a case of TOOSOON, doesn't look as though the subject has simply been a victim of overshadowing by his more notable namesake. Usedtobecool (talk) 21:37, 30 April 2019 (UTC) Usedtobecool (talk) 21:45, 30 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Ceethekreator (talk) 00:35, 1 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. Ceethekreator (talk) 00:35, 1 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Asia-related deletion discussions. Ceethekreator (talk) 00:35, 1 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Nepal-related deletion discussions. Usedtobecool (talk) 12:42, 2 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Hi, thanks for clearing this up. There's still some confusion as the article on Truck Driver links to Bijay, if you can check the what links here. Also, is Catmandu and the produced film listed for Bijay correct ? Atlantic306 (talk) 16:09, 1 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, thanks for pointing that out. Yes, the actor in Truck Driver (1994 film) was definitely the Captain Vijaya Lama (viewed the source itself), also Muna Madan (2003 film) (the Captain is on the movie poster in the article). And I have also removed wikilink from the Malaysia at the 2014 Asian Games (I don't think any actor participated in that, and there is no source linked there that says otherwise). I did not check other pages (user pages and the like). I will now look for all the information on Bijay Lama. Perhaps there's some video interviews where he can be identified. Catmandu was a real TV series that was quite popular. It cast all new faces that disappeared after the show was over. And it was pre-internet. So, fingers crossed! Usedtobecool (talk) 04:04, 2 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The source Nepalitimes (#5 on current version) has credible information on Catmandu but doesn't mention any Bijay Lama. Aago 2 trailer (#6) credits one "Bijay(a) Lama" (could be Vijay(a) Lama) as executive producer. No way to tell who that is. Could be anyone with some money and/or knowhow. Song from the same movie (#8) mentions one Bijay Lama as producer. Catmandu episode(s02e52) (#10) (actually just watched it myself) credits one Bijay Lama as the character Nawang. I do remember that character from back in the day. That means Bijay Lama is indeed an actor who played Nawang in Catmandu. Therefore, I can now say with some confidence that Bijay Lama is indeed an actor (Catmandu being his only work most probably) and a much younger one than Vijaya Lama. The singing (#2 on creator's version) is another mistake. There is another singer Bijay Lama, active since 1995, who is quite successful in the folk genre. That is who that is about. Interestingly, the event is in the list of events from this subject. So, my guess is, this Bijay Lama managed the event featuring a different singer Bijay Lama.

