< 30 December	1 January >

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. Randykitty (talk) 14:23, 7 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Califa Library Group[edit]

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

Fails WP:GNG and WP:NCORP; no apparent press coverage of this "membership cooperative". Julietdeltalima (talk) 23:55, 31 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 00:22, 1 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 00:23, 1 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, per nom. No claim to notability at all. Ifnord (talk) 19:17, 6 January 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. Randykitty (talk) 14:24, 7 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Lenny Castro[edit]

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

Non-notable drummer. While he is part of a notable band, none of the sources I can find discuss him except as a part of it, generally in passing. The sources present on the page are unacceptable or dead. —A little blue Bori v^_^v ^Bori! 23:08, 31 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Definitely Delete Trillfendi (talk) 23:41, 31 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 00:24, 1 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 00:24, 1 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Puerto Rico-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 00:24, 1 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Delete - (The "definitely delete" vote above needs a reason.) This one is a shame because Castro is a well-known sideman who has drummed for many notable musicians since the 70s, as seen in his AllMusic entry: [1]. A Google Books search shows him mentioned briefly in several books about classic albums in older times. But unfortunately he is almost always simply listed as being present, and more modern sources are typically brief profiles in the drummer community, such as these: [2], [3]. Unless someone can find something better, he may just have to be listed at various album and band articles in WP. ---DOOMSDAYER520 (Talk|Contribs) 15:25, 1 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Delete not enough significant independent coverage, even if he is notable --DannyS712 (talk) 00:27, 2 January 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. Randykitty (talk) 14:29, 7 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

2018 Jacksonville Armada FC season[edit]

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

Delete per discussion at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/2018 New York Cosmos season regarding WP:GNG and WP:NSEASONS failure. It is not 100% equivalent, but the consensus for seasons in the NPSL is that they do not meet GNG or NSEASONS, and this has not been demonstrated otherwise in the sourcing. If nothing else, this merits further discussion. Jay eyem (talk) 23:03, 31 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 00:43, 1 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 00:44, 1 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Florida-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 00:44, 1 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions.CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 00:46, 1 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as per all of our previous consensus on the point. The pages for NPSL clubs' seasons fail WP:NSEASONS, and thus have to be fought over WP:GNG – which this page also fails. 21.colinthompson (talk) 16:32, 1 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no evidence of notability. Giant Snowman 10:58, 2 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Comment the question is could this article pass WP:GNG? I'm not sure, but if Jacksonville news sources covered the season as if they were still in the NASL, there's no reason to delete it per WP:NEXIST. I have no idea what the answer to that question is, though. SportingFlyer talk 04:13, 3 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Consensus to keep based on article passing WP:ORGCRITE / WP:NORG. (non-admin closure) Ifnord (talk) 19:19, 6 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Culinary Workers Union[edit]

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

Perhaps it's just me, but I can't see how this regional chapter of a trade union is sufficiently independently notable to satisfy the requirements of our revised criteria for companies and organisations. Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 23:00, 31 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - This union has a unique ongoing place in Nevada history, as substantiated in (inter alia) the New York Times article, and exemplified by their ability to get one of their own leaders appointed to the state legislature. Now I admit I'm a labor activist (AFSCME) and labor historian myself, but it seems to me we need more coverage of organizations like this, not less. --Orange Mike | Talk 23:10, 31 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Looks like there is plenty of "significant coverage in multiple reliable secondary sources that are independent of the subject" to meet WP:ORGCRITE (WP:BEFORE?). Eg, in Storming Caesars Palace: How Black Mothers Fought Their Own War on Poverty (2005), [4] especially pp 54-55 and 67-68; an article 'Grievance and Arbitration Trends within the Culinary Workers Union, Local 226', in Labor Studies Journal (1993) (referenced in Vegas at Odds: Labor Conflict in a Leisure Economy, 1960–1985, result 1 [5]); Strategic integration, contract administration, and comprehensive contract campaign effectiveness: a case study of the culinary workers union, here local 226'S 2002 comprehensive contract campaign (2006) [6], especially chapter V, 'Culinary Workers Union Local 226 - History and Context'; also 5 pages in this book, Makeup, identity performance & discrimination (2007) [7], although not all can be seen online as it's snippet views; African American Women Confront the West, 1600-2000, pp 276-277,282, 284, 287 [8]; Casino Women: Courage in Unexpected Places, (2011), especially Chapter 1 [9]; and there is a lot of newspaper coverage too. RebeccaGreen (talk) 00:17, 1 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Nevada-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 00:48, 1 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keeps Largest union in Las Vegas, which has a more than considerable hospitality industry and was in the news considerably the last three years for state and national elections and union-focused stories. This is like nominating the UAW article because it serves a niche industry of automobile manufacturing. Nate • (chatter) 02:02, 1 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep evidence of significant independent coverage (as noted by Rebbecca) --DannyS712 (talk) 00:29, 2 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 01:52, 2 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 01:52, 2 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep article can be expanded, sure, but it clearly passes WP:NORG. SportingFlyer talk 01:59, 2 January 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. postdlf (talk) 00:58, 7 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Baraboo Nazi salute photo[edit]

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

A single incident of a group of teens doing something dumb in a viral photo is not worthy of its own Wikipedia article and fails WP:N (the mention of this incident in the article on the school is sufficient). This article also raises concerns re BLP and the privacy rights of minors Tornado chaser (talk) 22:10, 31 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete As proposer. Tornado chaser (talk) 22:11, 31 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 22:14, 31 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Wisconsin-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 22:14, 31 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Photography-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 22:15, 31 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: ~~local coverage only~~, nothing that passes WP:NEVENT. I also share the nominator's concern re privacy. SITH (talk) 23:39, 31 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

There is national coverage from NYT and Yahoo in the references and here, found without any real effort, is some more [10] [11] [12]. I am still considering my !vote (though leaning towards delete) but wanted to be clear that there's not just local coverage. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 00:12, 1 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Struck local coverage only per further research, however I'm still !voting delete due to a lack of sustained coverage to suggest passing WP:NEVENT. SITH (talk) 10:38, 1 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 00:21, 1 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Rubbish computer (Talk: Contribs) 00:57, 1 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I created the article.

Regarding "local coverage only," the incident and its aftermath have been covered in their own right (that is, in articles devoted exclusively to the incident and its aftermath) in multiple high quality national and international newspapers. See the current sources in the article (The Guardian Australia, CBS news, New York Times, NBC, Yahoo! News) but also do a simple Google News search: there's over a hundred other national and international WP:RS articles devoted to this incident. It meets WP:GNG.

As for "the mention of this incident in the article on the school is sufficient", if we were to include all the basic noteworthy details about this incident and its aftermath in the article on the school, it would overwhelm the school article and fail WP:DUE. --Anthonyhcole (talk · contribs · email) 05:30, 1 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Basically just a grab of all the news coverage at the time on a single, non-notable event. Lugnuts ^{Fire Walk with Me} 09:41, 1 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete strictly on WP:BLP grounds. The persons are not identified, but the refs lead directly to copies of the photo in which the persons can be identified. Since it's a marginal article and these are minors, it's not fair to these kids to memorialize this forever.

If it wasn't for the BLP considerations, the article'd be fine. It easily meets the GNG with detailed coverage in the main Milwaukee paper and CBS News, and has all the other attributes needed for an article to exist. Sorry, User:Anthonyhcole, I hate to see work destroyed, and I don't agree with the above editors, and thanks for the article which is a legit article IMO, but just for me the BLP consideration is the deal killer. Herostratus (talk) 14:44, 1 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: like Herostratus, I agree that the significant coverage in national media makes this meet WP:NEVENT. However, I disagree that deleting the article will do anything safeguard the privacy of the minors involved in the incident. For instance, the first page of Google search results for "Baraboo Nazi salute photo" does not bring up this article; instead, it turns up 10 news articles discussing the incident, most of them with the picture in question. We could do better by providing an NPOV article whose picture has the faces blurred, so that internet searchers would be less likely to happen upon an identifiable image. Catrìona (talk) 06:26, 2 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Mnmh that's an interesting point that I haven't heard before... often enough you hear "Well that cat's out of the bag so doesn't matter if we pile on" which is basically "all the other kids are kicking that dog anyway so I guess it's all right for me to". But what you're saying is different, to essentially googlebomb for the students by keeping the article, letting it rise to the top, and blurring the faces. Interesting! I always like to see new ideas. OTOH it's maybe outside our mission parameters. Herostratus (talk) 04:37, 4 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Having a section in the school's article is enough. funplussmart (talk) 17:08, 2 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Lugnuts and funplussmart. Nobody will care in a few months. --Bduke (talk) 21:40, 2 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per the previously expressed concerns about BLP and WP:NOTNEWS. The mention within the school's entry is sufficient. Pegnawl (talk) 17:44, 3 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and salt, a perfect example of the worst of wikipedia creations using the weak guidelines. Govindaharihari (talk) 18:32, 6 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy keep. Clear consensus that nomination failed to present valid deletion criteria. (non-admin closure) Ifnord (talk) 19:21, 6 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Revolutionary spontaneity[edit]

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

Not NPOV

Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2018 December 31. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 21:57, 31 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 22:16, 31 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per WP:VAGUEWAVE. Andrew D. (talk) 23:16, 31 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy keep No valid reason for deletion provided. Merry Christmas and Happy New Year, GeoffreyT2000 (talk) 23:54, 31 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy keep. Even if the claim is true* that the current content violates NPOV, it is not a valid argument for deletion. The solution is to improve the content, not to delete this article on a notable concept. *I for one don't see what the NPOV problem is. --Lambiam 16:37, 1 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy keep: I see no WP:NPOV violations. Sure, the content needs fleshing out, perhaps mentioning that it is admired and the myth of a Menshevik-style revolution which required spontaneity was kept up for years because it was a founding principle of the USSR as opposed to a Bolshevik-style revolution where a small number of trained people take key installations. Hey, I might do it myself when I've got the sourcing together. Either way, this is a misguided AFD. SITH (talk) 21:55, 5 January 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 21:39, 7 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Alan J. Baverman[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

Self-aggradizingarticle about a minor US judicial officer. A Magistrate judge deals with preliminary motions and minor matters, and I think previous decisions is that the position alone does not imply notability. In addition to at most very borderline claims to notability , the article should also be deleted as self-advertising. DGG ( talk ) 21:43, 31 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 22:17, 31 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Law-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 22:17, 31 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Georgia (U.S. state)-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 22:18, 31 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: fails WP:JUDGE, likely fails WP:GNG, much of the article is overblown vanity so there's the NPOV failure to consider as well. SITH (talk) 23:41, 31 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete a non-notable magistrate judge. This is not a level that confers automatic notability and nothing else suggests notability.John Pack Lambert (talk) 19:27, 3 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete fails WP:JUDGE. In fact, I cannot discern a claim to notability on the page, most attorneys are not notable. Nor am I seeing WP:SIGCOV. Feel free to ping me to reconsider if somebody finds sources that support notability.E.M.Gregory (talk) 22:22, 3 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Per WP:SNOW. Consensus is that Hurley meets WP:MUSICBIO and WP:GNG. (non-admin closure) Jovanmilic97 (talk) 10:14, 7 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Andy Hurley[edit]

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

This might be my most controversial proposal yet, but from what I see here, I truly believe this page should be redirected to Fall Out Boy because his notability is depending on the band, (like how Matty Healy is to The 1975 currently, for example) not himself like Wentz and Stump have. I tried finding reliable sources for significant coverage but I only found run of the mill things that don’t create notability in my opinion. Trillfendi (talk) 21:37, 31 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Wisconsin-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 22:20, 31 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 22:20, 31 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - It's not quite true that his only notability is within Fall Out Boy. Note that he is described as both "Andy" and "Andrew" in online sources. He has been profiled for his personal life and businesses, as seen in some sources that are already in the article. He has also been profiled in the drummer-centric media, e.g. [13], [14]. However I would recommend trimming the article down to remove material that really is about the band overall. ---DOOMSDAYER520 (Talk|Contribs) 15:36, 1 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Interviews don’t contribute to notability because they are not independent of the subject. Trillfendi (talk) 17:32, 1 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The first source above contains independent coverage as well as an interview, the second in't an interview, it's a feature containing elements of an interview. --Michig (talk) 17:52, 1 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Also, I believe the rule about interviews not being independent of the subject applies to self-interviews like those in blogs and personal websites, but not to interviews conducted by journalists for reliable publications. ---DOOMSDAYER520 (Talk|Contribs) 18:12, 2 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. He's probably the least famous member of FOB, but his involvement in The Damned Things wasn't trivial. I'd say with that, and the sources listed above, he meets GNG. Nohomersryan (talk) 10:25, 5 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as a clear pass of WP:MUSICBIO#6: "a musician who has been a reasonably prominent member of two or more independently notable ensembles". Fall Out Boy + The Damned Things = two. Note that the other members of The Damned Things are independently notable, so the notability of that band cannot be attributed to Hurley's involvement (the dreaded self-fulfilling notability loop). Bakazaka (talk) 01:56, 7 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I don't see enough explanation how the subject is non-notable. Somehow passes WP:GNG. Orientls (talk) 04:49, 7 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I don’t see how his unorthodox political beliefs or personal lifestyle choices and stuff like that contribute to notability, especially given most of those sources are from Twitter which is not a reliable source. So if one took all that out, sources about FOB as a whole notwithstanding, I just don’t see any legs for this article to be honest unless someone provides independent reliable sources for his side projects too.Trillfendi (talk) 05:46, 7 January 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. Regarding the disagreements about NAWARD, I would like to note that the way I read that note/essay/whatever is that an award needs to meet GNG, which this one doesn't, as careful analyses have shown that the sources brought forward are based on press releases and therefore do not contribute toward GNG. In the absence of truly independent sources treating the subject in depth the "delete" !votes have the stronger argument. Randykitty (talk) 16:43, 7 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Bihari Puraskar[edit]

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

Fails WP:NORG. A literary award by a private foundation. Concern is lack of significant coverage of the award. The sources are WP:ROUTINE news articles that announce the winner. The foundation website is dead. DBigXrayᗙ 21:22, 31 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. Bakazaka (talk) 23:06, 31 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Poetry-related deletion discussions. Bakazaka (talk) 23:06, 31 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Bakazaka (talk) 23:06, 31 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - clear failure of WP:GNG Spiderone 11:27, 2 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Keep Significantly covered by The Hindu,[15] Business Standard [16], Navbharat Times [17], Jagran and others.[18] Shivkarandholiya12 (talk) 05:31, 3 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Shivkarandholiya12 you might want to read WP:Speedy_keep#Applicability first. I have analysed the sources you presented. The 4 line content published on all of them are "exactly the same" and based on the "press statement" from K K Birla foundation. Article based on press statements cannot be used to establish notability see WP:Notability_(organizations_and_companies)#Examples_of_dependent_coverage from WP:ORGIND Moreover one of the link you mentioned [19] is not even about Bihari Puraskar, can you recheck it, appears to me as a mistake. --DBigXrayᗙ 08:26, 3 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Where is the link of the "press statement" from K K Birla foundation"? The two articles from Navbharat Times and Hindustan Times share no similarity because Hindustan times mention "2 Lakh" for a name, but Navbharat Times makes no mention of even "2". You should refrain from falsification.

