< 9 April	11 April >

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

The result was delete. ~ Amory (u • t • c) 23:45, 17 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Yejun Feng[edit]

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

Does not really assert any kind of notability, and one of the links is no longer giving any information about him. Delete unless notability established. --Nlu (talk) 14:30, 3 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 14:38, 3 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. Icewhiz (talk) 15:12, 3 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of China-related deletion discussions. Icewhiz (talk) 15:12, 3 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Illinois-related deletion discussions. Icewhiz (talk) 15:12, 3 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep – there are other sources out there about this guy, just need to be included in the article. Ie. a section about his actual research could be made. Sam-2727 (talk) 12:50, 4 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Associate professor, appears to fail WP:PROF. I'm unsure what sources User:Sam-2727 is talking about; just because there are several papers to write about his actual research doesn't mean WP:PROF is met. Timmyshin (talk) 12:22, 7 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep. GS h-index of around 17 just passes WP:Prof for this field. Xxanthippe (talk) 06:17, 9 April 2019 (UTC).[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Natg 19 (talk) 23:41, 10 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. PATH SLOPU 13:57, 12 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. PATH SLOPU 13:57, 12 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not seeing coverage that meets the GNG or how he meets WP:NPROF. The h-index cited by Xxanthippe seems low for physics but I admit don't have a good feel for each field's notable h-index.Sandals1 (talk) 14:57, 12 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete NPROF says "Citation measures such as the h-index, g-index, etc., are of limited usefulness" so I fail to see how that alone is a reason to keep above. While I know that page reduces the expectation for mass media coverage, personal lab websites are insufficient and I don't see any other sort of independent sourcing. Reywas92^Talk 18:56, 12 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. The "article" consists of two sentences and doesn't really include a claim to notability, or any sources that demonstrate notability. --Tataral (talk) 22:43, 12 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Both current links are uninformative; he seems to have moved to Okinawa. His citation record isn't strong enough yet to convince me of a pass of WP:PROF#C1. I can find a couple press releases from Argonne about research he was involved in, but nothing independent enough to pass WP:GNG. And there seems to be nothing else. —David Eppstein (talk) 21:56, 13 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nomination. Subject fails WP:NPROF. -The Gnome (talk) 11:07, 17 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Delete. Closed at 04:58, 18 April 2019‎; adding forgotten signature. Espresso Addict (talk) 18:45, 1 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Emma Parker Bowles[edit]

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

There is no indication of notability. The only reason the article exists is because her father's brother's ex-wife is the Queen's son's second wife. Surtsicna (talk) 19:15, 3 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 20:28, 3 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fashion-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 20:28, 3 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 20:28, 3 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I knew this name sounded familiar... oh well. Being an extended family member of a royal doesn’t mean inherited notability. No indication of it either. Trillfendi (talk) 21:36, 3 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Oh, so she's the niece of the future king's wife. That Don't Impress Me Much (nor does she meet GNG or N, and most of the sources are the expected tabloid pablum. Even if she works for those purveyors on the auto beat, I get the feeling it was merely paraphrasing press releases for those companies as a 'hey it's that person' type of personality, and hardly any kind of investigative journalism). Nate • (chatter) 03:25, 4 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
- She is not even Camilla's niece anymore. The relationship was through Camilla's first marriage. Surtsicna (talk) 07:10, 4 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  - Comment Even less impressive then. Nate • (chatter) 14:50, 4 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: while the article has almost no sources and is very poorly written, a quick google search shows that she has been written about extensively in the press [1]. -- Willthacheerleader18 (talk) 18:22, 4 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment The vast majority of sources are tabloid padlum, outright unfiltered PR for her skiing reality show, and 'who is she let's write a summary of her life written by a fourth-grader' stories rather than anything that seriously talks about the subject. Google News is a good first step to searching for notability, but it's also a good indicator of how non-notable a subject can be, as has been shown here. Nate • (chatter) 17:04, 9 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Natg 19 (talk) 23:38, 10 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nominatiom. Nothing can be traced out there to justify claims of independent and sufficient Wikinotability except for tabloid puffery about members of the royal family. Which is all well and good for tabloids, history books, or brochures but Wikipedia is nothing of the sort. Royal succession is a matter of inheritance; Wikipedia notability is not. -The Gnome (talk) 11:17, 17 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. — JJMC89 (T·C) 00:59, 18 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

She and She[edit]