Final Clarification and recommendations: We have three people:
1.Captain Vijaya Lama an actor since 1984 and airlines pilot born in the 60's and the subject of the article wikilinked in this sentence who is referred to as having lended voice to the Guinness record-holder song as per the article and a credible news source that it references, therefore officially a singer too.
2.Bijay Lama, an actor who definitely played Nawang in 2002-3 tv serial "Catmandu" who probably is an event manager as per the self-published dead webpage referenced in the article and probably did produce the 2015 movie Aago 2 as well (someone named Bijay Lama certainly did).
3.Bijay Lama, a professional folk singer, active since 1995, born 1979 according to one source, is quite notable and probably deserves a wikipedia page of his own.
Therefore, Vijaya Lama should stay and be improved. Bijay Lama isn't notable enough to stay but if it stays it should be moved to Bijay Lama (actor) unless we want a wikipedia page about an event manager, listing events managed. Bijay Lama (singer) is a bit of a notable singer and deserves a wikipedia page which should be created in the near future. Bijay Lama should be a disambiguation page to disambiguate Vijaya, Bijay (actor) and Bijay (singer) if/when they all exist. For now, it should redirect to Vijaya Lama. It should be redirected to Vijaya Lama because it seems most people that stumbled on to this page were looking for him, and many editors added information about him to this page.
Source of confusion: The sanskrit word Vijaya, meaning victory, becomes Vijay in India and many Indian Languages. In Nepal, it can have one of the four forms: Vijay, Vijaya, Bijaya, Bijay. Therefore, most people use spelling as per their own standards. In this case, everyone looking for Vijaya Lama finds Bijay Lama and most tabloids just copy wikipedia text and google photos, producing pages about Vijaya Lama with his picture and text from this article which was (probably still is) a mashup of three different people's bio. Usedtobecool (talk) 10:05, 2 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Nothing out there at all that I could find, and I assume that if there are better sources in Nepali/etc. media, they'd be here. All sources appear to be crap -- the first one I clicked on didn't seem to mention the subject at all, youtube, crowdsourced. --valereee (talk) 18:40, 17 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Usedtobecool Wow, that is really a mess. Several of the citations seem to be for a singer, is that the other Bijay Lama you're talking about? I'm thinking we should just remove those, if you can tell which ones are which. --valereee (talk) 18:48, 17 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Re: Valereee Hi, thanks for looking into it. There's probably tons that could be done. I just didn't want to put any more work into an article which I think will be deleted. But I could check each and keep/remove if you think that's the right thing to do. Usedtobecool (talk) 19:01, 17 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Usedtobecool, the only reason I suggest it is that it would help other editors to see what sources aren't actually sources for this person. It's not strictly necessary, but it could be what is causing editors to click here, see the mess, not want to spend the time investigating, and move on instead of !voting. --valereee (talk) 19:05, 17 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Re: Valereee I have removed irrelevant links. Of the links that remain, Reference #1 is permanent dead (no idea what that had), #2 is his personal website, also dead, but has his pictures for positive identification, and the list of events that's been copy-pasted into this article, #3 and #4 are youtube videos and have hardcoded producer credits for him in the videos themselves, #5 and #6 are youtube links to TV episodes he appears in (end credits credit him). I don't think any of them meet wikipedia standards. Were it up to me, I'd delete them all and nominate the page for speedy deletion, just seemed a bit too extreme/bold(?) at the time. Usedtobecool (talk) 19:25, 17 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Usedtobecool, yeah, I kind of hate to see removal of all sourcing, then CSD. We may believe it's clearly non-notable, but that's not a CSD. You might have been able to WP:PROD it as the creator hasn't edited in four years, but AfD is probably the best choice. I think that now you've clarified issues/removed irrelevant sourcing, there'll be some decision for this relisting. WP:NORUSH! --valereee (talk) 21:54, 17 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I suggested that Usedtobecool (via Teahouse) have this article moved to their draftspace to work on it instead of deleting it This is because the potential of becoming a article exists. Best Regards, Barbara ✐✉

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. Spartaz ^Humbug! 05:31, 23 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

This World Won't Break[edit]

This World Won't Break (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

Completely unreferenced article about a film, whose only discernible notability claim is that it received a local filmmaking award at the film festival in the filmmaker's hometown. The notability test for films requires some evidence of media coverage (critical reviews, etc.), and every film festival award that exists does not always confer an automatic exemption from actually having to have any media coverage. As well, this article was created by an editor whose username matches the name of one of the film's editors, so this is conflict of interest editing. Wikipedia, as always, is not a free PR platform for emerging filmmakers to publicize their own work: reliable sources, independent of the film's own marketing efforts, have to tell us whether the film has cleared a notability bar or not. Bearcat (talk) 17:14, 15 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. Bearcat (talk) 17:14, 15 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per nom. Invalid^OS (talk) 18:10, 15 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment When I NPPed the page I did some Googling to decide if I should tag it or speedy it & I DID find some local and regional press coverage. I was hoping tagging it would inspire the creator to add it. I don't know if what's there is enough to meet WP:GNG and there are still obvious WP:PROMO issues, but I will add some links later for a little better context on it it MIGHT be salvageable. JamesG5 (talk) 01:18, 16 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Spartaz ^Humbug! 05:34, 23 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Omarius Hines[edit]