I was talking about this link. Shivkarandholiya12 (talk) 14:47, 4 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I note an assumption of bad faith here. please see WP:AGF and WP:NPA. There is no need of falsification. The source clearly state "press statement"
Hindustan times in its article credits the press statement with the line"A statement issued by the selection committee (of award) ... :.
Navbharat Times in its article credits it to press statement with the line"के के बिरला फाउंडेशन द्वारा आज यहां जारी विग्यप्ति में बताया गया " which translates in english to "As stated in the press statement issued by KK Birla foundation" --DBigXrayᗙ 15:27, 5 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Why you are copy pasting a weak argument which I had already refuted?[20] To say content is "exactly the same" when it is not is indeed falsification of sources. Shivkarandholiya12 (talk) 16:07, 5 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Awards which are truly notable receive coverage above and beyond articles attributed to press statements. There doesn't seem to be any indication of the same here. Regards. —

f r +

05:56, 7 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

While some sources are press statement you are forgetting that we are discussing about the award, not the company. Can you prove if these sources[21][22][23][24][25] are press statement? We are not making any exceptional claim, neither discussing notability of a company but an award which appears to have received significant coverage. Shivkarandholiya12 (talk) 06:55, 7 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, [26] says "यह जानकारी फाउंडेशन के निदेशक सुरेश ऋतुपर्ण ने जारी बयान में दी" that translates to "This information was given by Director of the foundation in a press release." Press releases don't qualify for notability per WP:ORGIND.
All the sources provided so far only mention these exact lines that have already been shown to be coming from press statement. "Bihari Puraskar is a literary award instituted by K. K. Birla Foundation . The award is named after the famous Hindi poet Bihari and is awarded to an outstanding work published in Hindi or Rajasthani by a Rajasthani writer. It carries a citation, a plaque and prize money".
If it is notable, then why aren't you able to find any coverage that talks more about the award other than these 3-4 lines ? --DBigXrayᗙ 07:25, 7 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Source	Independent?	Reliable?	Significant coverage?	Count source toward GNG?
Source assessment table:
Hindustan Times, Noted writer Vijay Verma awarded Bihari Puraskar	Press statements are dependent coverage see WP:ORGIND	newspaper	3 line mention of the award in a WP:ROUTINE article on award announcement sourced from "press statement" from K K Birla foundation.	✘ No
Business Standard [27], Poet Dr Bhagwati Lal Vyas to be awarded Bihari Puraskar	Press statements are dependent coverage see WP:ORGIND	news site	3 line mention of the award in a WP:ROUTINE article on award announcement.	✘ No
Navbharat Times, [28], Dr Satyanarayana gets Bihari award	Press statements are dependent coverage see WP:ORGIND	newspaper	4 line mention of the award in a WP:ROUTINE article on award announcement sourced from "press statement" from K K Birla foundation.	✘ No
Current Affairs February 2017 eBook By Jagran Josh, Jagran, Satya Narayan selected for Bihari Puraskar	Press statements are dependent coverage see WP:ORGIND	newspaper	exact same 4 line mention of the award in a WP:ROUTINE article on award announcement sourced from "press statement" from K K Birla foundation.	✘ No
live hindustan G D Birla award ( a totally different award)	? Different topic	newspaper	this article is not about Bihari award but G D Birla award which is totally different award	✘ No
Hindustan times Arjundeo Charan bags Bihari Puraskar	Press statements are dependent coverage see WP:ORGIND	newspaper	exact same 4 line mention of the award in a WP:ROUTINE article on award announcement sourced from "press statement" from K K Birla foundation.	✘ No
This table may not be a final or consensus view; it may summarize developing consensus, or reflect assessments of a single editor. Created using ((source assess table)).

--DBigXrayᗙ 08:26, 3 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Sources have provided as much information as it was necessary to provide about the subject, which is certainly more than a passing mention. They are WP:INDEPENDENT from the subject and qualify WP:RS and that is all you need to think about. Shivkarandholiya12 (talk) 14:47, 4 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

These sources are not enough to satisfy WP:NORG, If you think it passes, then please share the sources and the criteria. I have explained above why these articles based on "press statements" of the KK Birla foundation are not independent per WP:ORGIND. Even for claiming WP:SIGCOV "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject is needed. This is clearly lacking here. --DBigXrayᗙ 15:08, 5 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Delete Per DBX; though I disagree (to an extent) about the branding of the sources to contribute nothing to GNG. ∯WBG^converse 07:38, 4 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete The sources are mostly WP:ROUTINE coverage. There does not appears to be much in-depth significant coverage of the award. Non-notable. — $f r +$ 18:06, 4 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Shivkarandholiya12. Passes ~~WP:NAWARD~~ WP:GNG.[29] WP:ROUTINE is irrelevant given the years of sufficient coverage in RS. D4iNa4 (talk) 12:38, 5 January 2019 (UTC) (modified 15:59, 7 January 2019 (UTC))[reply]

WP:NAWARD is not a valid policy or criteria. Arjundeo Charan bags Bihari Puraskar article you quoted above, has exact same 4 line mention of the award in a WP:ROUTINE article on award announcement sourced from "press statement" from K K Birla foundation. I have updated my analysis table to include this. WP:ROUTINE is clearly applicable here. Thousands of foundations give millions of awards every year, just because they give award every year and their press statement gets published in newspaper, isn't a valid justification of notability see WP:ORGIND. Significant coverage of the award in Reliable media is what is lacking here. If you can provide multiple sources with significant coverage, I will withdraw my nomonation myself. --DBigXrayᗙ 15:04, 5 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

WP:NAWARD is best we have to get idea of notability about the award related articles. Since that award is given by KK Birla Foundation, it is obvious that their statement would be covered. What else do you expect? Fact that it is covered by reliable independent sources is what we need for meeting criteria which is already provided to you with enough sources. Shivkarandholiya12 (talk) 16:07, 5 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Do you see the archived template at WP:NAWARD ? It is there because community has decided with consensus that WP:NAWARD is no longer a valid guideline for notability. So please stop quoting it. If you think that this award is significantly covered, then why are you not presenting the references that have "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject " all the sources you are presenting are based on press statements and then arguing that such sources based on press statements are valid for notability. No they are not. Please see Wikipedia:Notability_(organizations_and_companies)#Examples_of_dependent_coverage to be precise, that specifically excludes articles on Press statements from being used for notability. The fact that you are unable to find any sources other than routine award announcement based on Press statement, should itself make it clear to anyone that the subject is not notable. --DBigXrayᗙ 16:24, 5 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Passes WP:NAWARD and receives independent coverage from reliable media whenever it is awarded to generally a notable person. Nom's rationale is misleading. Orientls (talk) 04:53, 7 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete lacks in-depth significant coverage in reliable soruces that are independent of the subject. GSS (talk|c|em) 10:25, 7 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Significant coverage in the independent reliable sources.[30][31][32] Easily meets the standards for awards. Shashank5988 (talk) 11:44, 7 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Shashank5988 Thanks for sharing the relevant links. I note that first source you presented [33] mentions, "A statement issued by the (award) selection committee..." which means this award announcement news article is based on the press statement and uses the exact same lines that all the articles from press statements have been using Wikipedia:Notability_(organizations_and_companies)#Examples_of_dependent_coverage (Churnalism). Both these 2 links [34][35] talk about other writers and only have one line mention of the award saying this writer got the Bihari award.
The recent pile on votes that are quoting WP:NAWARD, which is not an existing notability guideline or policy, never was. And making comments of WP:ASSERTN without reliable sources to back the claim, should be appropriately discounted by the closing admin. --DBigXrayᗙ 14:00, 7 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment-

Guys, can you please read the stuff rather than blindly copying whatever policy/guideline/essay the previous !voter has thrown in ?

NAWARD was instituted to segregate those awards which are so valued, that a mere recieval auto-entitles someone to an Wikipedia article.
It has not got much anything to do about the wiki-notability of the awards, themselves and the connections are tangential.
Whilst, initial response to the formulation of NAWARD was heartening; the editors lost interest soon-after and it was left to wither.
As it currently stands; it has not been actively vetted by the community. ∯WBG^converse 15:24, 7 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for notifying of the history. I had read this link somewhere on Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/J. B. Gaynor or Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Kohl McCormick Early Childhood Teaching Awards, before I linked it here. D4iNa4 (talk) 15:56, 7 January 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. Randykitty (talk) 16:48, 7 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Mitra Samaja[edit]

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

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

Fails WP:NCORP^added and WP:PROMO. Non notable restaurant in India with passing mentions in travel articles about cuisine is all it can muster. DBigXrayᗙ 21:11, 31 December 2018 (UTC) [ updated on 16:33, 3 January 2019 (UTC)][reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Food and drink-related deletion discussions. DBigXrayᗙ 21:12, 31 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. DBigXrayᗙ 21:12, 31 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

If you came here because someone asked you to, or you read a message on another website, please note that this is not a majority vote, but instead a discussion among Wikipedia contributors. Wikipedia has policies and guidelines regarding the encyclopedia's content, and consensus (agreement) is gauged based on the merits of the arguments, not by counting votes.

However, you are invited to participate and your opinion is welcome. Remember to assume good faith on the part of others and to sign your posts on this page by adding ~~~~ at the end.

Note: Comments may be tagged as follows. Suspected single-purpose accounts: ((subst:spa|username)), suspected canvassed users: ((subst:canvassed|username)), accounts blocked for sockpuppetry: ((subst:csm|username)) or ((subst:csp|username))

Mitra Samaj is the sourced name. Page was named with a less known name but I retitled the name as you see Mitra Samaj is supported by the sources. This is a notable restaurant and has got sufficient coverage by reliable sources like Penguin UK, The Hindu, Outlook India, NDTV, Times Now, NDTV, and that is on the top of my head. The way you are trying to involve this restaurant in your childish fights with me should be beyond anyone who has a mature mind. -- NavjotSR (talk) 13:07, 1 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Canvassing here valereee (talk) 17:13, 1 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Allowed by https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion#After_nominating:_Notify_interested_projects_and_editors NavjotSR (talk) 09:50, 2 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@NavjotSR: All such efforts must comply with Wikipedia's guideline against biased canvassing immediately follows the sentence to which you refer, yet you refer to the restaurant as notable in your message, which, as the discussion is about the notability of the restaurant, is biased and therefore constitutes canvassing. SITH (talk) 16:34, 3 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment These sources listed above only have passing mention (see analysis in the table below), these sources only serve to verify that this restaurant exists. To claim notability significant coverage is needed. If newspapers and media dont consider it notable enough to publish an article on the restaurant, why should we expect Wikipedia to do this and promote the restaurant. --DBigXrayᗙ 18:58, 1 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Source	Independent?	Reliable?	Significant coverage?	Count source toward GNG?
Source assessment table:
Penguin UK The Penguin Food Guide to India		reliable publisher	has just a one line passing mention of eatery recommendation in the city article without elaborating on the subject directly or in detail	✘ No
The Hindu, In search of Udupi sambar,		newspaper	2 line mention of the restaurant in a recipe article about "Udupi sambar" dish.	✘ No
Outlook India, The eponymous town in Karnataka probably gave India its first culinary brand		newsmagazine	a statement from the owner and a 2 line mention of the restaurant in a recipe article about "Udupi sambar" dish.	✘ No
NDTV, A Walk Down Memory Lane		newschannel	3 line mention of the restaurant	✘ No
NDTV, 6 Dishes from Udupi Every South Indian Food Lover Must Try			2 line mention of the restaurant	✘ No
Times Now, Independence Day 2018		news channel	1 line mention of the restaurant	✘ No
Rediff news, In Udupi, food is the greatest binder	interview of the owner, see WP:ORGIND	news site	interview cannot be used to claim SIGCOV.	✘ No
This table may not be a final or consensus view; it may summarize developing consensus, or reflect assessments of a single editor. Created using ((source assess table)).

--DBigXrayᗙ 18:58, 1 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

You first claimed that the subject is a "PROMO" and no one mentions the restaurant except travel articles. Now you claim now that a subject needs to be named at least 1000 times on a page then it would become notable? You are talking absurd. These reliable sources have dedicated more than 200 words to describe the restaurant, that is "significant coverage". I would expect administrators not to fall for your dishonesty. NavjotSR (talk) 09:50, 2 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per above unless better sources turn up. Catrìona (talk) 06:28, 2 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Are you taking words of User:DBigXray only because he spends more time on Wikipedia than I do? NavjotSR (talk) 09:50, 2 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete due to lack of independent sources only passing mentions, definitely not covering up the general guidelines for notability. Rekonedth (talk) 11:52, 2 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Notability#General_notability_guideline:

"Significant coverage" addresses the topic directly and in detail, so that no original research is needed to extract the content. Significant coverage is more than a trivial mention, but it does not need to be the main topic of the source material."

How this requirement has not been completed? Can you define how all of the above sources like The Hindu, NDTV, and others are not independent source and only provides a passing mention? You need to read 2 - 3 pages of review by Outlook magazine, which starts from page. 450 and reads about Mitra Samaj until page. 452. This magazine is very well known and has article on Wikipedia too:-

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Outlook_(magazine)

NavjotSR (talk) 13:10, 2 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Regarding the new reference added above "review by Outlook magazine, page. 450 and page. 452." These are 2 separate passing mentions on 2 different page as one can see in this search result I also note that Outlook states " Their menu also features the huge 'Outlook Dosa', named so after being featured in the Outlook magazine. They do not use onion or garlic in any of their dishes. Authentic Udupi meals (Rs 30) can be had at 'meals only' Mitra Samaj located opposite here." This appears to me as a case of Quid pro quo and makes it appear as though this particular coverage was indeed promotional for the restaurant. --DBigXrayᗙ 17:10, 3 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete poor sourcing & the text would be better suited to voy:Udupi#Budget where it's already listed. The text hovers between article about the restaurant, menu recommendations, and a biography of its founder. As a consequence it performs none of those tasks adequately. Cabayi (talk) 16:54, 2 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Notability is not about what is in the article. See WP:ARTN. शिव साहिल/Shiv Sahil (talk) 17:27, 2 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

~~Keep~~ Per the sources provided by NajotSR. Especially the comment on 13:10, 2 January. This AfD is nothing more than a spillover from Talk:Rafale deal controversy. शिव साहिल/Shiv Sahil (talk) 17:27, 2 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Per below, though I support draftifying because we are close to notability with this one. शिव साहिल/Shiv Sahil (talk) 11:34, 7 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

~~Keep~~ per above. A 70 year old+ restaurant that is still receiving significant coverage in reliable sources to this day. Rzvas (talk) 19:49, 2 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Cant agree a lot with discussion below but can't comment otherwise either. Rzvas (talk) 08:31, 7 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Echo Cabayi and nom. Fails GNG.∯WBG^converse 05:35, 3 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Weak delete per analysis of above sources, and because I was unable to find substantive coverage when I looked, though there are plenty of one-sentence mentions. Vanamonde (talk) 06:21, 3 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete The significant coverage argument that Rzvas puts forward again has been debunked.--v/r - T P 15:54, 3 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Can you find where? I based my comment on the significant coverage provided by Outlook magazine. There are no policy basis to reject significant coverage provided by that magazine. Furthermore, the nom is using a misleading argument in his analysis of sources because he expects sources "to publish an article on the restaurant" but this is not what WP:GNG is. WP:GNG requires "more than a trivial mention" which has been sufficed by plenty of sources and there is no "need to be the main topic of the source material."