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

Nonnotable Chinese film. 0.9 million RMB is nothing in 2014 Chinese cinema (the top 2014 Chinese film grossed 1169 million). Douban is basically a Chinese version of IMDB so Wikipedia:Citing IMDb applies. Timmyshin (talk) 22:58, 10 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. Ceethekreator (talk) 23:00, 10 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of China-related deletion discussions. Ceethekreator (talk) 23:00, 10 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete since subject completely fails WP:NFILM. Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate listing of cinema works. -The Gnome (talk) 11:19, 17 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. ~ Amory (u • t • c) 23:46, 17 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Sebastian Jude[edit]

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

Non-notable actor. Only source cited is IMDB and the only other sources available are similar sites. Contested PROD. Hut 8.5 21:38, 10 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete and thank you, Hut 8.5, for saving me the time. A GNews search pulls up only one result, and it's a name-drop. —A little blue Bori v^_^v ^Bori! 21:46, 10 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. No indicia of encyclopedic notability. bd2412 T 22:38, 10 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Ceethekreator (talk) 22:58, 10 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. Ceethekreator (talk) 22:58, 10 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. Ceethekreator (talk) 22:58, 10 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I performed my own search, and couldn't find anything supporting notability for the subject. He is supposedly "most famously" known for Lizzie McGuire, but does not appear on the Lizzie McGuire article even playing a minor character, which are listed. --Kbabej (talk) 23:32, 10 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 06:30, 11 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Fails WP:GNG. -- Dane ^talk 03:42, 14 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as WP:TOOSOON with no significant roles in notable productions yet, the Lizzie McGuire role was only in three episodes of 65, may be notable in the future but not now, thanksAtlantic306 (talk) 19:15, 14 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nomination. The text has been written either by a fan or a friend ("Sebastian keeps to himself...decided to finish school...continues to pay his Screen Actors Guild dues" and so on). We could graciously invoke WP:TOOSOON. -The Gnome (talk) 11:22, 17 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. — JJMC89 (T·C) 00:57, 18 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

National Christian Forensics and Communications Association clubs[edit]

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

Fails WP:LISTN; I could not find any reliable sources discussing these clubs. The references are just to the club websites. As the talk page demonstrates, the list is unverifiable since these clubs are ephemeral and there is no way to tell which ones are still active. Cerebellum (talk) 21:34, 10 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 06:30, 11 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Alabama-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 07:51, 11 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Arkansas-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 07:52, 11 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Arizona-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 07:52, 11 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Colorado-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 07:52, 11 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Connecticut-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 07:52, 11 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Florida-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 07:52, 11 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Georgia (U.S. state)-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 07:53, 11 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Hawaii-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 07:53, 11 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Idaho-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 07:53, 11 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Illinois-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 07:53, 11 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Indiana-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 07:53, 11 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Iowa-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 07:53, 11 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Kansas-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 07:54, 11 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Kentucky-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 07:54, 11 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Louisiana-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 07:54, 11 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Maryland-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 07:54, 11 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Massachusetts-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 07:54, 11 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Minnesota-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 07:55, 11 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Mississippi-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 07:55, 11 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Missouri-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 07:55, 11 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Montana-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 07:55, 11 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Nebraska-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 07:55, 11 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of New Hampshire-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 07:56, 11 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of New Jersey-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 07:56, 11 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of New Mexico-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 07:56, 11 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 07:56, 11 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of North Carolina-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 07:57, 11 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Ohio-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 07:57, 11 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Oklahoma-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 07:57, 11 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Oregon-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 07:57, 11 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Pennsylvania-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 07:57, 11 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of South Carolina-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 07:58, 11 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Tennessee-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 07:58, 11 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Texas-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 07:58, 11 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Utah-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 07:59, 11 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Virginia-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 07:59, 11 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Wisconsin-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 08:00, 11 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Washington-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 08:00, 11 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of West Virginia-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 08:00, 11 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Just a simple directory, none of any entries are notable. Ajf773 (talk) 08:04, 11 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Comments I'm afraid I don't understand the deletion rationale, or if I do understand it that rationale doesn't seem to be in alignment with standard practices on Wikipedia. For example, there's no need for every entry on a list to be notable--if they were, then every entry on the list would (or could) have its own article. Yet we have lots of list articles that don't meet that strict standard. An argument could be made that many of the sources are not third party (it sure looks that way) so that wouldn't point to notability of each organization, but there's not an article about each organization and it's okay from at least a verifiability standpoint. As for clubs that might not be active any more, there's no requirement in the list that it be current and in fact has a disclaimer. If this content were merged to National Christian Forensics and Communications Association then that article would be clumsy and awkward, but an argument could be made that it's worthy of inclusion. Yet at the same time, I wonder just how big this organization could be and how much the list could grow--possibly to the point of being ridiculous.--Paul McDonald (talk) 12:45, 11 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Paul, I probably expressed the rationale poorly. As far as I can tell, none of the sources are third party. In my opinion this means that the article fails the portion of LISTN that says: One accepted reason why a list topic is considered notable is if it has been discussed as a group or set by independent reliable sources. --Cerebellum (talk) 15:47, 11 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I do that all the time, thanks for clarifying. Not ready to take a position yet, but admittedly it doesn't look good for the list...--Paul McDonald (talk) 19:44, 11 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I'm ready. Delete fails WP:LISTN and Wikipedia is not a directory--certainly not for a list of local clubs by state that the organization's website would either maintain themselves or prefer to keep private.--Paul McDonald (talk) 02:20, 17 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete A list of non-notable school clubs is not appropriate for Wikipedia, fails WP:LISTN. Reywas92^Talk 19:12, 11 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Per above. Not seeing how it meets Wp:LISTN. Rollidan (talk) 23:04, 16 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nomination. Subject fails WP:LISTN. Once again: Wikipedia does not list random information. -The Gnome (talk) 11:24, 17 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. — JJMC89 (T·C) 00:57, 18 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