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

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

Hines is a non-notable college athlete that never made it to the NFL. He fails WP:GRIDIRON, as never played in the NFL. Thus we must fall to his college career. During his college career, he only caught a total of 64 passes for 801 yards over three seasons. Thus, he fails WP:NCOLLATH, as the coverage of him in various sources is prototypical of any college athlete trying to make the NFL. Thus, we must fall to WP:GNG to see if he is notable enough for inclusion. All of the coverage of Hines in the article is transactional in nature or common coverage of college athletes attempting to enter a professional league. As such, I believe he is not notable enough for inclusion. « Gonzo fan2007 (talk) @ 16:33, 15 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of American football-related deletion discussions. « Gonzo fan2007 (talk) @ 16:33, 15 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 17:18, 15 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Florida-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 17:19, 15 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Texas-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 17:19, 15 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• @Gonzo fan2007: Did you actually review the sources cited in the article as required by WP:BEFORE to assure yourself that they do not constitute significant coverage? Cbl62 (talk) 17:04, 15 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Yes, as I have a Newspapers.com account. We've had these discussions before Cbl62 on similar articles. I think it just comes down to an honest disagreement between how you and I define "significant coverage". I don't view profile articles during the time that a player is trying to make the NFL (especially when all the articles are written in just a 3 month span) to be significant coverage. « Gonzo fan2007 (talk) @ 17:27, 15 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    • In my opinion, it looks like Hines got some buzz at the beginning of his senior year, which is common. But he never had sustained, significant coverage. This becomes even more apparent as we move farther away from the end of his college career and the recentism of his playing days is lessened. « Gonzo fan2007 (talk) @ 17:34, 15 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, the coverage spans three 11 years and five multiple distinct sources. Also it is interesting that you claim to have read the sources on Newspapers.com since most of them are not even available there. Cbl62 (talk) 05:48, 16 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Cbl62, I obviously could not review the sources that you added that are not accessible online (how could I?). I merely pointed out that my access to Newspapers.com provides me a little more access than the normal user to some of the articles that are referenced in the article. Also, WP:BEFORE is not a policy or guideline; it's an information/instruction page. Even if it was a policy, how could I possibly review sources that aren't accessible to me...? « Gonzo fan2007 (talk) @ 16:05, 16 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

A suggestion: If you do not have access to and have not reviewed the source material, do not make the affirmative assertion that "all of the coverage" in the article is "prototypical" or "common". (That statement suggested that you had, in fact, reviewed "all of the coverage" in the article, when you had not.) Maybe also consider not nominating articles for AfD where you do not have access to the cited sources. Cbl62 (talk) 17:46, 16 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Your point is moot, as you obviously knew I did not have access to all the articles. Again, WP:BEFORE is not a policy. I reviewed all the material I was able to review and made a determination about what was available. That was my affirmative assertion and I am sorry it wasn't clearer. The inclusion of poorly formatted, non-inline citations that are inaccessible to most users should not preclude an AFD. All users are able to review the article and make a determination of its merits. I don't understand the point of your suggestion, other than to badger the nominator (to be clear, not accusing you, just expressing how it is being perceived on my part). The discussion is progressing just fine and it isn't a snow keep, so there seems to be some justifiable disagreement and benefit to having this overall deletion discussion. « Gonzo fan2007 (talk) @ 20:36, 16 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with Cbl62 on this one--the statement in the nomination "All of the coverage of Hines in the article is..." claims that "all" the coverage in the article has been reviewed, when it is later stated that it has not been reviewed. No one else can "know" what anyone does or does not have access to offline. The point of the suggestion is a request to avoid making AFD nominations without first completing a little research to avoid unnecessary work and a disruptive environment. Sure, you can do it anyway--and you can also be asked not to do it. But I'm going to add Wikipedia:Read the source and WP:DONTLIE and please in the future do not say "all of the coverage of _____ in the article is..." when you have not actually looked at "all of the coverage." I don't think you were being intentionally disruptive and simply make a quick poor choice of words which is very forgivable. My point is to identify the issue and ask that you and all of us be more careful with our wording in the future.--Paul McDonald (talk) 14:16, 17 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Paul, a recommendation somewhat related to this discussion: your use of shortcuts to express your opinions almost always come across as insulting. This is especially true when you are dealing with regular editors that are very knowledgeable of Wikipedia policies and guidelines. It's even worse when they are basic essays that you wrote (and not actual policies or guidelines) that convey simple concepts, like "don't lie" (there's a wonderful essay on the subject of using essays/shortcuts to make a point, but for me to link it in this discussion would be hypocritical, wouldn't it?). Do you really think someone needs to read your essay to understand why lying is bad...? Do you really think it's helpful for you to go around telling people not to lie on Wikipedia? Is that ever really necessary? Is it ever done in a way that isn't condescending?