Above table is misleading. For example, it claims that this reference gives a "2 line mention" but the name "Mitra Samaj" alone has been mentioned 3 times. You should do your own analysis than relying on a table that misrepresents sources. Rzvas (talk) 16:32, 3 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Rzvas: I've reviewed it again per your request and I agree with DBigXray's description. It's 2 lines plus a quote. Of the paragraph, only the location, date it opened, and the resturant's owner's name are relevant for the article. Perhaps even a claim that it resides in a town that may, in one author's opinion, have contributed to India's culinary brand.--v/r - T P 16:50, 3 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: source searches on Google, Google Books and WorldCat both in English and (auto-translated) Hindi reveal nothing other than a bunch of passing mentions, hardly enough to satisfy WP:CORPDEPTH. I see no evidence to suggest that शिव साहिल/Shiv Sahil's assertion that this is a spillover from Talk:Rafale deal controversy, however I am not and do not have a desire to become involved with an editorial dispute. As far as I can see, this AFD is totally based upon the merit, or lack thereof, of the article in question. SITH (talk) 16:30, 3 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Rzvas: you deleted my comment, I'm assuming it was accidental and just a botched edit conflict. Reinstating. SITH (talk) 16:40, 3 January 2019 (UTC)-[reply]

@StraussInTheHouse: Are you searching for "Mitra Samaja" or "Mitra Samaj"? Anyway, thanks for citing WP:CORPDEPTH and per the policy, "book passage" are considered as "significant coverage". Sources from Penguin UK, Outlook magazine, etc. meets that requirement. Rzvas (talk) 16:43, 3 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

It's a guideline, not a policy. But both, and yes, that single source does satisfy WP:CORPDEPTH but per WP:MULTSOURCES A single significant independent source is almost never sufficient for demonstrating the notability of an organization. One column in The Hindu's opinion section... I'm not sure that qualifies as WP:SIGCOV. SITH (talk) 16:50, 3 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

WP:N is also a guideline then but we abide by it. I was not referring to The Hindu, but Outlook magazine and Penguin UK. While Outlook magazine has provided multiple passages, Penguin UK has provided at least 1 passage that makes it notable per WP:CORPDEPTH. What made you think that this source is a "opinion section"? Rzvas (talk) 17:05, 3 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Features section === opinion section. SITH (talk) 18:26, 3 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

As a long-term ex-reader of Hindu; noting that SITH is correct in his description. AFAIR, this oughta be part of their Sunday magazine that was 40% amateur journalism + 60% promotion. ∯WBG^converse 19:49, 3 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note regarding the outlook magazine source being discussed here please see my observation above. --DBigXrayᗙ 17:14, 3 January 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. Randykitty (talk) 16:49, 7 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The Chocolate Rockets[edit]

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

Fails WP:BAND. SITH (talk) 20:13, 31 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Switzerland-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 21:11, 31 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 21:11, 31 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - The nominator is advised to explain why the subject is non-notable instead of just pointing to a policy, and to indicate that the WP:BEFORE process has been followed. Regardless, I can find no reliable and significant coverage for this band, with just the usual listings at retail/streaming sites. They are sometimes described briefly in lists of bands from their country (e.g. [36]) but they have received no reliable album or concert reviews that I can find. Note that their name is also a term for an oil well leak as well as a coffee brand, among other stuff. ---DOOMSDAYER520 (Talk|Contribs) 15:45, 1 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. I find it sufficient to state that nominator believes the article fails notability guidelines. Ifnord (talk) 19:25, 6 January 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. Randykitty (talk) 16:50, 7 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hot Shot (video game)[edit]

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

Tagged with notability tag since 2013 with little improvements Tyw7 (🗣️ Talk) — If (reply) then (ping me) 19:55, 31 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Video games-related deletion discussions. Tyw7 (🗣️ Talk) — If (reply) then (ping me) 19:56, 31 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. Tyw7 (🗣️ Talk) — If (reply) then (ping me) 19:56, 31 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. Tyw7 (🗣️ Talk) — If (reply) then (ping me) 19:56, 31 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Italy-related deletion discussions. Tyw7 (🗣️ Talk) — If (reply) then (ping me) 19:57, 31 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Searching turns up no coverage at all. Regards So Why 20:56, 31 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails WP:NVG. No coverage in independent reliable sources found. Merry Christmas and Happy New Year, GeoffreyT2000 (talk) 23:48, 31 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Europe-related deletion discussions. Tyw7 (🗣️ Talk) — If (reply) then (ping me) 03:15, 1 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Non-notable video game. Searching for it on various websites brings no results. Anarchyte (talk | work) 06:53, 6 January 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. postdlf (talk) 01:02, 7 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Michael Zomick[edit]

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

Repeatedly recreated and previously salted, it's time for a community discussion on whether this topic is suitable for inclusion. It was moved from draft space with the comment "Article has a significant and credible amount of sources", but not a single source in the article is considered reliable. A Google search turns up nothing more to add to this, and the subject appears to fail both WP:BASIC and WP:NACTOR. Brad v🍁 19:19, 31 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 19:52, 31 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 19:52, 31 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Massachusetts-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 19:54, 31 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The following was posted by the author to the AFD talk page, but actually belongs here:

The actor is listed as a celebrity on IMDb, Rotten Tomatoes and other numerous publications.

Here are additional sources found on Zomick:

Comment - More unreliable sources. Citing an image at Wikipedia Commons suggests competency concerns about the author. Robert McClenon (talk) 21:43, 31 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - The behavior pattern is consistent with undisclosed paid editing. The only real issue here is whether to Delete and Salt or to Soft Delete without prejudice to re-creation by a neutral editor. Robert McClenon (talk) 21:43, 31 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

delete nothing of substance - just appears to a lot of promotional stuff. No indication of any notable works. Cheers KylieTastic (talk) 22:06, 31 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete My searches produce a WP:SIGCOV fail.E.M.Gregory (talk) 23:44, 31 December 2018 (UTC) and WP:SALT.E.M.Gregory (talk) 15:52, 1 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Not enough in-depth coverage from independent reliable sources to show they meet WP:GNG, and clearly doesn't come close to meeting WP:NACTOR. In light of the behavior of the article's editor, I would recommend a SALT decision as well.Onel5969 ^{TT me} 13:55, 1 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - The sources were all unreliable for BLP info. Yes, this looks like COI editing. --Ronz (talk) 18:11, 1 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and Salt] with Extended-Confirmed Protection to allow creation by a neutral editor. Robert McClenon (talk) 15:57, 3 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete neither sources nor roles add up to notability. The above mention of "the actor is listed as a celebrity on IMDb" is a sign whoever made it does not understand Wikipedia guidelines. IMDb is not a reliable source. Wikipedia does not consider everyone who has ever appeared in a film notable, although I have to admit I think we need to delete many of the actor articles we do have, but that is another story.John Pack Lambert (talk) 22:14, 4 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Definitely fails the WP:GNG and WP:NACTOR. -- LACaliNYC ✉ 19:28, 6 January 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. postdlf (talk) 01:02, 7 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

International Astronomical Naming Commission[edit]

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

The International Astronomical Union is responsible for naming astronomical bodies. There is no record of the IAU ever having been called the IANC, as is claimed by the last sentence of the lead. Little coverage of the organisation online or offline exists, leading me to believe this is a clear failure of WP:NORG or a hoax. SITH (talk) 19:09, 31 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 19:56, 31 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Astronomy-related deletion discussions. Bakazaka (talk) 22:04, 31 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete If that commission ever existed in 2010, it doesn't exist by that name today. With the lack of references, there is no encyclopedic content. Tarl N. (discuss) 22:10, 31 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Even more entertaining, following the archive link uncovered by Ahiijny below, we have a case of WP:CIRCULAR. In that article, clicking on IANC sends you to the Wikipedia article. Tarl N. (discuss) 05:10, 2 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. The linked http://www.iancstarnaming.com/ (added in the first revision of the article) no longer exists, but there's a web archive record of it: http://web.archive.org/web/20110129013328/http://www.iancstarnaming.com/. If the scrolling marquee text, text displayed as a jpeg, and dubious font choices don't raise any alarm bells, there are also misspellings such as "ect." and "legitamate", and an unprofessional number of exclamation marks. Also, it advertises itself as a star/galaxy naming service "perfect for a wedding present, birthday, anniversary, mother's day, or to just let that special someone know you care about them", and the IAU specifically warns against this kind of thing. This looks like a hoax to me. Ahiijny (talk) 23:29, 31 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per all above. This article appears to be advertising for a non-notable, defunct company. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 00:32, 1 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, Per above, fails WP:NORG Alex-h (talk) 09:49, 3 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Randykitty (talk) 16:51, 7 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

BroadwayWorld[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

It is not a reliable and not notable news website. Most of the source from WP:PRIMARY. I don't know how this was accepted by AfC. Siddiqsazzad001 <Talk/> 19:05, 31 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of News media-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 19:20, 31 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 19:21, 31 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 19:22, 31 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

~~Delete~~ I cannot find significant independent coverage of BroadwayWorld. I see a lot of passing mentions that generally seem to follow this formula: BroadwayWorld gives someone an award, followed by local coverage in the award recipient's local paper mentioning they won a BroadwayWorld award, as well as lots of mentions of BroadwayWorld awards in press releases from the award recipients themselves. This seems to be one of those publicity-generating websites (where they give out awards for the sake of people being able to say that they got an award) but not an actual, respected theater award, such as the Tonys. Other than its awards, I see no coverage of BroadwayWorld at all, except for this one NYTimes article about its message boards.^[37] Doesn't appear to meet any of the criteria of WP:NEWSNOTE, WP:NCORP, WP:GNG. Levivich (talk) 19:58, 31 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Basically has been a press release spigot site disguised with a few spare news articles for the last few years (it's been used as sourcing for a bunch of TV/film articles here, which is troubling in itself). There are much better sites devoted to Broadway news with better content curation out there than this. Nate • (chatter) 02:05, 1 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The Los Angeles Times called it "an indispensable resource" in 2011 [38], and mentions their awards in a 2015 article about actors in a musical [39]. The New York Times had an article about an actress taking on the BroadwayWorld chat board, and BW founder Diamond's response [40], including separating chat boards from the rest of its content, and quotes BroadwayWorld in an article about "second-acting" [41]. Plenty of other newspapers report on BroadwayWorld awards. Variety had a review in 2010 of BroadwayWorld apps iBroadway and the Broadway App (both affiliated with the website) [42]; a 2009 article in the Journal of Cultural Economics used the BroadwayWorld International Database as a source of data; a 2010 article in Theatre Journal quoted several items from BroadwayWorld; and a 2015 article in The Tax Lawyer also referenced it. RebeccaGreen (talk) 03:34, 6 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Changing my !vote per the excellent legwork by RebeccaGreen (thank you). While I'm still not convinced BroadwayWorld is a reliable source as a publication, I am convinced it has received enough significant coverage from other reliable sources to be notable as an organization. Levivich (talk) 08:19, 6 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: An article's contents must be verifiable to readers through sources that are actually cited in the article, not just by sources that exist somewhere. Siddiqsazzad001 <Talk/> 12:13, 6 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I see it differently: a subject's notability shouldn't depend on the state of its Wikipedia article, and AfD shouldn't require editors to source articles or else have them deleted. There's no need to delete, because any editor troubled by the state of the article can edit it. :-) Levivich (talk) 07:26, 7 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep on the basis of the LA times reference. DGG ( talk ) 04:26, 7 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep There is enough to meet WP:GNG though article needs some improvement. Orientls (talk) 04:54, 7 January 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. Randykitty (talk) 16:52, 7 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Rohan Dhakal[edit]

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

Not notable actor, director & producer. Not any reliable sources are provided. Azkord (talk) 19:24, 24 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Nepal-related deletion discussions. Azkord (talk) 19:25, 24 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. ...William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 20:09, 24 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - no indication that he's had roles in multiple notable films - indeed, the only one blue-linked in-article I've just nominated for deletion since I don't feel it satisfied NFILM. As a side note, that would indicate no suitable redirect target. Nosebagbear (talk) 17:11, 30 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Vanamonde (talk) 19:04, 31 December 2018 (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. Randykitty (talk) 16:53, 7 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Polina Frantsena[edit]

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

Due to a disagreement over WP:A7 with regard to general notability, and WP:BLPPROD, I am proposing deletion of this article with no sources and none credible found. Being an extra an Sex and the City doesn’t cut it. Trillfendi (talk) 16:43, 31 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 19:24, 31 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Massachusetts-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 19:24, 31 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 19:24, 31 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Russia-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 19:24, 31 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 19:27, 31 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fashion-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 19:27, 31 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 19:50, 31 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete can't find anything beyond passing mentions. GNG fail. ThatMontrealIP (talk) 22:40, 2 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: nothing to suggest she passes NACTOR, I know the pain Trillfendi, but a single external link to IMDb does count as a source, albeit an unreliable one, so BLPPROD can't be used. SITH (talk) 22:01, 5 January 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. Randykitty (talk) 16:56, 7 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Larysa Switlyk[edit]

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

Non-notable TV host being pilloried and praised for WP:1E. I found no discussion of her or her work except for ads, promotion, and one incident where she hunted a goat in Scotland. HouseOfChange (talk) 15:42, 31 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2018 December 31. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 15:54, 31 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: fails WP:BLP1E, no evidence of lasting notability. SITH (talk) 16:35, 31 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 20:00, 31 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 20:00, 31 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete all the coverage occurs around late 2018 for one issue... what's that called, BLP1E?ThatMontrealIP (talk) 22:38, 2 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete clear case of BLP1E. power~enwiki (π, ν) 03:19, 7 January 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. Randykitty (talk) 16:59, 7 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

EclecticIQ[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

Delete I'm aware this recently passed an AfD (closed as "Speedy Keep" by nominator instead of withdrawing the nomination) but with only one commentator (!voting "Keep") this was hardly examined. I've looked at the references and not a single reference meets the criteria for establishing notability. Most are marketing/PR churnalism relying on extensive quotations/interviews from founders/officers and fail WP:ORGIND or not in-depth/significant coverage failing WP:CORPDEPTH. HighKing⁺⁺ 15:43, 31 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Pinging JC7V7DC5768 and Ifnord who commented on previous AfD. HighKing⁺⁺ 15:48, 31 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. IntoThinAir (talk) 15:58, 31 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Netherlands-related deletion discussions. IntoThinAir (talk) 15:58, 31 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comment User:HighKing, well this will be a hard one to analyze. Going through references:
1. Short mention, not a significant one
2. Locked behind an account creation (I am not going to bother doing a one just to analyze a thing, nor will a regular Wiki reader)
3. Short mention in a PDF (downloaded it)
4. https://pdfs.semanticscholar.org/0b9b/00a2dbf6ae467395fac917e0f7b73cc3e7aa.pdf is a proper link for this, passing mention
5. This one *could* be a possible source to use on? It could be categorized as extensive quotation though
6. Locked behind an account creation
7. Passing mention
8. Nope. Nada. Blog.
9. Passing mention
10. Cannot access the content of the book to see how much coverage it has if at all.
11. ANOTHER locked behind an account creation, sigh.
12. Cannot access the content of the book to see how much coverage it has if at all, but I assume it is another passing mention
13. Cannot access the content of the book to see how much coverage it has if at all, but I assume it is another passing mention
14. Nope. An entry in a Digital Marketplace database is not going to cut it.
15. A mention in a list.