10 Honest Thoughts on Being Loved by a Skinny Boy[edit]

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

I don't see how this subject meets WP:GNG. While some reliable sources have posted "articles" about the poem, these articles have basically no analysis of the subject beyond a paragraph. On closer inspection, the most substantial source cited in the article doesn't actually mention the poem, and instead focuses on another poem by the same writer with a similar theme. If we had an article about Rachel Wiley, or about the book this was published in I would redirect this title to there (and it does appear very likely to me that at least Wiley is notable), but we don't so I'm bringing this to AfD. _signed,Rosguill ^talk 21:33, 10 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. _signed,Rosguill ^talk 21:35, 10 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. _signed,Rosguill ^talk 21:35, 10 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Poetry-related deletion discussions. _signed,Rosguill ^talk 21:35, 10 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Apparently I forgot to file an SPI based on the edits to this article. Too late now, probably. In any event, there's a lot of Button Poetry-related promo and refspam that gets added regularly wherever possible in the encyclopedia. The pattern is typically: Button Poetry direct links + blogs w/YouTube links to Button Poetry + any tangential mention of the author + copy/paste from author's own bio = article. This poem is not independently notable, the coverage is not significant, and I suspect the real purpose is to get more Button Poetry links (which typically go to pages with fundraising/merch links) into Wikipedia. So, WP:GNG or WP:NOTPROMO, take your pick. Bakazaka (talk) 23:12, 10 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nomination and Bakazaka commentary, as above. -The Gnome (talk) 11:26, 17 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. — JJMC89 (T·C) 00:57, 18 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Count Wiley[edit]

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

Local politician, claim of notability is based on an unsuccessful mayoral campaign in a city of 50,000 people. Clearly does not meet WP:POLITICIAN Rusf10 (talk) 21:27, 10 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. Ceethekreator (talk) 23:01, 10 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of New Jersey-related deletion discussions. Ceethekreator (talk) 23:01, 10 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I created this article before I was more fully familiar with the different standards of notability for different types of bio subjects, in particular WP:POL, so I don't oppose deletion if a consensus of the community decides it. Nightscream (talk) 00:38, 11 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. PATH SLOPU 13:58, 12 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. PATH SLOPU 13:58, 12 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. People do not get Wikipedia articles just for being candidates in elections they didn't win, but this neither makes nor sources any strong claim that he's notable for other reasons besides the candidacy. Bearcat (talk) 17:49, 14 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete since subject fails WP:NPOLITICIAN. Election time is Wikipedia overtime. -The Gnome (talk) 11:27, 17 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. — JJMC89 (T·C) 00:56, 18 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Luca Maggiora[edit]