In response to your actual comment, not sure how you think you are helping. Cbl62 expressed some concerns, and I clarified my comments and asked them to wrap-up that part of the discussion. Did you think that I didn't understand Cbl62's comments? Also, just to be clear, telling someone "don't lie" is accusing them of lying. If, as you say, you believe that I "simply [made] a quick poor choice of words", then how was your comment helpful in any way? Other than to make a point? « Gonzo fan2007 (talk) @ 17:23, 17 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Apparently it is necessary. I've been active on Wikipedia since 2007, you're the first editor to tell me that my use of shortcuts was insulting. I am sorry you feel that way. Those are your feelings, not my intent. Shortcuts to essays, guidelines, and policies are quite common, widely accepted, and found to be useful. If you want to discuss this further, we should take it to another forum to keep this discussion germane.--Paul McDonald (talk) 19:56, 17 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. The article needs improvement, but Hines was a play-maker at tight end, wide receiver and running back for Florida in the Urban Meyer years. He passes WP:GNG. The following are examples of significant coverage in multiple, reliable sources spanning an 11-year period from 2007 to 2018: (1) "Gator made" (Hines profile), Corsicana Daily Sun, 11/27/07; (2) "Waiting for his chance" (Hines profile), Corsicana Daily Sun, 9/3/09 (477 words); (3) "Omarius Hines to try his hand at tight end", St. Petersburg Times, 8/13/10 (153 words); (4) "Omarius Hines, Trey Burton give UF a chance to be tricky", The Florida Times-Union, 8/22/12 (677 words); (5) "Florida Gators’ Omarius Hines is ‘a threat ... a weapon’,", The Miami Herald, 8/25/10 (533 words); (6) "Omarius Hines ready to show off his versatility with Gators", McClatchy-Tribune Regional News, 8/26/10 (471 words); (7) "Gators focus on new wild card Hines could become another playmaker who is hard to pin down", The Florida Times-Union, 8/27/10 (466 words); (8) "Gators to take advantage of Hines' versatility", The Gainesville Sun; (9) "Florida Gators' Omarius Hines more than tight end", The Miami Herald, 9/2/10 (503 words); (10) "Omarius Hines will take over for Chris Rainey", St. Petersburg Times, 9/5/10 (176 words); (11) "Florida TE Omarius Hines might get call to provide offensive spark", The Florida Times-Union, 10/17/10 (361 words); (12) "Florida Gator Omarius Hines ready to make up for lost time", Tampa Bay Times, 8/23/12; (13) "UF's versatile Hines", The Gainesville Sun, 8/27/12 (473 words); (14) "Hines, Corsicana native, is Gators' versatile weapon", McClatchy-Tribune Regional News, 9/6/12 (559 words, reprinted here); (15) "Versatile Hines hard to handle", The Gainesville Sun, 10/9/12 (269 words); (16) "Former Gators Frankie Hammond, Omarius Hines to play in All-Star game today", Tampa Bay Times, 1/11/13 (247 words). In addition, his abuse at the hands of the Florida coaching staff was a notable point in the 2018 expose of Urban Meyer found at (17) here. Cbl62 (talk) 07:10, 16 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete This is one of those articles that falls into the grey area that we continue to talk about over and over again. WP:NCOLLATH requires national coverage for presumptive notability of college athletes, and Hines doesn't have that, with only regional coverage on him as an amateur athlete. He also fails WP:NGRIDIRON having failed to make it in professional football. Articles such as [12] and [13] are routine local sports reporting and don't really establish his notability as an athlete, even though his name is in the headline. Even with all of this it'd be difficult to squeeze much more than a stub out of this article. In my estimation this isn't quite as bad as some of the other ones that have been kept or no consensus-ed, Wikipedia tends to take a very narrow view of athletes who are only locally notable in other sports who don't pass the sport's SNG (for instance, I was recently a keep !voter in a basketball article which was deleted, and you'd be hard pressed to find a footy player on here who is both notable and hasn't played an AFL game.) I see no reason to make an exception here. SportingFlyer T·C 10:44, 16 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• keep looks like a clear pass of WP:GNG based on the media coverage from his college days alone. Feature articles are WP:NOTROUTINE and are clearly beyond the scope of "sports scores" defined in the text of the WP:ROUTINE guideline.--Paul McDonald (talk) 12:52, 16 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. Meets WP:GNG and WP:BASIC, per Cbl62's sources. WP:GNG trumps WP:NGRIDIRON (see Wikipedia:Notability (sports)/FAQ Q3, for a definitive answer on this, i.e., if the subject meets the general notability guideline, then he/she meets Wikipedia's standards for having an article in Wikipedia, even if he/she does not meet the criteria for the appropriate sports-specific notability guideline. The sports-specific notability guidelines are not intended to set a higher bar for inclusion in Wikipedia). The fact that other sports projects ignore/misinterpret this is irrelevant. Ejgreen77 (talk) 16:25, 16 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak keep: Generally, I would lean against keeping a page for a player who ended up totaling 2 touchdowns in his college career, and whose best season was finishing third in receiving yards on an 8-5 UF team. But he appears to meet GNG per his non-routine coverage in The Miami Herald and Tampa Bay Times, as well as his role in the Urban Meyer controversy. Ostealthy (talk) 16:47, 16 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment I haven't looked at the sources yet, but the arguments are deja vu of Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Kenneth Walker III, which I nominated and was closed as "no consensus" (unrelated, but he later received more coverage, enough IMO).—Bagumba (talk) 17:20, 16 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep – subject passes WP:GNG per the significant coverage presented by Cbl62. PCN02WPS (talk | contribs) 13:35, 18 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Speedy Keep WP:SNOW subject easily passes WP:GNG per the significant coverage. Deleting the article of a Green Bay Packer? Shame Shame. He was GNG in college, and he does not lose his GNG. Lubbad85 (☎) 18:56, 21 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Spartaz ^Humbug! 05:34, 23 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Matt Oswalt[edit]