So I have come to the point only references number 5 and 8 could serve to notability, and even that is a very shaky case at best. Leaning towards delete for now unless someone adds to what I just said (especially in finding how the 6th reference covers the subject which I cannot access properly). Nothing to find in my searches. The creator of this article surely went to great lenghts to prove notability, but I don't think he or she succeded. Jovanmilic97 (talk) 16:16, 31 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I analyzed the reference 8 and in the end it turned out to be a blog (possibly even promotional in nature). Fails WP:NCORP by a good margin. Jovanmilic97 (talk) 16:43, 31 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hi @Jovanmilic97:, nice quick analysis. My view is that both No. 5 and No. 8 are based on a company announcement (both even use the same photo) and is "dependent coverage" failing WP:ORGIND. HighKing⁺⁺ 16:46, 31 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Should have known that was the case HighKing, thanks for that link. It is beyond a clear delete now, both sources are on the level of WP:ROUTINE. The 8th reference even says Thomas Ohr is the "Editor in Chief" of EU-Startups.com and started the blog in October 2010., so it has no value towards WP:GNG even as blogs are not reliable. Just another non notable company Wikipedia page. Jovanmilic97 (talk) 19:05, 31 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - does not pass WP:CORP. I think this is definitely a case of WP:PROMO violation as well. Skirts89 (talk) 19:06, 1 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - I based this on the English references alone. There are some others out there but not sure if the publications would qualify as reliable or not. I find brief mentions, general announcements, and quotes, but nothing significant that would satisfy WP:CORPDEPTH. --CNMall41 (talk) 20:31, 1 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: promotionalism only on a nn company. K.e.coffman (talk) 02:27, 3 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete promotionalism . And if a cumputer security company has nothing more to show for itself than a list of one the top 500 companies in the field, it's very far from notable. DGG ( talk ) 04:25, 7 January 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. WP:MANOTE wangi (talk) 03:14, 7 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Daniel Burzotta[edit]

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

Non-notable martial artist. Does not meet either WP:NMMA or WP:MANOTE with obscure competition record. More promotional than anything else. PRehse (talk) 15:38, 31 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Martial arts-related deletion discussions. PRehse (talk) 15:40, 31 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Italy-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 20:38, 31 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 20:38, 31 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 20:39, 31 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Fails WP:NMMA. CASSIOPEIA^(talk) 10:34, 3 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete He obviously fails to meet WP:NMMA. I was unable to find the significant independent coverage required to meet WP:GNG. It is irrelevant that he trained under any of the Gracies. I can find nothing about the titles claimed in the article and no organizations are mentioned. The is no mention of him at the IBJJF website and he's not listed at judoinside.com. Therefore, I have to conclude that he also fails to meet WP:MANOTE. The article appears to have been created by an SPA so there may also be a case of COI. Papaursa (talk) 02:39, 5 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Fenix down (talk) 10:53, 6 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

2018–19 U-18/U-19 East Bengal F.C. season[edit]

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

Season page for association football youth team is not notable. Coderzombie (talk) 15:32, 31 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: fails WP:NSEASON due to level of play and lack of coverage. SITH (talk) 16:37, 31 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 20:42, 31 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 20:42, 31 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 20:43, 31 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions.CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 20:47, 31 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - such articles are never allowed for youth team seasons Spiderone 10:54, 1 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
delete not allow to create u- football club season articles Hhkohh (talk) 14:56, 1 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no evidence of notability. Giant Snowman 10:58, 2 January 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. wangi (talk) 03:12, 7 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Lucie Barât[edit]

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

Fails WP:NACTOR. None of the theater productions are at a notable level nor is her role in Troy. Has received no coverage for her music career and little for her acting career. The biggest claim in the article before I de-puffed it was being related to someone notable. Also no evidence her career as a writer has received coverage for her or her book series. Praxidicae (talk) 15:25, 31 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 20:49, 31 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 20:49, 31 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 20:49, 31 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 20:50, 31 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete a non-notable actress and musician.John Pack Lambert (talk) 22:12, 4 January 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. Transfer reporting is by long standing consensus inherently routine, and is never used to assert notability of an individual. It is therefore difficult to see how this event could be notable in itself. This move can be readily documented in the players article and I agree with comments below that the lengthy discussion of social media impact is excessive. Fenix down (talk) 11:00, 6 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Transfer of Cristiano Ronaldo from Real Madrid C.F. to Juventus F.C.[edit]

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

I don't see anything here that cannot be comfortably contained in the biog of the player or the clubs he works for. Sure there is a lot of coverage, it is football after all. Means nothing. TheLongTone (talk) 15:21, 31 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: per WP:NOPAGE. The event itself doesn't warrant a content fork and it seems the topic is adequately covered at Ronaldo, Real Madrid and Juventus; so no need for a merge. SITH (talk) 16:40, 31 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 20:51, 31 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 20:51, 31 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions.CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 20:52, 31 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete We don't do this for an average American team transaction or any other type of sports transfer. This can be a couple paragraphs in the subject's article, easily (and nobody would weep if the 'club analysis' was dumped wholesale). Nate • (chatter) 02:08, 1 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - the topic is already covered well in the respective articles; the extra information in this article is just excessive detail (we are not a newspaper, after all); also a dangerous precedent if we start allowing articles on every transfer that breaks some sort of record Spiderone 10:53, 1 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
delete I do not see any matter to prove a notable article Hhkohh (talk) 14:58, 1 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no evidence of notability. Giant Snowman 10:58, 2 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete This really isn't needed, there is enough information on Ronaldo's page, Also GiantSnowman rationale makes no sense to me, the transfer is notable otherwise it wouldn't of been covered by every media outlet!! You really need to write a more sensible argument. Govvy (talk) 15:30, 2 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Govvy: - my rationale makes perfect sense, read it again. Pretty much every single transfer of every single player is covered as WP:ROUTINE coverage. This one is no different to any other, and as it is not unduly notable (which is what I have said) it doesn't merit its own article. Hhkohh also said something similar, why haven't you tagged them? Giant Snowman 15:33, 2 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Govvy, be covered by every media outlet forever. Really? Hhkohh (talk) 15:54, 2 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Govvy, I do not oppose you say GS rationale makes no sense to you. However, if it is notable, we should add content to related article instead of creating an extra article Hhkohh (talk) 16:01, 2 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I never said forever! I said its a notable transfer because it's a high profile footballer!! Simple fact, you can easily make an article over this that would easily pass GNG, you don't need to apply notability all the time, try reading some of the other policies instead of providing such a dum ass statement. Govvy (talk) 16:58, 2 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep as per WP:GNGTEST, WP:RSTEST, and WP:VTEST. Ref-checking (talk) 11:19, 4 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep GiantSnowman's WP:ROUTINE argument does not apply here. Not every transfer earns (such) significant coverage and feature articles. "Transfer of Neymar to PSG", for example, generates 11,700,000 Google search results, while "Transfer of Cristiano Ronaldo to Juventus" produces 20,900,000—almost double the amount. (@Mrschimpf: "LeBron James trade to Los Angeles Lakers" gives 7,740,000 results.) Not every transfer is dubbed "the deal of the century", or covered by KPMG, Bloomberg L.P., Financial Times, and The New York Times, among others. The one who creates pages (talk) 12:21, 4 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Merge I believe this article could be rephrased and merged to the article Cristiano Ronaldo by using the precedent set by the section Wayne Gretzky#"The Trade". Electronic data processor (talk) 18:20, 4 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Off-topic discussion Hhkohh (talk) 11:59, 3 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
Govvy, you apply WP:ARTN in Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/FIFA World Cup stadiums (2nd nomination), why not apply WP:ARTN here? I do not know what your logic is Hhkohh (talk) 04:03, 3 January 2019 (UTC)[reply] Hhkohh Logic? I am not a Vulcan! GiantSnowman I am sure is a Vulcan! You? Maybe you're Andorian! Never-the-less, everyone has said delete already, it's not like you need to spout every policy. There is no need to bring another AfD here, these are two different cases each AfD should be weighed on it's own merits and failures. If for some reason you feel to attack me over some issues then I can only ask you to kindly fuck off thanks. Govvy (talk) 11:49, 3 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Off-topic discussion Hhkohh (talk) 11:59, 3 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.

Govvy, you apply WP:ARTN in Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/FIFA World Cup stadiums (2nd nomination), why not apply WP:ARTN here? I do not know what your logic is Hhkohh (talk) 04:03, 3 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hhkohh Logic? I am not a Vulcan! GiantSnowman I am sure is a Vulcan! You? Maybe you're Andorian! Never-the-less, everyone has said delete already, it's not like you need to spout every policy. There is no need to bring another AfD here, these are two different cases each AfD should be weighed on it's own merits and failures. If for some reason you feel to attack me over some issues then I can only ask you to kindly fuck off thanks. Govvy (talk) 11:49, 3 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

None of the above addresses the fundamental point, which is that this does not need an article; the topic is surely fully covered in the appropriate player biog & club articles. Actually, as in many cases, this is a topic better covered as part of a larger article which provided context.TheLongTone (talk) 15:50, 4 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Sandstein 14:52, 7 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Alessandro Pepe (director)[edit]

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

Lack of sources. Contains unsourced BLP information. Written like an autobiography or by someone close to the subject. v/r - T P 13:59, 31 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. ^{Babymissfortune} 14:45, 31 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. ^{Babymissfortune} 14:46, 31 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Italy-related deletion discussions. ^{Babymissfortune} 14:46, 31 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Looks like a delete to me, at this point. It's an unsourced BLP, so fine, source it. But I can't find any sources sufficient to construct an article on. If they are there, it might be better to burn this article to the ground and start over.

IMBb (not reliable, but usually fairly comprehensive) has him for My Honor Was Loyalty. But it is a short film, not a feature film. Pepe wrote it, directed it, edited it, and wrote and performed the music. While admirable, this isn't the sort of thing you see with important films, usually. His only other IMDb credit is for just the music in another short film, Does It Really Matter. This is a pretty narrow platform on which to build an article. It's possible that instead a focus on just the film My Honor Was Loyalty could lead to an article, if someone wants to dig up a couple reviews in notable publications or something. For now: bad article, unsourced BLP, no evidence of sufficient notability -- no article. Herostratus (talk) 17:08, 31 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

delete as original research per WP:OR. Unsourced content needs to be sourced or removed per WP:V. I question notability of this person with so much unproven potential. Achievements beyond this are needed to be notable. I don't question fundamental notability of the short (1h 55m) film getting invited to Cannes, but to be clear, it was received as a low budget, amateurish first effort, whose storyline failed to rise above the ordinary. For a film exploring honor in war, it undercuts its message by inexplicably depicting allied forces as terrifyingly inhumane while blithely ignoring the context that the 1st SS division killed unarmed captured soldiers numbering in the thousands. Where is the honor in that? With such unartful execution, it will take much further development and effort for this director to establish a successful and notable career. -- Paleorthid (talk) 18:56, 31 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete In addition to what the other users have said here, the subject fails the general notability guidelines and WP:FILMMAKER. The most I found was a Facebook page. Opencooper (talk) 22:43, 31 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete No reliable sources can be found. (So many Citation needed Templates... I think one BLP unsourced tag is enough.)--94rain (talk) 08:53, 1 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
To be fair, an IP user added all those CN templates after the AFD started. Those are recent.--v/r - T P 19:53, 1 January 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 Hot Chelle Rae. (non-admin closure) Ifnord (talk) 19:28, 6 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Ian Keaggy[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

Fails WP:MUSICBIO and WP:GNG. The article has two references. The first, a one-paragraph article from 2013, is not significant coverage. The other is his management company so is not independent of the subject. I was able to find an AllMusic entry, but it contains no write-up, while this and this are also not significant coverage. This is interesting, but half the article is spent on his former band. There may be some additional print media, but I couldn't find it. Walter Görlitz (talk) 13:56, 31 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 14:12, 31 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Tennessee-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 14:12, 31 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 14:12, 31 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Walter Görlitz. I got notified about this article since I created a redirect in 2012. But it looks like Iankeaggy is the real author. --MZMcBride (talk) 20:09, 31 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Hot Chelle Rae as previously stood. Additionally Iankeaggy (the creator) seems to have a COI of some sort. Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 23:05, 31 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
- I notified that editor of the potential CoI. Walter Görlitz (talk) 04:59, 1 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect If his previous band is considered notable, then a redirect would seem to be the obvious outcome. Agree with nom., unable to find enough coverage for a standalone page. Eagleash (talk) 23:44, 31 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect - restore to redirect. Not enough in-depth coverage to establish standalone notability.Onel5969 ^{TT me} 13:49, 1 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete not notable on his own.John Pack Lambert (talk) 19:16, 3 January 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. postdlf (talk) 01:02, 7 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Lompoc Fire Department[edit]

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

This is an article about the fire department of a town of 42,000. Most of the information in it comes from government websites that are local sources. The applicable thresholds of notability here are WP:GNG and WP:CORP, and I cannot find evidence that this meets either; the only substantive coverage is in newspapers from that city. Vanamonde (talk) 13:10, 24 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. IntoThinAir (talk) 14:01, 24 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. Happy holidays~! ^{Babymissfortune} 17:18, 24 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Lompoc, California#Public safety. nn for a standalone article, but a valid redirect. Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 22:39, 24 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Are "newspapers from that city". not independent sources? Rathfelder (talk) 23:39, 24 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I think they're not independent in the sense that single-town newspapers will always have coverage of the fire department within their town, no matter how small. As such they're not necessarily biased, but they're not very useful for judging notability. See WP:AUD. Vanamonde (talk) 06:35, 25 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
So this is only an urban encyclopedia? Rathfelder (talk) 09:00, 26 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Not in the least. AUD would support keeping this article, if this fire department had coverage from outside its small town. Moreover, your issues with that guideline might be entirely legitimate, but as long as the guideline is in force, legitimate XFD arguments cannot ignore it. Vanamonde (talk) 13:46, 26 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. While Fire Departments in general, are of zero interest to me, I don't see the problem with this article. The town itself is four times as big as some small towns that I've lived in, so a fire department for it, would be a significant thing. People seem to be taking WP:GNG to extremes; just because some topic is not international or even national news, doesn't meant that the article about it doesn't need to exist. WP is a better place if we include in topics that are of interest, even if those topics are regional, or don't make news. A really paranoid android (talk) 11:59, 26 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - notable does not mean 'known globally'. Local newspapers are perfectly legitimate independent sources. Oculi (talk) 02:49, 28 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
We have a guideline, WP:AUD, which explicitly says otherwise. Vanamonde (talk) 05:44, 28 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
*Keep. That isn't what it says. If that were the case we would have no coverage of organisations in small countries like Andorra or Bermuda. Rathfelder (talk) 10:58, 30 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
That's a complete misunderstanding of what the guideline says; coverage in national press is good enough. Organizations in small countries receive national coverage quite easily. The fire department of a tiny city is a different matter. Vanamonde (talk) 13:20, 30 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

This is the reason why AUD is current under review: it's simply illogical to state that "local" news cannot by itself sustain notability but national news (which could be the media of a very small country) and "regional" media can. In this case there is coverage from multiple local news papers and television stations including KEYT-TV, but it is impossible to determine which of these is "local" and which "regional" on the basis of AUD. FOARP (talk) 13:34, 31 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 13:03, 31 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

KEEP AUD is garbage and completely useless in this situation (which of the multiple media sources available for this article is "local" and which "regional"?) so we should just ignore that guideline and go with the significant coverage in multiple reliable sources. FOARP (talk) 13:37, 31 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: regularly covered by statewide media e.g. this. SITH (talk) 16:46, 31 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. My first thoughts on this one were, what is there to say about this fire department that is different from any other town? An article that has nothing to say beyond a few generalities isn't worth keeping, even if it can be sourced. The fact that it has an extensive history section has convinced me otherwise. SpinningSpark 02:01, 1 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep There's no good reason to delete this and our policy is to preserve such material. Andrew D. (talk) 10:10, 3 January 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 RuPaul's Drag Race. Ignoring the obvious meatpuppets. Anything worth merging to the redirect target is still available from the article history. Randykitty (talk) 17:09, 7 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Stacy Layne Matthews[edit]

If you came here because someone asked you to, or you read a message on another website, please note that this is not a majority vote, but instead a discussion among Wikipedia contributors. Wikipedia has policies and guidelines regarding the encyclopedia's content, and consensus (agreement) is gauged based on the merits of the arguments, not by counting votes.

However, you are invited to participate and your opinion is welcome. Remember to assume good faith on the part of others and to sign your posts on this page by adding ~~~~ at the end.