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

Yet another horrifically-sourced piece from Ziggy 2milli (talk · contribs). All GNews is giving me are name-drops and interviews (string: "Luca Maggiora"). —A little blue Bori v^_^v ^Bori! 20:58, 10 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. Ceethekreator (talk) 23:03, 10 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. Ceethekreator (talk) 23:03, 10 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. Ceethekreator (talk) 23:03, 10 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. All but one of these sources - abysmal as they are - aren't even about the subject; they're about restaurants he's opened. The one source about Maggiora ("INTRODUCING LUCA MAGGIORA THE KING OF HOSPITALITY" from Luxurialifestyle) is mostly an interview. I appreciate new users and their work, but that also isn't a criteria when it comes to AfD. --Kbabej (talk) 23:40, 10 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Ziggy's been writing pieces like this since mid-2018, and this is no less than the 7th article he's written that's been taken to AfD (see this AN/I thread). —A little blue Bori v^_^v ^Bori! 23:53, 10 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nomination. Subject fails WP:GNG. Citation overkill (of mostly irrelevant subjects) cannot compensate for lack of Wikinotability. Any deletion time would be late time. -The Gnome (talk) 11:31, 17 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. ~ Amory (u • t • c) 23:48, 17 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Sterling Sports Management[edit]

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

Not seeing WP:SIGCOV of this sports management company. Tacyarg (talk) 20:59, 10 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. Tacyarg (talk) 21:00, 10 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. PATH SLOPU 14:00, 12 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Baseball-related deletion discussions. PATH SLOPU 14:00, 12 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. PATH SLOPU 14:00, 12 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Golf-related deletion discussions. PATH SLOPU 14:00, 12 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. PATH SLOPU 14:00, 12 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Ohio-related deletion discussions. PATH SLOPU 14:00, 12 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete no significant coverage that would qualify for the primary criteria of WP:NORG. Article appears to be completely promotional and created by an SPA, too. Leviv ich 14:38, 12 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Promotional, unrefrenced article for which I see no sort of sourcing which could be added which would help it meet the criteria of NCORP. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 12:07, 13 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Promotional. Fails WP:GNG. -- Dane ^talk 03:49, 14 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete per WP:CSD#G11. – Muboshgu (talk) 16:31, 14 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete per WP:CSD#G11....William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 09:57, 15 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Giant Snowman 10:36, 15 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - pure promotion, no evidence of notability. Giant Snowman 10:39, 15 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Agree this is a G11. Govvy (talk) 09:43, 16 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above. G11 Applies Rollidan (talk) 23:06, 16 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete as per above GS11. --Jimbo^[online] 13:23, 17 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. — JJMC89 (T·C) 00:56, 18 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Kingston Foster[edit]

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

Subject fails WP:NACTOR. No WP:SIGCOV on the subject, WP:TOOSOON for now. Lapablo (talk) 20:56, 10 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Ceethekreator (talk) 23:04, 10 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. Ceethekreator (talk) 23:04, 10 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Ceethekreator (talk) 23:04, 10 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Dance-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 06:33, 11 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 06:33, 11 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete since subject fails WP:NACTOR. -The Gnome (talk) 11:34, 17 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. — JJMC89 (T·C) 00:56, 18 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Paul Fabritz[edit]

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

Yet another horrifically-sourced piece on a "celebrity" written by Ziggy 2milli (talk · contribs). Google News comes up with only name-drops, interviews, and quotaables (string: "Paul Fabritz") and given the fact that he's "backstage" personnel I am doubtful he'll get anything more than that. —A little blue Bori v^_^v ^Bori! 20:55, 10 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Arizona-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 06:32, 11 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 06:32, 11 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 06:32, 11 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nomination. This is a clearly promotional text advertising a certain business possessing no trace of Wikinotability. -The Gnome (talk) 11:37, 17 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. — JJMC89 (T·C) 00:56, 18 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

400 Boys[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

I don't understand why so many voted "keep" in the first AFD as there's no indication that the movie even entered shooting. The sources merely reported along the lines of "Li to star in N. American film". The film clearly doesn't exist. Fails WP:NFF. Timmyshin (talk) 20:54, 10 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. Ceethekreator (talk) 23:06, 10 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of China-related deletion discussions. Ceethekreator (talk) 23:06, 10 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 06:33, 11 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. This is a film which, to all available evidence, died in the production pipeline and has never been released at all — so whatever notability standard it might have appeared to clear in 2012, it definitely doesn't clear anymore in 2019. We do not routinely keep an article about every film that ever entered the production pipeline but then died before ever being completed, and routine casting announcements are not enough coverage to deem this one a special case. This is exactly why our notability standards for films normally require confirmation of actual release, rather than just confirmation of planning. Bearcat (talk) 16:41, 14 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete since subject fails WP:NFILM. -The Gnome (talk) 11:37, 17 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. — JJMC89 (T·C) 00:55, 18 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Interrupted Entrepreneurship[edit]