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

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

Doesn't look like much notable. Most of the sources are cited from YouTube. Just because he convinced an actor to recite tweets doesn't mean he is notable. Fails WP:GNG and WP:NACTOR. Sincerely, Masum Reza^☎ 10:18, 8 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 10:49, 8 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 10:49, 8 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 10:50, 8 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Virginia-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 10:50, 8 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 10:52, 8 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Arizona-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 10:52, 8 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• delete sourcing is considerably weaker than it looks at first glance. Not all of the links are to WP:RS, and many are less than they appear. The first source, for example, is the New York Times, but it is a brief story about his brother's wedding. I thought the article in Salon looked promising, it's something, I suppose, but it's not much Matt Oswalt for the win: Patton's brother was the comedian you needed to follow during #GOPDebate. He does have an impressive # of Twitter followers.E.M.Gregory (talk) 20:22, 8 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Just because his brother is notable, doesn't mean he is notable too. As per WP:NFRIENDS, Wikipedia doesn't care how many followers you have. Sincerely, Masum Reza^☎ 09:30, 11 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. TNT. No objection to a second try Spartaz ^Humbug! 05:36, 23 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Joseph Olusola Iji[edit]

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

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

No offense to the person who wrote this, but this article is a mess. This seems extremely promotional and reads like a resume, and does not appear to be encyclopedic. However, it does seem this person is probably notable (apparently they were an ambassador, which would pass WP:NBIO). There's also several more issues with it, which you can check in the page's multiple issues template (it's quite a large one). Thereby I decided it was best it was left up to a deletion discussion. Kirbanzo ^{(userpage - talk - contribs)} 16:13, 15 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. Kirbanzo ^{(userpage - talk - contribs)} 16:13, 15 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Law-related deletion discussions. Kirbanzo ^{(userpage - talk - contribs)} 16:13, 15 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Nigeria-related deletion discussions. Kirbanzo ^{(userpage - talk - contribs)} 16:13, 15 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Much of the "multiple issues" template is inaccurate and/or redundant. I would suggest that the nominator rewrites it to only flag genuine issues once each. Phil Bridger (talk) 09:51, 16 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment subject seems to be notable, further improvements need to be made for it appear to encyclopedic. Agreed per Phil Bridger Ceethekreator (talk) 23:59, 16 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Draftify This article is a mess. However that list of improvement tags is super unhelpful. Send to draft space so that an article on a notable person can be cleaned up (the nom is correct that this is CV-like) and brought back in an acceptable way to mainspace (even if it's much shorter or incomplete as compared to today). Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 01:36, 17 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Nominator comment - pruned the improvement tags to only list those still relevant. Kirbanzo ^{(userpage - talk - contribs)} 20:39, 19 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete or draftify. This is so poorly written that I honestly can't make heads or tails of whether he passes WP:NPOL or not, and is referenced almost entirely to bad sources rather than reliable ones. If somebody is willing to take a stab at rewriting it in comprehensible language and finding better sources to properly demonstrate his notability, then no prejudice against recreation — but this, as written, is so bad that the blow it up and start over principle pertains. Bearcat (talk) 16:32, 22 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Try again on April Fools' Day. WP:SNOW (non-admin closure) Invalid^OS (talk) 18:12, 15 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Uncyclopedia[edit]