Note: Comments may be tagged as follows. Suspected single-purpose accounts: ((subst:spa|username)), suspected canvassed users: ((subst:canvassed|username)), accounts blocked for sockpuppetry: ((subst:csm|username)) or ((subst:csp|username))

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

Tenuous notability. Fails WP:BIO. Most of the sources are about series or host. scope_creep^Talk 23:01, 16 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Wrong - This person is notable - They appeared on more than 1 television show, created music with other notable people and has a large social media following. Remove the tag. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ratherbe2000 (talk • contribs)
Delete appearing on multiple television shows is not a default showing of notability. No sources that show notability.John Pack Lambert (talk) 02:19, 17 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

There are other contestants from this show that have the same type of notability as this one, and she's done more than TV anyway. And no sources? No sources. There's 20 - about the same as most of the other queens (some higher placing ones have less actually) Please... — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ratherbe2000 (talk • contribs)

Comment None of them are notable. I plan to put every one up for deletion, with exceptions. The idea that they shown to be filmed, and make them notable. No. They are BLP article and they need sources. scope_creep^Talk 13:01, 17 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

They are absolutely notable based just on "they shown to be filmed" and they have other levels of notability other than TV shows. Stop being difficult. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ratherbe2000 (talk • contribs)

There are thousands of other more contentious pages worthy of deletion, but your specific targetting of the drag queens of RuPaul's Drag Race reads as thinly veiled discrimination. As you are specifically targeting drag queens based off your inherent beliefs, this deletion should be void. You are not doing this to benefit Wikipedia but to instead further your own bias agenda against them. Joeylevn (talk) 03:00, 18 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

As a neutral comment, this AfD if successful should restore it as a redirect.Naraht (talk) 15:32, 17 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
~~Delete~~. I see passing mentions in the context of appearances on the show, but nothing that qualifies as substantive coverage. --Kinu ^t/_c 21:41, 17 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Per the discussion below, additional sources appear to have been found, but I do not have the time to evaluate everything fairly. Thus, I am changing my !vote to an abstention. --Kinu ^t/_c 15:59, 31 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

After looking at the discussed sources and the article in its current state, I feel that the notability criteria are still not met. Nonetheless, as I have already stricken my original !vote, I will simply state that I have no prejudice toward a redirect to an appropriate article as discussed below. --Kinu ^t/_c 19:47, 4 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep As a notable trans activist and drag queen, she is responsible for songs and spinoff episodes of her persona. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Zombiewaldo (talk • contribs) 01:03, 18 December 2018 (UTC) — Zombiewaldo (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. — Note: An editor has expressed a concern that Zombiewaldo (talk • contribs) has been canvassed to this discussion.[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 02:18, 18 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 02:18, 18 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Theatre-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 02:18, 18 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep One of the most notable people to ever appear on Rupaul's Drag Race — Preceding unsigned comment added by 46.7.92.205 (talk) 11:40, 18 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep This person is notable because of their media following, their activism and their recognition as a trans person of notice. Stacy appeared in multiple TV shows, produced content in multiple venues and is a recognized voice for both the trans and the drag communities. Simonecv (talk) 02:27, 18 December 2018 (UTC) — Simonecv (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. — Note: An editor has expressed a concern that Simonecv (talk • contribs) has been canvassed to this discussion.[reply]

Since the article does not document the extent of their activism, that assertion can be struck. And where is their recognition as a trans person described? Quit loudly claiming things without adding cites. Shenme (talk) 03:35, 18 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep It has become clear that this cause for deletion is fueled by an inherent prejudice and discrimination against the drag queens of RuPaul's Drag Race. There are thousands of other more contentious pages worthy of deletion, but the specific targetting of the drag queens of RuPaul's Drag Race reads as thinly veiled discrimination. This deletion is not being proposed to benefit Wikipedia but to instead further a bias agenda against them. Therefore the cause for deletion is void. This figure has a notable enough career to have a wikipedia page which provides easy and accessible information on her career and activism. Joeylevn (talk) 03:00, 18 December 2018 (UTC) — Note: An editor has expressed a concern that Joeylevn (talk • contribs) has been canvassed to this discussion. Canvassed to this discussion? I'm a regular editor to all things related to RPDR. There are no grounds for this concern. Your argument is lacking. Joeylevn (talk)[reply]
Keep This person is a world famous entertainer and television personality. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.176.247.176 (talk) 03:16, 18 December 2018 (UTC) — 86.176.247.176 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. — Note: An editor has expressed a concern that 86.176.247.176 (talk • contribs) has been canvassed to this discussion.[reply]
Keep There are less notable entertainers with pages Beautynumber2 (talk) 04:56, 18 December 2018 (UTC) — Beautynumber2 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. — Note: An editor has expressed a concern that Beautynumber2 (talk • contribs) has been canvassed to this discussion.[reply]
Comment I dont care what you say. The WP Afd doesnt count keep votes, it is a discussion, only a discussion. It is of no concern to me. Wikipedia is in the business of seeking impartial, disinterested third-party reliable sources. This article doesnt achieve that standard per WP:BIO. It is rank. scope_creep^Talk 10:56, 18 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The best way to keep the article is to find a bunch of WP:SECONDARY sources. scope_creep^Talk 10:57, 18 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

You are not distinterested or third-party though. Joeylevn (talk)

~~Weak Delete Redirect~~ Keep or draftify per Naraht to allow author to find more reliable sources; ~~most of these don't seem to be really sufficient.~~ But, wow, this is clearly canvassing, and apparently somewhere outside of WP. Not cool. valereee (talk) 13:34, 18 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

There is a thread on the RuPaul's Drag Race subreddit about this AfD, which you can read here. Aoba47 (talk) 21:07, 18 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sexuality and gender-related deletion discussions. valereee (talk) 15:01, 18 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I'd like to just make sure everyone is aware that this topic might be at risk for brigading Oath2order (talk) 22:52, 18 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

With comments there like "How do we destroy this user's life?" I'm just not appreciating the 'keeps' ... Shenme (talk) 06:21, 19 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I've gone through every reference. There are three that could show notability. The Vancouver Magazine reference is about Matthews. The EW.com "How Precious" piece is about Matthews. The VH1 News piece is about Matthews. So that's three, which maybe is enough. There are two that might be also usable to show notability -- Instinct Magazine called her the "best queen" and "the star of the entire series"here but I wasn't sure of that as a reliable source. Ditto The WOW Report,here which highlighted her as one of a series of posts about "celebrities" in attendance, also not sure of that source. The remainder are either own sources, blogs, or video clips of interviews/panel discussions/songs. valereee (talk) 11:13, 19 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Joeylevn Instead of impugning people's motivations, find some sources and edit the article. You've never even edited this article, not even a single edit. That's how you save an article from AfD: you go find significant coverage in reliable sources and you insert it into the article. You aren't new at WP like most of these other keeps. You understand how this works. If this is someone who is notable, we need to prove notability, not slander other editors in the AfD. Scope creep's assertion is that someone with an agenda has made articles for every contestant on Drag Race, whether or not they're truly notable, and judging by the show's article he appears to have a very good point. If this one is one of the truly notable ones, find some sources. valereee (talk) 11:32, 19 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Comment The band that Stacy Layne Matthews is in, is called AAA Girls. Their first album has 700k plays on Spotify, that is substantial is more than enought for to estalish the bona fides, if suitable references can found. scope_creep^Talk 13:08, 19 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

scope_creep I don't think she's in that band -- she was a featured artist in some of their recordings. valereee (talk) 13:36, 19 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Yip. scope_creep^Talk 13:41, 19 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Okay, so in June 2017 Thrillist, calling Drag Race "the closest gay culture gets to a sports league," ranked SLM #63 here of the show's then-113 contestants (very short mention). I'm not sure how to interpret that, though. Is it synthesis to argue that if Drag Race is gay culture's sports, that automatically means some number of the most-notable contestants are automatically notable even if by typical WP standards their notability might be questioned? I agree with the nom that not ALL contestants can possibly be notable, but maybe three instances of significant coverage in mainstream media (which I detailed above) are enough to pass notability? valereee (talk) 15:15, 19 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
- @Valereee: The only sources that establish notability in this article is the Gay Times and Entertainment Weekly, the rest are just fluff sources, meant to make it seem that the article is notable.--Biografer (talk) 16:40, 22 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  - @Biografer: That Gay Times article called her legendary. Is it possible that this person is notable enough in the gay community that she's notable enough? The Vancouver Magazine and VH1 pieces I thought were okay, too -- you disagree? valereee (talk) 17:05, 22 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    - @Valereee: No. I just didn't noticed them in the wave of WOW and other non notable sources. :)--Biografer (talk) 17:10, 22 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Notable trans activist and well known drag queen. Plenty of sources available on Stacy, more now considering her recent appearance on the current season of ALL Stars. Brocicle (talk) 18:26, 22 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Linguist111^{my talk page} 07:35, 24 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I think that the sources mentioned by valereee, The Vancouver Magazine, the EW.com piece, and the VH1 News are enough to establish WP:GNG. It also appears that she has a substantial fan base. RebeccaGreen (talk) 11:48, 29 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Many of the articles are not just passing mentions and are substantial for GNG as large and respected publications. Passes GNG easily. ––Redditaddict69 ^(talk) ^(contribs) 10:58, 31 December 2018 (UTC) STRIKING OUT PREVIOUS VOTE IN FAVOR OF A REDIRECT to where it was originally at RuPaul's Drag Race#Season 3 (2011), after reading new arguments I am persuaded to change my vote. The canvassing has gotten out of hand as well. ––Redditaddict69 ^(talk) ^(contribs) 06:32, 4 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 13:02, 31 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comment scope creep I'm in complete sympathy with your desire to AfD any of these that aren't notable, but I'm wondering if in this case you might have chosen at random one that actually was notable? valereee (talk) 13:39, 31 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Not at random, no. I review articles as part of WP:NPP review process. It was on the NPP queue waiting for review, and I reviewed it. This is one about 100-200 odd that I reviewed over a 2-3 day period, and one of about 10 or 20 or so articles I sent to Afd, that I thought were non notable. scope_creep^Talk 15:03, 31 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Happy New Year. scope_creep^Talk 15:05, 31 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry scope creep that was poor word choice on my part -- I didn't actually mean to suggest you chose it literally at random. I stand corrected and apologize. :) And Happy New Year to you too! valereee (talk) 17:59, 31 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to RuPaul's Drag Race. A source analysis which I shall provide below shows she's not really notable outside the series. Most of the sources cited are independent. I can't comment on their reliability because I'm unfamiliar with them. The significance of the coverage they give to her is questionable: they heavily mention her, but it is seemingly always in the context of her being on the RuPaul show, leading me to believe this is a case of passing notability, and a probably failure of WP:BLP1E. However, redirects are cheap, so pointing it to the TV show is probably the best bet. SITH (talk) 16:56, 31 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Edit: I also want to point out that a lot, but not all, of the keep !votes appear to have been directed by a Reddit mob. SITH (talk) 16:59, 31 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comment It would seem to me that by definition, both being a contestant on season 3 of RuPaul's Drag race and being on All Stars 4 seven years later, by definition is not BLP1E.

Comment on relist – Nearly every vote and reason is for keep and it seems clear cut now. I'm surprised a second relist was done. ––Redditaddict69 ^(talk) ^(contribs) 23:30, 31 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Redditaddict69 many of the keeps were clearly canvassing from Reddit. That doesn't really help get to consensus. It makes the opinions of anyone who comes in here without a significant AfD history look suspicious. valereee (talk) 23:37, 31 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Valereee: oh, my bad. I wasn’t aware of that. I know my username literally has Reddit in it but I do believe this is a keep. Didn’t see that post til just now. ––Redditaddict69 ^(talk) ^(contribs) 11:24, 1 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of North Carolina-related deletion discussions. ––Redditaddict69 ^(talk) ^(contribs) 14:15, 1 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Redditaddict69 No worries, I checked your AfD history when you first posted (lol, in no small part due to your username) so I knew you did have a significant AfD history and probably weren't one of those canvassed in from Reddit. So when you posted the second time, I knew it had to mean you hadn't seen the comments about the canvassing. It's just that there's been an article created for almost every contestant on RuPaul's Drag Race, and of course not ALL 150+ of them can be notable. This one I think is at least borderline, based on the three reliable sources with significant coverage. valereee (talk) 14:26, 1 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - This page does not pass WP:GNG. At best, this should redirect to the television show. Skirts89 (talk) 19:03, 1 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment CharmayneBakke is making the same mistake many on the Reddit canvassing page have made -- they're looking at User:Johnpacklambert for some reason. JohnPackLambert didn't propose this article for deletion, they just supported the deletion. The page was nom'd by User:Scope creep who has ZERO on their page that would indicated homophobia. valereee (talk) 17:07, 2 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Ugh, Scope Creep, are we really removing comments? I know it was a new account with few edits, all since this started, but I don't like seeing stuff removed once it's here. valereee (talk) 17:09, 2 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - I'm sorry that I accused the wrong person, but I still think the page should be kept because the person in question is known for more than just Drag Race, has a social media following in the 6-digits with verification, and largely connected to other notable people, in or out of Drag Race. CharmayneBakke (Talk) —Preceding undated comment added 17:13, 2 January 2019 (UTC) sock vote struck.--Bbb23 (talk) 18:36, 2 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

CharmayneBakke what we need to see is someone saying, in a reliable source, that Matthews' social media following is larger than usual in the gay community or among drag queens. Notability has to have a source. You telling us it's large isn't enough; we need a source. valereee (talk) 17:17, 2 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

This isn't a reliable source, but just for making a point -- apparently Matthews' Instagram followers put her at #92 among the show's alums. That would make her not even notable among that group, much less among the larger groups of 'gay community' or even 'drag queens.' here So even trying to find ANY source anywhere, I'm not finding that she seems to have an unusually large social following. valereee (talk) 17:32, 2 January 2019 (UTC)−[reply]

Just as a note, for comparison, there are about 130 queens total who have been on RuPaul's drag race. (10 seasons, most of which have had either 12,13 or 14 queens). Her season had 13 contestants and she finished 8th, so her 92nd place seems actually low for a queen who had that many episodes of being on screen. Not all of the queens who have been on RPDR are notable in my opinion. Whether this one is, I honestly haven't decided.Naraht (talk) 18:47, 2 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment – See WP:BLP1E – Does this apply here? She/he is only notable for that one appearance on Season 3? ––Redditaddict69 ^(talk) ^(contribs) 06:54, 6 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Canvassing aside, there seems to be just enough coverage to establish notability. This is definitely not a BLP1E situation, because we have coverage of not just her appearance on season 3 of Drag Race, but also her return years later for All Stars, her appearance on Teen Mom, and a live performance. --RL0919 (talk) 03:46, 7 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete minor appearances only. The rest of it is just their PR, as usual with entertainers. A infinite number of PR placements in that or other field still = zero. DGG ( talk ) 04:22, 7 January 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. wangi (talk) 03:05, 7 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Journal of Vaishnava Studies[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

Non-notable journal. Not indexed in any selective databases, no independent sources. Links to it appear to be dead, seems to have disappeared without leaving much (if any) trace. "Sources" put forward to the previous AfD years ago are not convincing either. Does not meet WP:NJournals or WP:GNG. Randykitty (talk) 10:48, 24 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Hinduism-related deletion discussions. Happy holidays~! ^{Babymissfortune} 11:25, 24 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. Happy holidays~! ^{Babymissfortune} 11:26, 24 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academic journals-related deletion discussions. Randykitty (talk) 11:39, 24 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia's page on Vaishnavism cites estimates that there are somewhere between 200 million and 641 million adherents to Vaishnaivsm. With such a huge number of adherents, there are remarkably few journals dedicated to its study. As cited in the previous deletion discussion, there do seem to be a number of leading scholars who have published in its pages. After 8 or 9 more years the total of such scholars has surely risen (and could be checked if relevant). While much of the effort for maintaining this journal does seem to have been done by a single individual (Rosen), this journal is clearly in a different category from modern-day predatory journals and spam journals that try to create an appearance of being a respectable journal, even as sincere editorial effort is minimal or non-existent. My sense it that for the topic of Vaishnava studies this journal has indeed been influential even if the citation counts are not comparable to areas of more active scholarship (relevant to criterion 1), and -- with the amount of scholarship so small as it is - it has been historically important (relevant to criterion 3), and it has indeed been cited in various reliable sources (relevant to criterion 2).