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

Non-notable book. Sources provided do not mention the author or are written by him. Google search comes up with fewer than 100 results, none of which are significant discussions of the work. Author's article was recently deleted via AfD: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ramez Baassiri. ... discospinster _talk 19:36, 10 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 19:40, 10 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 19:41, 10 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Syria-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 19:41, 10 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nomination. Subject fails WP:NBOOK. A distinctly horrible effort. -The Gnome (talk) 11:39, 17 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as unambiguous WP:PROMO. Substantial duplication of content from the AfD-deleted author article suggests that this is part of the "focused effort to promote the book and its author" that ForbesBooks promises (see [2]). Bakazaka (talk) 18:20, 17 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) B dash (talk) 06:11, 18 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Dabble[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

Fails WP:GNG. Not an easy search term but I have been unable to find indepth coverage in RS. Note:the previous AFD was on an entirely different product, a video search service. Delete. Just Chilling (talk) 19:01, 27 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Games-related deletion discussions. Icewhiz (talk) 20:24, 27 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Searching only for "dabble" "board game" brought up lots of sale sites and some reviews [3] [4] [5] I'm not arguing all those are RS, but the results pages just go on and on and I think there's likely enough here to get it over WP:GNG, especially since it appears to be a widely distributed game. SportingFlyer T·C 23:33, 27 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 04:25, 3 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Nosebagbear (talk) 19:13, 10 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was merge to Kambalakkad#Ansariya Educational Complex. Assuming that the last comment is correct and that stuff has already been merged over Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 05:29, 18 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Ansariya Public School[edit]

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

Non notable Islamic school. MalayaliWoman (talk) 12:15, 3 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. Icewhiz (talk) 12:40, 3 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Icewhiz (talk) 12:40, 3 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 12:56, 3 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep with Merge: Merge the article to Kambalakkad as per short text in WP:MERGEREASON.--PATH SLOPU ^(TALK) 16:12, 3 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Nosebagbear (talk) 19:12, 10 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Kerala-related deletion discussions. PATH SLOPU 13:38, 12 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Merge and redirect to Kambalakkad#Ansariya Educational Complex. I have already carried out the merge. Just Chilling (talk) 16:43, 14 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) Dusti ^{*Let's talk!*} 13:39, 17 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Nick Remy Matthews[edit]

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

Also google Nick Matthews cinematograph -wikipedia --> [6]

Struggling to find any independent in-depth coverage in reliable sources - lack of WP:SIGCOV. Fails WP:BIO and. Run-of-the-mill person. Promotional article, created by a WP:SPA. Edwardx (talk) 15:08, 3 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Icewhiz (talk) 15:11, 3 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. Icewhiz (talk) 15:11, 3 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 15:12, 3 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 15:13, 3 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep There is a lot of bits and pieces but not anything specifically in-depth IRS. However, the subject's films have been extensively reviewed by reliable sources and internationally, and the subject has won a few awards. There seems to me to be sustained and broad coverage of the subject even if there are no single standout sources, and sufficient to support a detailed article. There are better sources than most of those in the current article. Aoziwe (talk) 10:25, 6 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep passes WP:Creative as above with cinematography in multiple notable feature films and has a number of awards, thanks Atlantic306 (talk) 20:23, 8 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Nosebagbear (talk) 19:12, 10 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep passes WP:Creative WP:GNG Lubbad85 (☎) 14:47, 13 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - With the subjects films having won awards, i'd say this passes WP:CREATIVE. -- Dane ^talk 04:00, 14 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - passes WP:ANYBIO, and WP:CREATIVE. THEFlint Shrubwood (talk) 21:34, 14 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep since subject meets WP:NCREATIVE. -The Gnome (talk) 11:41, 17 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. — JJMC89 (T·C) 00:55, 18 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Master Jiang and the Six Kingdoms[edit]

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

Unreleased film, fails WP:NFF: "films that have already begun shooting, but have not yet been publicly released (theatres or video), should generally not have their own articles unless the production itself is notable per the notability guidelines." The article was created in 2015, and there's still no confirmed release date. Notice that Douban (Chinese IMDB) isn't a reliable source any more than IMDB is. Timmyshin (talk) 19:00, 10 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 19:18, 10 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of China-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 19:19, 10 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Comics and animation-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 19:21, 10 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete or userfy as this film has been postponed for so long that any kind of release is in doubt and in any case it does not pass WP:GNG. If it is released and receives reviews in reliable sources then it can be recreated Atlantic306 (talk) 17:26, 13 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete since subject fails WP:NFF. -The Gnome (talk) 11:42, 17 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. — JJMC89 (T·C) 00:55, 18 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Miser (film)[edit]