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

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

A defunct website that Wikipedia is not supposed to promote and make people new to knowing it miss being able to see when it existed. A very important note that's aimed at anyone who votes to keep the article because it survived 9 Afd's, please note that an important fact is that the site is now defunct. Georgia guy (talk) 15:56, 15 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Speedy keep - are we really doing this again? Precedent says this article is to be kept despite it being defunct. Kirbanzo ^{(userpage - talk - contribs)} 16:15, 15 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep The fact that the site is defunct is not a valid reason for deletion. Lugnuts ^{Fire Walk with Me} 16:19, 15 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Definitely keep, as this is very notable on the Internet. — Stevey7788 (talk) 17:49, 15 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Nominator withdrawal - new information found in a second WP:BEFORE check that addresses concerns (non-admin closure) Kirbanzo ^{(userpage - talk - contribs)} 15:27, 15 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Badnaam Gali[edit]

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

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

Fails WP:NFILM, no claim of notability established in article. Article is currently a lead and a cast listing. WP:BEFORE failed to bring up anything of note. Kirbanzo ^{(userpage - talk - contribs)} 15:25, 15 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. Kirbanzo ^{(userpage - talk - contribs)} 15:25, 15 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. Kirbanzo ^{(userpage - talk - contribs)} 15:25, 15 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Kirbanzo ^{(userpage - talk - contribs)} 15:25, 15 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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 Gatsbys American Dream. Tone 19:49, 22 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

In the Land of Lost Monsters[edit]

In the Land of Lost Monsters (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

No WP:RS to establish WP:GNG or WP:NALBUM. No results in a google news, books, scholar, or One Search. Significant original research. Theredproject (talk) 13:03, 30 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. CASSIOPEIA^(talk) 13:18, 30 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. CASSIOPEIA^(talk) 13:18, 30 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Redirect to Gatsbys American Dream - not notable enough for a stand alone article - Epinoia (talk) 03:18, 6 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Redirect Yeah, I think it's pretty clear that a redirect would serve better.💵Money💵emoji💵^💸 20:18, 15 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. Spartaz ^Humbug! 05:37, 23 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

On the Strength of All Convinced[edit]

On the Strength of All Convinced (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

No WP:RS to establish WP:GNG or WP:NALBUM. No results in a google news, books, scholar, or One Search. Significant original research. Theredproject (talk) 13:06, 30 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. CASSIOPEIA^(talk) 13:21, 30 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. CASSIOPEIA^(talk) 13:21, 30 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment: there's the AllMusic review linked in the ratings box, and a brief review in The A.V. Club [14]... would that be enough? Richard3120 (talk) 15:47, 30 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Unsurprisingly (as nom) I don't think so: according to Wikipedia, is "AllMusic is an online music database" like IMDB, which is not a WP:RS. The A.V. Club may or may not be RS, but it is barely substantive coverage, and I don't think that source alone can establish N. --Theredproject (talk) 11:35, 1 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