But a big problem is that there does seem to be a total absence of known secondary sources that assert and document these things. And furthermore, it seems that the journal's publisher's website has evaporated, as RK stated. However, the journal does seem to be continuing to publish issues, even without a website (possession of a website is not a requirement for Wikipedia article). For example, as of today, the Columbia University Library (LINKED) lists the following issues in the reading room: v. 27, no. 1 (2018 Fall); v. 26, no. 2 (2018 Spring); v. 26, no. 1 (2017 Fall); v. 25, no. 2 (2017 Spring); v. 25, no. 1 (2016 Fall). But without having identified secondary sources (online or offline) that document these things, and could be used to expand the article, it's hard to see how the journal can be affirmed as meeting the notability guideline at the present time.

I suspect that eventually sufficient secondary sources will be generated or identified. But perhaps that may be awhile, unless someone who knows about offline literature can step into the breach with relevant and verifiable offline reliable source citations that bridge the gap. If we can't identify such online or offline sources now, which seems likely, what do we do? Can the existing article be moved into some sort of limbo, where it is officially deleted, but its bare-bones draft text and discussion remains? --Presearch (talk) 17:24, 24 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I think Wikipedia should go easy on serious/non-predatory academic journals (even if obscure ones). It is real, it is published in and cited by genuine academics, there is no evidence that it is academically deficient (lacking in peer review, promoting fringe theories, etc.) Given all that, I don't think the paucity of secondary sources should result in deletion (which I don't think actually are non-existent – Google Books finds many refs, most of which are just journal cites, but some appear to be secondary discussions, but they are not free preview, so I can't determine how extensive they are.) SJK (talk) 03:09, 27 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Addendum: contrary to nom, it does meet WP:NJOURNALS, in particular "Criterion 2: The journal is frequently cited by other reliable sources". Searching Google Books, JSTOR, etc, shows quite a few cites from RS on this topic. SJK (talk) 03:18, 27 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Any journal (even scam predatory ones, which this isn't) will get a smattering of citations, that's nothing exceptional. If they really get cited frequently, they are picked up by citation indexes like Scopus or the Social Sciences Citation Index. In this case, the journal is not even in the ATLA Religion Database. As for going easy on academic journals, but not predatory ones, that puts us in the undesirable position that editors here will have to decide which journal is "decent" and which one is "predatory". Better to stick to the WP principle that we let the sources decide. So if there are no sources, there won't be an article. --Randykitty (talk) 10:00, 27 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Agree with noiminator. BlueD954 (talk) 05:04, 27 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. SJK (talk) 07:09, 27 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Notifying participants in previous AFD: @Ism schism:, @Crusio:, @Wikidas:, @Abductive:, @MiRroar:, @Xxanthippe:, @Gaura79:, @DGG:, @Arxiloxos:, @John Z:, @Dream Focus: SJK (talk) 07:16, 27 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Query, is it a predatory journal? Is it peer-reviewed? Abductive (reasoning) 16:48, 27 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comment There are no sources that say that it is predatory. There are no sources that say it is. The one source that we have (in Wire) treats it as a respectable journal. Also, I don't think that it is OA (and AFAIK, nobody has yet found a way to be predatory with a subscription business model). So it most likely is not predatory. I don't know whether it is peer-reviewed, not even if the journal claims peer-review, as I cannot find a homepage for the journal. --Randykitty (talk) 16:53, 27 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, it does claim to be peer reviewed, according to this archived issue. The website of the international Krishna Society still lists it here, but if you click the link, it goes to an expired domain. In any case, whether predatory or not, or whether peer-reviewed or not, has no direct bearing on notability... --Randykitty (talk) 18:25, 27 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

If it was predatory, it could be notable for that. The fact that is disappeared is interesting. Are abstracts still available somewhere? Abductive (reasoning) 20:38, 27 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, we often get more and better sources if a journal screws up than when they do a good job, unfortunately. Perhaps abstracts are still available somewhere, but I haven't found them. There may be printed issues in some libraries. --Randykitty (talk) 21:49, 27 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Regarding libraries, the Columbia University library webpage (linked above and here) claims to have a seemingly complete collection up through Fall 2018. The WorldCat page linked from the current version of the article (and here) claims it exists in 50 libraries (and my impression is that WorldCat is not yet good at covering libraries in India, so there may be more). I think the answer is that almost certainly there are printed issues in many libraries. On another note, since there seems to be a Fall 2018 issue in the libraries, the absence of an online journal homepage seems likely to be transitory. Do we know how long the journal has been without a homepage? My guess would be that it may have been a few weeks, but maybe not all year, but I'm just guessing (based on how long it can take busy people to arrange for a new web home if one disappears). What role is there for patience about such fluctuations by we Wikipedia editors? --Presearch (talk) 00:15, 28 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I dont know how long it has been out, but the domain name is for sale, so they haven't even renewed their domain name registration... --Randykitty (talk) 10:09, 28 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

WorldCat reporting 50 libraries holding it (with the decent possibility that Indian libraries, poorly indexed by WorldCat, may hold additional copies) supports my contention that it meets NJournals C2, via remark 2.c. This also supports the contention that it is non-predatory and of serious academic quality, since it seems unlikely that a predatory journal (or a low quality journal) would be so popular with libraries, including the libraries of prestigious institutions such as Columbia University (and also, per WorldCat, among others, Stanford, UC Berkeley, University of Chicago, Cornell, UPenn, Harvard, Brown, Yale, Oxford, Cambridge, and ANU.) Prestigious institutions like that don't subscribe to or keeping holdings of junk and predatory journals. SJK (talk) 09:06, 28 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Nobody says that it's a fake predatory journal. However, we regularly delete journals for not meeting WP:NJournals (and forget about meeting WP:GNG in that case). I don't see why this journal should be an exception. We have barely enough info to verify that the journal exists. --Randykitty (talk) 10:09, 28 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

But, arguably, it does meet NJournals C2 via remark 2.c, as evidenced by WorldCat. And WorldCat verifies the existence of the journal (surely it is a reliable source as to the holdings of libraries), so WP:V is clearly (and not "barely") met that the journal exists. SJK (talk) 10:17, 28 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I found a journal article reviewing one of its issues, and have added that as a cite to the article. Surely that adds to the case for its notability. SJK (talk) 11:13, 28 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

And a noted American scholar of Hinduism (Francis X. Clooney) has positive things to say about the article as well, which I've also quoted. That is evidence it meets NJournals criteria 1. SJK (talk) 11:22, 28 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Jovanmilic97 (talk) 09:59, 31 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Frankly, I don't think that 50 libraries is such a big deal. Really notable journals are held by hundreds of libraries the world over. In addition, WorldCat is notoriously unreliable. Just one example: the Eberhard Karls University is listed as having it, but if you click that link to see their holdings, you get "not found"... And as far as Clooney goes, that's an in-passing mention in a complete listing of journals in the field and most certainly hardly (or even not at all) contribute to notability, let alone that this alone would be enough to meet NJournals#1. The journal article reviewing an issue is a good one, but to meet GNG we need multiple sources, just one won't do it. --Randykitty (talk) 11:03, 31 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep This is by European-US standards very much of a niche publication, and we would therefore expect only certain extremely comprehensive libraries to hold it; it seems from WorldCat that most of them do. As mentioned, there is no practical way of evaluating its holdings in libraries in its cultural area., a problem with all Indian periodicals. Scopus and ISI make no attempt to cover fields like this in that geographic area. I think journals like this should be an exception to the usual rules, for the sake of assistance to the users in finding information. It's not actually even IAR, because an exception such as this is necessary to avoid WP:Cultural bias, which though not a formal principle, is a general practice here. And at least there's another way to avoid deletion, which is to merge with the article on the religious sect. I'd accept that as a general way of handling this sort of problem. DGG ( talk ) 17:38, 31 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I strongly disagree with this. 1/ Simply using the keyword "Hindu" shows two jounals included in both Scopus and ISI ([Clarivate http://mjl.clarivate.com/cgi-bin/jrnlst/jlresults.cgi?PC=MASTER&Word=*hindu]). There's probably more, but it shows that they DO include journals in this field, just not THIS particular journal. 2/ There is NO cultural bias here. Bias is if there were sources on 10 India-related subjects and on 10 European/North American subjects and we would only create articles on the latter. Or, if we would require more sourcs for India-related subjects. Neither is the case here, we should require THE SAME sourcing, regardless of the topic. WorldCat is unreliable (as you basically say yourself above) and, in any case, number of library holdings at best indicates that there may be notability but that is all. --Randykitty (talk) 09:50, 4 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Journals, and publications in general, are notoriously difficult to find reliable sources. This is for the simple reason that other publications are reluctant to talk about their rivals, and those that aren't rivals aren't independent. So it came as a surprise to me, especially after DGG's comment, that I found some sources relatively quickly;

"Book Review: Journal of Vaishnava Studies" in Journal of Hindu-Christian Studies
The above author has also posted (possibly the same review) in Academia.edu. Ok, that's an academic social network, but Jon Paul Sydnor is previously published in the field so is RS per WP:SPS
Interview: Journal of Vaishnava Studies editor Steven J. Rosen in Vrindavan in Vrindavan Today

SpinningSpark 01:46, 1 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment So we have 1 review (good source in reputable journal) and 1 interview with the editor. In bios we don't take interviews as indicating notability so why would we do things differently here? --Randykitty (talk) 09:55, 4 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Spinningspark, no opinions on the merits of this AfD but you really think that Vrindavan Today is such a high-quality RS; wherein an interview of the journal-editor is sufficient to impart notability to the journal?∯WBG^converse 11:16, 4 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep as per Spnning Spark, DGG, SJK. --Presearch (talk) 07:01, 4 January 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. wangi (talk) 03:01, 7 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Percevault[edit]

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

WP:NOT not a dictionary. Only one wiki-notable person has the surname. Daiyusha (talk) 06:00, 17 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Language-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 13:11, 18 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of France-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 13:11, 18 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: with a bit of copyediting three name-holders are clearly mentioned in articles, so this surname page is ok, though needs a source for the content re the name itself. PamD 07:54, 23 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 06:49, 24 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Jovanmilic97 (talk) 09:58, 31 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:NOT. FOARP (talk) 13:56, 31 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. This is not a mere dictionary entry. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 03:32, 3 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Should better just turn the red links into blue. Orientls (talk) 05:04, 3 January 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. WP:NCORP wangi (talk) 03:00, 7 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Wine Post[edit]

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

As with StraussInTheHouse, the article fails WP:NCORP and it lacks reliable sources. Sheldybett (talk) 09:34, 31 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: fails WP:NCORP. Of the external links in the article, only this isn't dead and a further source search brings up nothing reliable, only blogs (1, 2). SITH (talk) 09:41, 31 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. ―Abelmoschus Esculentus ^{talk / contribs} 12:48, 31 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of New Zealand-related deletion discussions. ―Abelmoschus Esculentus ^{talk / contribs} 12:48, 31 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 14:15, 31 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: This is an article about an individual private post company which is one of many in New Zealand, and which does not seem to be notable in its own right. Perhaps it might make sense to have an article entitled Private posts in New Zealand or something similar to cover a general overview of the topic. --Xwejnusgozo (talk) 20:47, 1 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: not only non-notable, but apparently not a registered private post either - see [43] where it is not listed. Daveosaurus (talk) 02:41, 2 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral/Uncertain: The page hasn't been edited for ages and suffers from link-rot. There are more recent sources, e.g. a recent Canopy article on the International Wine Challenge site. Wine Post may be notable in philately due to its rarity and use for sending mail to Antarctic science stations; it would be nice to know whether/how much that's true. The trouble is, the whole thing seems to be the project of a chap who makes (allegedly quite good) wine in his back shed in Dunedin, from grapes he trucks in from Otago. Although he went to all the trouble of getting himself listed as the world's southernmost winery in Guinness World Records, it seems he's given up on several failed attempts at a website and just hangs out on Facebook. The only complete up-to-date catalogue of his stamps is on a fan's Blogger site; the self-published stamp catalogue only goes up to 2008 and can be found on Lulu next to a fantasy novel...—Jon (talk) 10:55, 2 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: I prodded this back in February 2012 but an anonIP removed, and a few days later tagged it for ((no footnotes)), ((notability)) and ((unreliable sources)). Nothing sufficient has been done to resolve these issues in almost 7 years. It's about time to delete it. ww2censor (talk) 11:14, 2 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Randykitty (talk) 17:16, 7 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

TheFatRat[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

Not a notable person yet per sources, most of the references are from YouTube. WP:GNG not pass and WP:BLP fail. Also not meet with WP:MUSIC notability guide. Siddiqsazzad001 <Talk/> 08:23, 31 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2018 December 31. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 08:40, 31 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Sheldybett (talk) 09:12, 31 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Sheldybett (talk) 09:12, 31 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. Sheldybett (talk) 09:12, 31 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Germany-related deletion discussions. Sheldybett (talk) 09:12, 31 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hmm, good points. Here are my two cents:

1. WP:MUSIC: It seems that he is meeting the WP:MUSIC guidelines: The second line of the article states that one of his songs was #23 on a US billboard chart, which adheres to #2 of the WP:MUSIC guidelines?

2. WP:GNG: To my count, 12/19 references are not from Youtube. Even if you exclude SoundCloud and Itunes, that's still 9/19 references that aren't from Youtube. If these independent secondary reliable sources do not meet standards for WP:GNG (since frankly I could be wrong about what qualifies and what does not), then maybe it's just a matter of incorporating more reliable sources inside the article rather than deleting, and this deletion nomination could serve as an adequate call for attention. If you do a Google News search, then there are many more reliable sources about TheFatRat that we could incorporate.