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

Unreleased film, fails WP:NFF: "films that have already begun shooting, but have not yet been publicly released (theatres or video), should generally not have their own articles unless the production itself is notable per the notability guidelines." Nothing suggests that the production was notable. Timmyshin (talk) 18:19, 10 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 18:32, 10 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of China-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 18:33, 10 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete or userfy as a possibly shelved project that in any case does not pass WP:GNG. If it is released and receives reviews in reliable sources then it can be recreated Atlantic306 (talk) 17:22, 13 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete since subject fails WP:NFF. -The Gnome (talk) 11:43, 17 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. — JJMC89 (T·C) 00:54, 18 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Catman (film)[edit]

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

Unreleased film, fails WP:NFF: "films that have already begun shooting, but have not yet been publicly released (theatres or video), should generally not have their own articles unless the production itself is notable per the notability guidelines." There is nothing suggesting that the production was notable. Even though the lede says "The movie is scheduled to be released in 2018" this claim is not supported by the sources, and reviewing the page history I see someone repeatedly changing the release date without attribution. As far as I can see there has been no sourced updates since 2016, and it's reasonable to assume this project has been abandoned. PS: Article creator has been blocked indefinitely. Timmyshin (talk) 18:12, 10 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 18:35, 10 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of China-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 18:35, 10 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of South Korea-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 18:35, 10 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete or userfy as there is a lack of significant coverage and no sign of a reliable release date at this stage. If it is released and receives reviews in reliable sources then it can be recreated Atlantic306 (talk) 17:18, 13 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete since subject fails WP:NFF. -The Gnome (talk) 11:43, 17 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. — JJMC89 (T·C) 00:54, 18 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Shivom[edit]

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

No evidence of notability, no detailed mention of the "company" in reliable independent sources . Daiyusha (talk) 18:00, 10 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 18:38, 10 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United Arab Emirates-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 18:38, 10 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 18:39, 10 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Press releases and social media profiles are not reliable sources. Cryptic Canadian 02:07, 11 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I have deleted all press release links and added reliable press sources. Pls check again and let me know if you stillhave doubts about Shivom's credibility. Vandana.iitgn (talk) 07:28, 11 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Vandana.iitgn is the creator and major contributor to the article. Vandana.iitgn is also Communication & Media Officer at IITGN. -The Gnome (talk) 11:47, 17 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nomination since subject fails WP:NCORP. -The Gnome (talk) 11:47, 17 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) Dusti ^{*Let's talk!*} 13:39, 17 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

KYUS-FM[edit]

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

Fails WP:GNG. Small town radio station that is only known locally. Possible contender for a transwiki to WikiVoyage. ElectroChip123 (talk) 17:23, 10 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Radio-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 17:51, 10 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Montana-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 17:53, 10 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Keep: Per NMEDIA. - Neutralhomer • Talk • 19:59 on April 10, 2019 (UTC)
Comment. As a Wikivoyage admin, I can comment that this wouldn’t be a whole page on Wikivoyage per WV:WIAA; if there was a trans wiki it would just be mentioned in the relative article(s). --Comment by Selfie City (talk about my contributions) 22:50, 10 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Subject is licensed radio station and meets WP:BROADCAST. Article has been expanded and references have been added.--Tdl1060 (talk) 06:17, 11 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Notable as a licensed radio station - see WP:BROADCAST. Mlaffs (talk) 15:03, 13 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Keep - Passes WP:BROADCAST. -- Dane ^talk 03:46, 14 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy keep. Nomination withdrawn. (non-admin closure) Bondegezou (talk) 14:19, 12 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Mary Harris Memorial Chapel of the Holy Trinity[edit]