AllMusic has been well established as an RS for many years - it began as a print book edited by Stephen Thomas Erlewine and featuring reviews by many established music journalists, before moving online. Richard3120 (talk) 14:04, 1 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Apologies for jumping into this conversation, but AllMusic is a reliable source for Wikipedia and is not comparable to IMDb as stated above. The A.V. Club is also a reliable source. However, there should be more coverage on a topic than just two sources. Aoba47 (talk) 17:48, 1 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Aoba47: agreed, I'd like to see more than the one and a half sources I found before voting keep... the nominator does have a point that coverage is very thin. Richard3120 (talk) 22:12, 1 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The avclub.com review is also a reliable source as it's a review by someone who appears to be a staff writer. See Wikipedia:WikiProject Albums/Sources for a larger list of acceptable album review sources that clearly lists AllMusic and avclub. Walter Görlitz (talk) 20:22, 3 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Week Keep The AllMusic review is both a reliable source and good coverage. While AllMusic is a database, if a reviewer had to write something up, we accept that as a reliable source. We do not accept entries that have only a rating without a review. We do not accept user-submitted reviewers either. We do not accept the genre clouds that are machine-generated. We only accept the prose as reliable, but with that said, we need more than one reliable source, and the PunkNews staff review would be enough. My concern is that the article may not ever be more than a track listing. The article should incorporate elements of all three reviews. I suggest that the nominator should improve the article for not adequately doing WP:BEFORE, but I have no way of enforcing that and since BEFORE was ignored I suspect that this suggestion will be as well. Walter Görlitz (talk) 20:20, 3 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Walter Görlitz: I did extensive research WP:BEFORE I nom'd. I just didn't (and don't) think that AllMusic and Punk News establish N-- There is nothing else here.Theredproject (talk) 12:24, 8 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was soft delete. WP:REFUND applies. Spartaz ^Humbug! 05:38, 23 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Alpha Kappa Gamma[edit]

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

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

Unable to find any references for it, even the website for the organization in a dead link. Would love to have referenced pages for Philippine Fraternities and Sororities, but I just don't think this can be one. Wikiproject Fraternities should probably be alerted. Naraht (talk) 13:51, 15 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Philippines-related deletion discussions. 94rain ^Talk 13:52, 15 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. 94rain ^Talk 13:53, 15 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Note the group *is* real, but I can't find any third party information on even where it was started in the Philippines (much less the claimed founding in England)Naraht (talk) 13:56, 15 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. 78.26 _{(spin me / revolutions)} 12:39, 22 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Sommer Ray[edit]

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

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

Biography of a non-notable person which has been the focus of multiple socks in two groups. A paid piece? Cabayi (talk) 10:28, 15 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Cabayi (talk) 10:28, 15 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Colorado-related deletion discussions. Cabayi (talk) 10:28, 15 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Ceethekreator (talk) 11:47, 15 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. Ceethekreator (talk) 11:47, 15 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete: as WP:TOOSOON. Most probably will be notable but suggest waiting at least a couple of years and preferably having an unaffiliated editor write it. Ceethekreator (talk) 11:51, 15 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Naturally, there are no reliable sources out there about her. But people will continue making pointless articles on what is supposed to be an encyclopedia, about "Instagram famous" people who have no factual notability to their name and are simply known for having a big booty. Oh well. Trillfendi (talk) 17:42, 16 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Speedy delete per WP:A7. The Forbes source is just a link to a search bar, not even a results page. This is presumably the intended article, but there's nothing useful there. —⁠烏⁠Γ ^(kaw) │ 22:35, 16 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete: as WP:TOOSOON not yet WP:GNG Lubbad85 (☎) 23:29, 16 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete: no major reliable sources about the subject, and not yet WP:GNG. —Javert2113 (Siarad.|¤) 03:54, 18 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete: fails GNG. - Scarpy (talk) 17:55, 19 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. -- RoySmith (talk) 01:16, 23 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

JavaForge[edit]

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

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

This article about a defunct project is sourced only to Alexa and its own website, and I cannot find anything but a few very passing mentions anywhere else. PROD was removed without any kind of rationale or attempt to improve the article. Reyk _YO! 10:14, 15 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. Ceethekreator (talk) 10:25, 15 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. Ceethekreator (talk) 10:25, 15 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. Ceethekreator (talk) 10:25, 15 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Merge. The sourcing I can find doesn’t look strong enough to support an independent article although we have similar articles on defunct instances of this type of software (e.g SourceForge Enterprise Edition but perhaps there’s enough there for a merge into another article about OS software development or DevOps, or even Forge (software). Mccapra (talk) 05:52, 22 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - does not meet WP:GNG or WP:ORGCRITE - no "significant coverage in multiple reliable secondary sources that are independent of the subject" - no "significant or demonstrable effects on culture, society, entertainment, athletics, economies, history, literature, science, or education" - therefore, Delete – Epinoia (talk) 00:18, 23 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]