3. WP:BLP: What exactly from WP:BLP seems out of place? And could it be addressed through the point in #2? Abagh0703 (talk) 11:48, 31 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep as he has had a national Billboard charting release as verified in the article so passes criteria 1 of WP:NMUSIC, and he has also received significant coverage in reliable sources such as Billboard in this article devoted to him and Broadway World shown here so passes WP:GNG as well and deseves to be included. He has also had releases on a major record label, namely Universal. thanks Atlantic306 (talk) 15:20, 31 December 2018 (UTC) (was asked to comment by Hermit Curator)[reply]

@Atlantic306: What about WP:BLP? Hermit maybe come from Twitter, after the famous person announcement for save his article and to request you. Siddiqsazzad001 <Talk/> 15:45, 31 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

- It has reliable sources so WP:BLP is not an issue Atlantic306 (talk) 18:48, 31 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Although this is weak on reliable sources, the subject may very well be notable per Billboard charts and major label association. But the Soundcloud and YouTube references need removed if this article is kept. FYI, @Atlantic306:, Broadway World is not a reliable source, per source review discussions. It is a website that relies on submitted press releases for content. Note to Admin that there is WP:CANVASING going on by the subject, as pointed out by Siddiqsazzad001, which could jeopardize the integrity of this AfD discussion. ShelbyMarion (talk) 17:21, 31 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

- Broadway World has always been a reliable source irrespective of what a few editors have said at AFD lately. All news publishers use press releases Atlantic306 (talk) 18:48, 31 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep He has placed on significant Billboard charts that qualify him for notability on Wikipedia. On top of that, numerous news sources such as The Daily Dot, YourEDM, Digital Music News, and TechDirt have covered his recent issue with YouTube's copyright ID system and his petition to YouTube. If the YouTube and SoundCloud plays on the article make it seem less professional, then it's simple enough to just remove them, and keep the article. Christian Büttner is a notable individual who deserves to have his Wikipedia article kept. Not only does he have a national Billboard charting release, his Jackpot EP, but he has worked with notable musicians Anjulie, Lola Blanc, and produced official music for the video game Dota 2. Embryo Yall (talk) 23:37, 31 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Because he has entered the Billboard charts several times, he should be all good, but I highly recommend that the references get completely redone. Half of the references are primary sources but all of them look lazily slapped in with no details added to them, which makes them look sketchy. If this cannot be done, then the article should be deleted, but for now, I trust that the article can be improved. Micro (Talk) 02:48, 1 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: There is no single source in Discography section except EPs, it have SoundCloud and iTunes sources (Self-published). There is WP:CANVASING going on by the subject. Siddiqsazzad001 <Talk/> 04:34, 1 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Source from DJ Mag, a significant news source, has been added for Jackpot EP. Further sources will be added soon for other releases. Embryo Yall (talk) 01:46, 2 January 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. WP:NME wangi (talk) 02:44, 7 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Raukawa television[edit]

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

Lacks notability and verification. After some searching I think they exist in reality, I am not sure, but that does not make them notable. Dushan Jugum (talk) 08:22, 31 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I am also nominating the following related page because it also lacks notability and verification and is described as a sub section of the first page/company:

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 08:33, 31 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of New Zealand-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 08:33, 31 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 08:33, 31 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Fails WP:TELEVISION, as a non-notable company I have never heard of it anyway until now. Sheldybett (talk) 09:14, 31 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Unfortunately, I can't find anything but brief mentions or entries in directories. They definitely exist, but without coverage, don't meet any Wikipedia criteria. RebeccaGreen (talk) 09:36, 31 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: source searches in Google, WorldCat and JSTOR haven't turned up anything of note. Analysis of the sources in the external links section:

Source	Independent?	Reliable?	Significant coverage?	Count source toward GNG?
Source assessment table:
"Home Raukawa FM".	Affiliated.	? Probably reliable for things like business address but not for asserting notability.	Naturally.	✘ No
"404 Not Found". `((cite web))`: Cite uses generic title (help)	Title indicates source was affiliated.	? Same as for the website.	? 404	✘ No
"YouTube".	? 404	Most YouTube videos aren't reliable sources.	? 404	✘ No
"Tokoroa - Google Maps".	It's a map.	? Just asserts a location.	Presumably the business address but that doesn't mean it's notable.	✘ No
This table may not be a final or consensus view; it may summarize developing consensus, or reflect assessments of a single editor. Created using ((source assess table)).

All in all, it's a clear failure of both WP:NCORP and WP:GNG. SITH (talk) 13:34, 31 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete both per all. Sources are not sufficient to pass notability. Ajf773 (talk) 09:57, 4 January 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. wangi (talk) 02:42, 7 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Kiran Sethi[edit]

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

Fails WP:GNG. Achievements include Black belt in Karate, Winner of National level Taekwondo competition. And represented her country at the taekwondo world cup. She also seems to have gained some coverage organizing a self-defense camp for 5000 women at a time, but not enough to be considered significant. Daiyusha (talk) 07:12, 9 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 13:28, 9 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 13:28, 9 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I have found and included more sources, and edited the article. I believe that she does meet WP:GNG, with significant coverage over several years for her activities training girls in self-defence, as well as for preventing the kidnap and assault of a girl while she was off-duty. RebeccaGreen (talk) 14:54, 9 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails WP:GNG. There is significant coverage from the TOI for the felicitation, and this from the Hindu is perhaps more than just routine coverage. But there just isn't any real depth to the subjects notability, just some news hype about one event, and subsequent recognition for that event. WP:TOOSOON as far as I can tell. Cesdeva ^(talk) 23:31, 12 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Comment--Roughly BLP1E. FWIW, black belt in Karate is definitely not an extraordinary achievement.But, I need to check whether she passes WP:NSPORTS.∯WBG^converse 20:38, 14 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 03:12, 16 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comment If it's BLP1E, it's actually BLP2E, with one of the "events" spread out over 4 years. RebeccaGreen (talk) 06:14, 16 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep agree per above Keep, and thanks for improved. 65.18.125.9 (talk) 04:13, 19 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

65.18.125.9 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Not really convinced there is a consensus here. What RebeccaGreen (as most of the time) did is a good work, but it seems there was no full agreement to that, one user saying he will check but does not come back, and the new !vote just using per X person rationale without going in the detail.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Jovanmilic97 (talk) 10:01, 23 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

~~Keep - agree with RebeccaGreen. Mmcele (talk) 17:52, 23 December 2018 (UTC)~~[reply]

Blocked sock. GSS (talk|c|em) 08:47, 26 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Real depth to your reasoning. I also note that you are the second Burmese editor with a fairly new account to !vote in this AfD nomination; which is interesting. Cesdeva ^(talk) 22:58, 24 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

wait what? New account? you blind? My account was created 3 month ago, and can you see user log and User contributions, I'm active on Myanmar wikiproject and AFD for women. So, I agree RebeccaGreen's work....Thanks. Mmcele (talk) 09:16, 25 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I've been through your contribs already. AfD Parrot much? Cesdeva ^(talk) 09:31, 25 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

~~Cesdeva what you mean? Can you note I'm not from India, not RS with this subject. Thanks Mmcele (talk) 09:59, 25 December 2018 (UTC)~~[reply]

Mmcele Either way, RebeccaGreen has changed their vote from keep to comment, you might want to provide a proper reasoning instead of saying keep as per above. Daiyusha (talk) 12:44, 25 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Daiyusha, I have not changed my vote, I added a comment in response to WBG's claim that it was "roughly BLP1E". If I had changed my vote, I would have struck out the original vote. RebeccaGreen (talk) 01:17, 28 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nomination on account of subject failing WP:MANOTE. Specifically, subject has not been the founder of notable martial-arts style, an Olympic participant or world champion of a significant international organization, a repeated medalist (as an adult black belt, i.e. 1st dan equivalent or higher rank) in a significant event nor the auhor of a significant book on their style. (BTW, we seem to have a small infestation of baby soxers here. ) -The Gnome (talk) 13:06, 29 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Usually the socks are a good indication that something's amiss with an article, but I do feel the subject here meets WP:GNG at least. The references provided are good (reliable, independent, etc.) and clearly not WP:BLP1E. I didn't focus on the individual details (winning a black belt), which are by themselves non-notable, but on the totality of the article. Ifnord (talk) 00:42, 30 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep – Passes GNG. Articles from The Times of India and The Hindu, among other sources, offer sufficient coverage for passing notability guidelines. ––Redditaddict69 ^(talk) ^(contribs) 04:39, 31 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Spartaz ^Humbug! 07:49, 31 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per Gnome. ∯WBG^converse 06:22, 4 January 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. So Why 11:28, 7 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Chris Leinweber[edit]

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

fails WP:NHOCKEY Joeykai (talk) 07:11, 31 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. ―Abelmoschus Esculentus ^{talk / contribs} 07:47, 31 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. ―Abelmoschus Esculentus ^{talk / contribs} 07:47, 31 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. ―Abelmoschus Esculentus ^{talk / contribs} 07:47, 31 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Ice hockey-related deletion discussions. ―Abelmoschus Esculentus ^{talk / contribs} 07:47, 31 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. ―Abelmoschus Esculentus ^{talk / contribs} 07:47, 31 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Alberta-related deletion discussions. ―Abelmoschus Esculentus ^{talk / contribs} 07:47, 31 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of North Dakota-related deletion discussions. ―Abelmoschus Esculentus ^{talk / contribs} 07:47, 31 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete played only seven games in the AHL and I cannot find any noteworthy article that would be useful to establish an argument for WP:GNG. Deadman137 (talk) 13:43, 31 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete does not meet inclusion guidelines for hockey players.John Pack Lambert (talk) 14:40, 31 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - not seeing any evidence of notability. His German team was in the 2nd division when he played there so even if he played 200 games there rather than 100 it wouldn't meet the criteria. Rlendog (talk) 15:17, 3 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails to meet any notability criteria at WP:NHOCKEY and lacks the coverage to meet WP:GNG. Papaursa (talk) 03:50, 5 January 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. So Why 11:30, 7 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Bunnu K. Endo Maye[edit]

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

Fails WP:NFO. The only point of notability is that its director won an award for some other film. Daiyusha (talk) 06:37, 31 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Arts-related deletion discussions. ―Abelmoschus Esculentus ^{talk / contribs} 07:46, 31 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Science fiction-related deletion discussions. ―Abelmoschus Esculentus ^{talk / contribs} 07:46, 31 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. ―Abelmoschus Esculentus ^{talk / contribs} 07:46, 31 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. ―Abelmoschus Esculentus ^{talk / contribs} 07:46, 31 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

An increased level of notability of the director has been incorporated into the article. The director has won the Best INdian film for one of his feature film in a major international film Festival and the Swarna Kamal Award at the Indian National Film Awards, the highest awards given by the Indian government in India. These points have now been incorporated into the article with references.Puppett (talk) 10:21, 31 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

See WP:NOTINHERITED.∯WBG^converse 07:17, 4 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete-- I see trivial coverage in local RS. Fails WP:NFILM. ∯WBG^converse 07:17, 4 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. There is the existence of a third party review of the film on an elite film review portal Upperstall. The film is also on IMDB. Guddi1111 (talk) 05:09, 6 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

IMDB is not a reliable source, WP:NFO states there should be reviews from 2 nationally known critics, I doubt Upperstall is a reliable and "nationally" known site. Daiyusha (talk) 06:21, 6 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Some of the "sources" do not appear to even be about this film, others are IMDB. This all looks very trivial.Slatersteven (talk) 11:05, 6 January 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 National Association of Secondary School Principals. wangi (talk) 02:36, 7 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Breakthrough Schools[edit]

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

No independent coverage of this award/program by the National Association of Secondary School Principals. There is a separate group of this name which is a set of schools in Cleveland, so a redirect to NASSP would be inappropriate. power~enwiki (π, ν) 19:01, 10 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 19:34, 10 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 19:34, 10 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 19:34, 10 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ifnord (talk) 03:06, 17 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ifnord (talk) 05:38, 24 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Џ 07:48, 24 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above. Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 14:48, 25 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Merge a short summary into National Association of Secondary School Principals per WP:BEFORE. This award needs to be included there so it seems illogical not to do it as a merge. If there is any ambiguity over a redirect then that can be resolved by a hatnote in usual fashion. Just Chilling (talk) 03:08, 26 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting to consider Just Chilling's !vote
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Kpg jhp jm 06:29, 31 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - OK, I have carried out a merge at National Association of Secondary School Principals#Breakthrough Schools. If this discussion closes as 'merge' then job done. If the close is 'delete' then one of the other methods of preserving attribution will be needed. Just Chilling (talk) 00:57, 1 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - I am not finding a reference to the "separate group of this name which is a set of schools in Cleveland" on Wikipedia but a hatnote can be added if thought necessary. Just Chilling (talk) 01:01, 1 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Pinging power~enwiki. wumbolo ^^^ 19:22, 1 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
It may not be on Wikipedia (and may not be notable); [44] is their website. power~enwiki (π, ν) 23:42, 3 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support merge by Just Chilling. Rubbish computer (Talk: Contribs) 22:41, 1 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support Merge. Topic is noteworthy enough to be mentioned in National Association of Secondary School Principals. Jip Orlando (talk) 12:40, 4 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. RL0919 (talk) 03:19, 7 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

CampusFab[edit]

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

The notability of this organization is not expressed. only (talk) 04:45, 24 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Notable subject, ref available, notable partners, etc. And please cool down a little bit : https://simple.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=CampusFab&type=revision&diff=6364636&oldid=6340518 YtoSu (talk) 05:00, 24 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 06:40, 24 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 06:40, 24 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of France-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 06:40, 24 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Aviation-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 06:41, 24 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. No evidence to suggest notability. A quick Google search reveals no independent reliable sources. Hiàn (talk) 16:29, 30 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Kpg jhp jm 06:28, 31 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. The sources provided are press release churnalism. SpinningSpark 00:41, 1 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - per nom. - ZLEA _Talk\^Contribs 18:17, 1 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Unable to locate any references that meet the criteria for establishing notability. Fails WP:NCORP. HighKing⁺⁺ 19:36, 6 January 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. WP:TOOSOON wangi (talk) 02:33, 7 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Tragedy (rapper)[edit]

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

Unable to find coverage in reliable sources. Does not seem to meet Wikipedia:Notability (music)#Criteria for musicians and ensembles. Bsherr (talk) 05:47, 31 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Sheldybett (talk) 06:25, 31 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Sheldybett (talk) 06:25, 31 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. Sheldybett (talk) 06:25, 31 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as unambiguous WP:PROMO that could probably be speedied as A7. Bakazaka (talk) 07:06, 31 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete not notable, clearly promotional. WP:TOOSOON. – Broccoli & Coffee ^{(Oh hai)} 02:52, 5 January 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. WP:NSKATE wangi (talk) 02:27, 7 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Egor Kocheev[edit]

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

Fails WP:NSKATE and WP:GNG. His results, http://www.isuresults.com/bios/isufs00008880.htm Hergilei (talk) 04:05, 31 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. ^{Babymissfortune} 06:30, 31 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Uzbekistan-related deletion discussions. ^{Babymissfortune} 06:31, 31 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete not enough sourcing to show notability.John Pack Lambert (talk) 14:42, 31 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete He competed at the 2006 ISU World Junior Championships, but he didn't even qualify for the short program. This means he fails to meet WP:NSKATE. I also didn't find the coverage required to meet WP:GNG. Papaursa (talk) 03:47, 5 January 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. postdlf (talk) 16:13, 6 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Thomas Carskadon[edit]

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

Article with no references about a failed political candidate from the 1800s. No clear notability. Bitmapped (talk) 03:37, 24 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 06:38, 24 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of West Virginia-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 06:38, 24 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 06:38, 24 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comment A source for this man appears to be Debates and Proceedings of the First Constitutional Convention of West Virginia (1861-1863) (1939, by Charles Henry Ambler, Frances Haney Atwood, William Burdette Mathews), which only has a snippet view on Google books [45]. The search results page shows the text "His father, Thomas Carskadon, a slave owner, represented Hampshire County in the Virginia General Assembly for six years (1827-1832), where he, after the Nat Turner insurrection, favored the abolition of Negro slavery. He was a Whig and ..." which suggests that Thomas Carskadon senior would have presumed notability as a member of a state legislature. I can't see enough of the book to tell whether Thomas Carskadon junior's role in the constitutional convention was considered notable. But other than that, I don't find sources online. RebeccaGreen (talk) 10:30, 24 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, without prejudice against recreation if somebody with much better access to historical databases of West Virginia media coverage than I've got can write and reference something significantly better than this. Being a non-winning candidate for state governor is not an automatic WP:NPOL pass — it can get him over the bar if he can be referenced well enough to clear WP:GNG, but is not "inherently" notable enough that the "need" to maintain an article would override the need to source it properly, and nothing else here is a strong inherent notability boost either. If his father served in the state legislature, then we should certainly have an article about his father — but even then, he still wouldn't inherit notability just for having a notable father either. Bearcat (talk) 18:21, 24 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep expanded. prominent politician. His house is NRHP listed, and this article might be a plausible redirect or merge to the house page. Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 22:57, 24 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Bearcat and RebeccaGreen: would you look now? I feel notability is met as a very prominent west virginia citizen. Of further interest is the NRHP listing. Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 14:40, 25 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: Per Eddie891's edits and expansion. Article clearly meets WP:GNG, and the fact that he did not successfully win office is thus irrelevant. --1990'sguy (talk) 21:55, 29 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 02:28, 31 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Eddie891's work in adding references and expanding the article now demonstrates his notability. I searched again in Newspapers.com with his middle initial included, and found and added some other references. (I hope people won't think it's too much like WP:REFBOMBing - anyone is of course free to delete any.) The most useful I've added is probably an obituary, which describes him as having a national reputation as a Prohibition leader. RebeccaGreen (talk) 05:25, 31 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
WP:SNOW] KEEP per WP:HEYMANN upgrade of ancient, unsourced article by User:Eddie891 and User:RebeccaGreen.E.M.Gregory (talk) 15:15, 31 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep since it has now been expanded and has citations. The original issues that led to me listing the article no longer apply. Bitmapped (talk) 20:22, 31 December 2018 (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. postdlf (talk) 16:17, 6 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Anorak Technologies[edit]