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

Article has no citations; fails WP:GNG. I PROD'd, but Necrothesp dePRODed, citing WP:GEOFEAT. The article claims the Chapel is Grade II listed, but no citation is given. Respectfully, I question whether Grade II listing is sufficient for GEOFEAT. There are around 29,000 Grade II listed buildings in the UK. It's not a very selective indicator of cultural heritage. Bondegezou (talk) 17:02, 10 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Even though the article had no citations, the fact that this building has a notable architect and that a notable artist created the ceiling should have alerted you that it was not an appropriate subject for a PROD.E.M.Gregory (talk) 07:37, 12 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 17:14, 10 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 17:14, 10 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Listing by Historic England at any level clearly meets the requirements of WP:GEOFEAT and has been held to do so in many AfDs. For suburban houses the situation is maybe not so clear-cut (we would generally prefer to have an article on the street if there are a number of listed houses on it rather than for each individual house), but for churches and other public buildings it definitely is. I have added a link to the Historic England listing. Clearly a notable building, designed by a notable architect, Vincent Harris, and with a ceiling mural by a highly notable artist, Sir Walter Thomas Monnington. -- Necrothesp (talk) 21:21, 10 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Architecture-related deletion discussions. Necrothesp (talk) 21:21, 10 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. Necrothesp (talk) 21:22, 10 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep as a listed building. Blythwood (talk) 21:45, 10 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep listed building; ceiling by notable artist.E.M.Gregory (talk) 23:19, 10 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment My fellow editors above argue that any listed building is notable, as per WP:GEOFEAT. I note that Historic England says there are over a third of a million listed buildings in England. I struggle to believe that when GEOFEAT was written it was intended to serve as carte blanche for a third of a million stub articles from England alone.

But I recognise a snow-keep decision when I see one. I withdraw my nomination. I hope the article can be improved, as it is in dire need of work. (Thanks to Necrothesp for adding its first citation.) Bondegezou (talk) 11:22, 11 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I do agree we have to be selective to a degree (there are some streets and small villages where every other house is listed; we don't need an article on every one, although one on the street or village that lists them all would be a good idea), but as I said I think GEOFEAT definitely covers listed churches and other public buildings. Britain does list a lot of buildings (note that I think this is a good thing!); the only other countries that I've encountered in my many architectural travels that list so many are Poland and Romania. -- Necrothesp (talk) 12:22, 11 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

But if you're being selective, what's the basis for that selection? I don't see anything in the text at GEOFEAT that says we should include listed churches, but not listed houses. Would it not make more sense to, acknowledging the UK's tendency to list a lot, have some cut off? Say include Grade I and II listed buildings (which would include this one), but not Grade III (unless they otherwise meet WP:GNG)? Bondegezou (talk) 12:31, 11 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

England and Wales use Grades I, II* and II, so Grade II is actually the lowest listing, covering 90% of listed buildings. I think it's common sense that public buildings are more significant than ordinary residential houses. You drive down a street and think "that's a notable church", but not usually "no.3A is a notable house", even if both are Grade II-listed. Technically GEOFEAT would cover both of them and I think that's no bad thing as a starting point, as it prevents deletionists from saying (as some would) "it's only Grade II so it can't be notable". Beyond that, use of discretion and common sense is fine. If every house in a terrace is listed (not an uncommon occurrence) then I would say that we clearly don't need an article on every house in that terrace (although I would agree with an article on the terrace as a whole), but that's down to discussion at AfD (and should remain so). We don't need rules for everything. -- Necrothesp (talk) 12:38, 11 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for explaining about the grades. I'd forgotten about the II*/II thing.

The problem with common sense is that one person's common sense is not always another's. It would seem more sensible to me to agree a cut-off of only Grade I and II* being automatically notable (ensuring equity with the architecture in other countries that are less gung-ho about "listing" than the UK). People above are saying "it's listed, so it's notable": I don't see any room for discretion there. If GEOFEAT was limited to I/II*, then Grade II buildings could be discussed on a case-by-case basis, with respect to the quality of RS describing them. WP:GNG is a very sensible rule, a bedrock of how Wikipedia works. That always acts as a backstop. But what seems to be the current interpretation, it's listed so it's notable, means a third of a million stub articles about Grade II listed buildings with no RS describing them and that does not seem to be the type of Wikipedia the broader editing community wants to build. Bondegezou (talk) 12:51, 11 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