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

Doesn't meet WP:GNG or WP:CORPDEPTH. Coverage is routine press release rehashes about rounds of funding, and substantial coverage of what the business actually does comes from associated sources (the byline on the Finextra article about Anorak's tie to Starling Bank is "Strarling [sic] Bank"). While the source cited for the award describes it as " the prestigious winners of the Life Insurance International Innovation Awards 2018", those awards are mentioned in no other independent source I could find. Largoplazo (talk) 18:21, 17 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Bakazaka (talk) 02:53, 18 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. Bakazaka (talk) 02:53, 18 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. Bakazaka (talk) 02:53, 18 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ifnord (talk) 05:26, 24 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 06:47, 24 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Material without credible reference have been removed and all other references seem to be pointing to credible sources, including ones like techcrunch and AXA's website itself. - Bridge900 (talk) 10:27, 28 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 02:27, 31 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - industry sourcing would be ok if there were also refs that establish notability. Smallbones_(smalltalk) 22:50, 31 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete None of the references meet the criteria for establishing notability, most are based on routine announcements failing WP:ORGIND. The test is not merely a "credible source" but a source that is in-depth and both functionally and intellectually independent. Topic fails WP:NCORP and GNG. HighKing⁺⁺ 18:16, 4 January 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. Interesting development since listing, plus unrelated individual: WP:GNG,WP:NACTOR wangi (talk) 02:25, 7 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Song Xiaobao[edit]

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

Contested PROD, subject appears to fail notability guidelines at WP:ENTERTAINER. Only one minor role in a notable work. When I went looking for sources, I found an (unrelated) female basketball player. Ifnord (talk) 05:49, 24 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Poor sourcing (IMDb and YouTube), and lack of articles on page to support notability. sixtynine ^{• whaddya want? •} 05:56, 24 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 06:44, 24 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of China-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 06:44, 24 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete If Mr Song had appeared on the CCTV Spring Festival Gala, then he would certainly justify inclusion: the format of the show means that he would have had substantial screen time on the world's most popular television show, with the approval of the Politburo. But if you read the cited article carefully, it only says that he has appeared on the gala on Liaoning provincial TV, which is not the same thing at all. Matt's talk 02:14, 26 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Song Xiaobao is (arguably) the second most famous actor of the er ren zhuan genre of all time, after his master Zhao Benshan. There is enough biographical coverage in Chinese media outlets to justify an article: [46] [47] [48] [49]; there's also a lot of media coverage of his shows over the past decade to establish the existence of persistent coverage, e.g. [50] (2016), [51] (2014), [52] (2012). This Google search gives some indication of the level of media coverage he receives. Deryck C. 17:44, 26 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting to allow time for consideration of sources presented later in the discussion.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 02:25, 31 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The content and references added as WP:HEYMANN since the nomination for AfD do demonstrate that the subject is notable. While I'm not certain how reliable the biographical source links provided by Deryck are, the news articles do seem reliable. He certainly meets WP:GNG, and it seems that he has had significant roles in multiple productions, so he may meet WP:NACTOR as well. RebeccaGreen (talk) 05:49, 31 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete The (unrelated) female basketball player is Song Xiaobo, not Song Xiaobao. Timmyshin (talk) 00:09, 1 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Timmyshin: I think everybody in this discussion is clear that actor Song Xiaobao and basketball player Song Xiaobo are two different people. Would you please explain why you want the article on the actor Song Xiaobao deleted? Deryck C. 11:23, 2 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Not everyone is clear that their names are also spelled differently in both the Latin script and the Chinese script. I believe you also know this, sometimes different Chinese names have the same romanization, for example Li Peng (footballer) and Li Peng. Sometimes the same Chinese name can be rendered differently, for example Liu O is most likely Liu E. But Song Xiaobo is not only not Song Xiaobao, her Chinese name is also completely different. Not only written differently, but also not a homonym in any Chinese topolect as far as I know. Although "Bao" is sometimes romanized as "Bo" (e.g. Fung Bo Bo), "Xiaobao" is definitely distinct from "Xiaobo" in any possible romanization. Timmyshin (talk) 15:29, 3 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Timmyshin: I think we've crossed wires here - can you please explain your "delete" opinion? Similarity of names is not a valid deletion rationale. Deryck C. 18:20, 3 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Agree with Deryck Chan. Nobody is confusing the male actor with the female basketball player here. The similarity of their names is not a rationale for deletion. -Zanhe (talk) 06:14, 4 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Keep - famous Chinese comedian and actor who won the Huading Award at least twice. See award video and news article. -Zanhe (talk) 05:52, 4 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Well known comedy actor, 14 million search results on Google in Chinese. Esiymbro (talk) 04:38, 6 January 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. reasonable notability wangi (talk) 02:14, 7 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Mercury Browser[edit]

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

Non-notable mildly promo app article. I made a preliminary attempt to find more reliable references, but came across only passing mentions. Drewmutt (^ᴥ^) talk 18:31, 17 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. Bakazaka (talk) 02:52, 18 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. Bakazaka (talk) 02:52, 18 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Keep There seem two decent reviews - there might be a dispute on their reliability, but PCMAG and PCWORLD are generally trusted on RS/noticeboard, in terms of reviews. So as well as the in-article source, there's PC World review. So long as those two hold up, there's sufficient sourcing. Nosebagbear (talk) 21:02, 18 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 05:59, 24 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 02:23, 31 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Reviews from PC World, Lifehacker, and PC Magazine have been added that show notability. Merry Christmas and Happy New Year, GeoffreyT2000 (talk) 23:40, 31 December 2018 (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. postdlf (talk) 16:11, 6 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Weaver's Antique Service Station[edit]

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

Closed roadside attraction. No references or any clear claims of notability. Bitmapped (talk) 03:21, 24 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 06:34, 24 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of West Virginia-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 06:34, 24 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 06:35, 24 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Nothing notable about this one. Ajf773 (talk) 08:43, 24 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
~~Merge~~ Keep It appears to be on the National Register of Historic Places, as part of Burlington,_West_Virginia#Historic_Sites, ~~so merge with that article, which already includes this service station, but has not been updated to indicate that it is now closed to the public. Also include the photo in that article too.~~ RebeccaGreen (talk) 10:04, 24 December 2018 (UTC) Happy to keep as a separate article thanks to Doncram's work on it. RebeccaGreen (talk) 02:13, 1 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
~~Merge~~ Keep As suggested by RebeccaGreen, and per WP:ATD-M and WP:PRESERVE, we should not delete this. Doncram's expansion is good and means that there's now enough for a separate page. Andrew D. (talk) 10:14, 24 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Merge as proposed by RebeccaGreen. Ktrimi991 (talk) 13:41, 24 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I added NRHP nomination document source and information from it into the article, and added NRHP infobox, and otherwise developed it a bit, and removed long-standing "unreferenced" tag which no longer applies. It is a contributing building in the NRHP-listed Burlington Historic District (Burlington, West Virginia). It is currently the only historic gas station in West Virginia included in List of historic filling stations, and is in category appropriate for that. The amount of detail provided in the article now, including category and coordinates and photo and text (and infobox), would not be appropriate in the suggested merger target. It is fine as a short nice article, properly categorized and so on. It may be expanded further in the future, probably could be further developed with sources about the proprietor and other aspects of the business from local history records, local newspapers including obituaries about the proprietor, etc. And once notable, always notable. --Doncram (talk) 04:59, 27 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting per the last comment .
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Kpg jhp jm 02:04, 31 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per Doncram's WP:HEYMANN upgrade of sourcing. It is common for the individual buildings in historic districts to have stand-alone articles; we have a long list of them Category:Gas stations on the National Register of Historic Places.E.M.Gregory (talk) 13:54, 31 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per WP:HEYMANN. Nice work. Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 23:01, 31 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. It's on a national register of historic places. That makes it notable. SpinningSpark 00:31, 1 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Consensus is that Chubbles's rationale is enough for establishing notability. I don't expect anything further coming from this AfD if I don't close it. (non-admin closure) wumbolo ^^^ 19:31, 1 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Dark at Dawn[edit]

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

Fails WP:NBAND. No hits, no national tours, no major record label, no reliable sources Rogermx (talk) 15:00, 9 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Kpg jhp jm 16:35, 9 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Germany-related deletion discussions. Kpg jhp jm 16:35, 9 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. The band released two albums on a noteworthy label, AFM, and have received attention in the press in their native land - see the band's biography on laut.de, which is linked on their much better-fleshed-out German wiki page. The English article has previously been subject to cycles of substubbing by other editors suspicious of its notability, which explains its impoverished current status. Chubbles (talk) 18:52, 9 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep. Given the longevity of the band and number of albums released, there will almost certainly be more coverage than can be found from a Google search. There's one review at Allmusic, but metal bands often have more in metal-specific print sources than can be found in reliable online sources. --Michig (talk) 21:00, 10 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 03:11, 16 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Jovanmilic97 (talk) 09:51, 23 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Weak delete little evidence of notability, but I don't know german, and the dewiki page has significantly more content, so there may be other references that aren't in english or aren't online --DannyS712 (talk) 10:29, 23 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete on account of subject failing WP:NBAND. The German-language entry is equally badly sourced, with mostly self-references. But I guess we can do little about that. -The Gnome (talk) 14:28, 29 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Spartaz ^Humbug! 00:41, 31 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comment the last two commenters have both said the group lacks notability, but...the group doesn't lack notability. They recorded for AFM Records, one of Germany's biggest metal labels. They have an extensive profile on laut.de (biography, album review), a German music information and review site approximately equivalent to Allmusic in English. I don't know the German metal press all that well, but they have been extensively reviewed in it: [53], [54], [55], [56], [57], [58]. Chubbles (talk) 12:04, 31 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Chubbles. We shouldn't be so quick to ignore non-EN sourcing. FOARP (talk) 13:49, 31 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
- If we can't understand the sources, how do we know if they meet the requirements for notability? Just asking. Rogermx (talk) 17:22, 31 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  - Laut.de confirms (here and here) that they released two albums on AFM. That verifies (from an independent source) that the group released two albums on a noteworthy indie label, which establishes, at minimum, that the group reaches the threshold of WP:MUSIC. The rest of the reviews, ultimately, are icing on the cake. So I think the case can be made here even without knowing a lick of German nor anything about Teutonic metal publications. Chubbles (talk) 21:41, 31 December 2018 (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. -- Scott (talk) 00:28, 7 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Information and media literacy[edit]

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

This article is two topics, which duplicates the contents of media literacy and information literacy both of which have creation date which preceded this article's creation by 2-3 years. Much of it has virtually no citations, which is not a surprise since it just duplicates the contents of the other two articles. There is no reason for this article to exist, anything which can be salvaged should be added to the two respective subtopics, and then it should be deleted. Ethanpet113 (talk) 08:22, 9 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep We also have digital literacy, computer literacy, network literacy, &c. We should be bringing this cloud of related topics together rather than separating them. Insofar as respectable organisations use this title for their curriculum and other activities, it ought to be a blue link not a red link. The nomination's plan to retain some of the content also means that we should not use the delete function – see WP:MAD. Andrew D. (talk) 09:52, 9 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. Sheldybett (talk) 21:51, 9 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 03:12, 16 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Unsure - So here's my take. As far as I understand, this topic (IML) isn't really much of a development on the separate concepts of media literacy and information literacy, but more of a shorthand/buzzterm for a particular pedagogical orientation/attitude that combines the two to help people develop practical and critical skills/knowledge. My initial reaction to seeing this AfD is to suggest a merge because the concepts of media and information literacy have, separately, been developed such that they cover the same purposes, overlap, and interconnect, and that we can cover those connections in their respective articles. I'm skeptical, but I'm just not sure (need to do some more research) the extent to which there has been scholarship that not just uses the term "information and media literacy" but develops the concept beyond its two parts. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 06:33, 20 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Jovanmilic97 (talk) 09:53, 23 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete this scholarly article that possesses no inherent, independent, verifiable notability. Subject already and adequately covered in articles such as media literacy, information literacy, etc, yet some editor wants to buzz in something that is not even a neologism. Wikipedia seems of late to be infested with texts that are actually school work. But Wikipedia, despite some WP:SPAs persistent efforts is an encyclopaedia; not a scientific journal nor an indiscriminate listing of information. We should keep it this way. -The Gnome (talk)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, DannyS712 (talk) 00:19, 31 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Delete. This reads more of an essay on the subject and appears to be duplicating the information from the other articles mentioned. Jip Orlando (talk) 22:12, 3 January 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. Salting both this page and Andrew Nisker. -- Scott (talk) 00:12, 7 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Andrew nisker[edit]

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

Not notable. PROD removed by creator without explanation, this person doesn't meet WP:GNG Joseph2302 (talk) 00:02, 31 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Joseph2302 (talk) 00:03, 31 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. Joseph2302 (talk) 00:03, 31 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

delete a single of the five or six refs is about this person. The others 404 or mention him in passing. I'd be more inclined to do some work on finding more refs if it were not so patently obvious that the article is a COI job (standard m.o. - SPA with 10 edits, creates article, includes photo which evidences close connection of writer to written-about): whereas he /may/ have some sort of notability, I'm not inclined to waste my time trying to work out what is real and what is self-aggrandising PR fluff in the current article. Better by far to delete the whole thing and, if he is notable, trust that an honest person will add a new article in the fullness of time. --Tagishsimon (talk) 00:10, 31 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Comment There is a twice–delete (G5 and G11) article at the correct capitalization article (Andrew Nisker)--☾Loriendrew☽ ☏(ring-ring) 00:29, 31 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and salt as recreation of a deleted article by an editor with exactly enough edits to get autoconfirmed status before posting this fully formatted 11kb+ article on their 11th edit. Unambiguous WP:PROMO. Again. Bakazaka (talk) 04:28, 31 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - The improper capitalisation is particularly unimpressive. COI issues, breaches WP:PROMO. FOARP (talk) 13:50, 31 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Found no sources that would show that this passes WP:NBIO. Merry Christmas and Happy New Year, GeoffreyT2000 (talk) 23:31, 31 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above and if it is being recreating then salt too. D4iNa4 (talk) 11:02, 2 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. The body content is literally identical to the version that was deleted in 2017 — which had been flagged as paid editing by a PR flack, thus suggesting that the same thing might be happening here as well — but the referencing is even weaker. As always, Wikipedia is not a free public relations platform on which people are entitled to have articles just because they and their work technically verify as existing — it is an encyclopedia, on which certain specific markers of notability have to be achieved for an article to become earned. There are certainly potentially valid claims of notability here, in that there are enough unsourced review quotes to suggest that he might pass WP:GNG on critical attention to his films, but they're so wrapped up in advertorial bumf that it's difficult to sort out what's a legitimate notability claim and what's self-promoting fluff. In order to actually be kept, this article would have to be rewritten literally from scratch, in a much more neutral and objective tone and making much more effort to properly cite reliable sources. So salt both this and the properly capitalized original title as well — if somebody wants to take a stab at rewriting a proper article that makes a legitimate and properly sourced case for his notability, then they can do that in draftspace and submit it for AFC review. Bearcat (talk) 15:07, 2 January 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.