That's why we have AfD discussions, so consensus can continue to prevail. If people think all listed buildings are notable then that's up to them. I may or may not argue against it depending on my feelings on individual buildings. But I think the status quo is fine. The fact is, we do not have stubs on anywhere vaguely close to a third of a million buildings and are frankly unlikely to have. But if we do, I don't think that's actually any problem. Listing takes a building, even a house, beyond just being "I've written an article about my house" prodfodder. These are buildings that experts think are nationally notable. Who are we to argue? Rather than being "gung-ho", I would say the UK is simply more protective of its heritage than most other countries and more willing to declare that a building is of historical interest, which can only be a good thing. Personally, I tend to apply British listing standards to AfDs on historic buildings in countries that do not have such a good (or indeed any) listing process. If it would be listed in Britain then I tend to be of the opinion that it should be kept in order to avoid any systemic bias. Naturally that can only be an opinion, but it's generally been successful so far. -- Necrothesp (talk) 13:41, 11 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

England simply has more historically important buildings than other countries because A.) It has been rich for a very long time; B). There hasn't been a war on English soil in which large numbers of major castles, towns, churches, etc were destroyed for a very long time (even the English Civil War was remarkably non-destructive; 3.) There was no programatic destruction of historic heritage a la Mao Tse Tung's cultural revolution; 4.) England is notorious for having had a more preserving attitude (the French melt the family silver down to have a news set made every time the fashion changes; the English use their Georgian silver.) The point is that the English may be more likely to list stuff, but they really do have waaaay more truly notable stuff to list.E.M.Gregory (talk) 13:46, 11 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

A third of a million notable stuff? Really? Bondegezou (talk) 13:48, 11 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I won't vouch for every single listing one, but when you consider that the Soviet Army simply razed Warsaw to the ground at the end of the war, while the American air force flattened Dresden (a Nazi rail and precision manufacturing center - nobody in history every deserved flattening more than Nazi Germany,) and the Red Guards tore down thousands of centuries-old temples, well, you begin to see why England simply has more.E.M.Gregory (talk) 15:34, 11 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Which is presumably why Poland tends to list pretty much every building that survived WWII! -- Necrothesp (talk) 09:03, 12 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep- Due to listing by Historic England.--Epiphyllumlover (talk) 22:33, 11 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. ~ Amory (u • t • c) 23:53, 17 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Lancaster University Chaplaincy Centre[edit]

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

PROD opposed, so coming to AfD. While this is a pretty looking building, the article has no citations and no indication of notability. Fails WP:GNG. Bondegezou (talk) 16:54, 10 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

PROD was inappropriate for a major building at a significant university, even though it was unsourced.E.M.Gregory (talk) 15:08, 11 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 16:55, 10 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 16:55, 10 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 16:55, 10 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep – The chapel is part of the Lancaster University, which everyone will agree is Noteable by any means we use here at Wikipedia to establish that premises. In that a ‘’’Merge/Redirect’’’ of the separate article of Lancaster University Chaplaincy Centre would distract from the main article, and the chapel in its own right, I believe, has enough coverage by RS sources has gained a place here at Wikipedia. ShoesssS ^Talk 17:36, 10 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

There are no reliable sources given in the article. No reliable sources have been presented here. No need to merge into the main article: the content can just be deleted. Perhaps one might keep a picture for the main article. Bondegezou (talk) 20:55, 10 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Merge / redirect to Lancaster University. Notability is not inherited, and I see no reason that this can't fit comfortably into the main article. As it stands, the Chaplaincy Centre article has a lot of content that is both unsourced and not particularly relevant (such as a description of every single room in the building)-- this could definitely be trimmed and put into the main article without distracting from the rest of the Lancaster U article. Gilded Snail (talk) 17:49, 10 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Architecture-related deletion discussions. Necrothesp (talk) 21:24, 10 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. Necrothesp (talk) 21:24, 10 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. Necrothesp (talk) 21:25, 10 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Religion-related deletion discussions. Necrothesp (talk) 21:26, 10 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Nothing notable about this university service. Ajf773 (talk) 07:58, 11 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
- Note that it's the building that may be notable, not the service it provides. There's clearly nothing especially notable or unusual about the latter. -- Necrothesp (talk) 09:50, 11 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep. It's a very unusual building within a university and an architecturally notable building on the campus of Lancaster University, perhaps its most notable building. I think it just about slips over the notability bar. -- Necrothesp (talk) 09:53, 11 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Could you specify which notability guideline you think this "just about slips over"? Do you have any RS to offer to support the argument that it is "architecturally notable", or is this just a personal opinion? Bondegezou (talk) 11:12, 11 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

KeepDelete because zero sources. I though this would be easy to remedy, so I ran news archive searches expecting to find articles about the construction design, architect etc. I found nothing beyond a handful event listings memorial service announcements. Necrothesp or anyone else who can source it should feel free to ping me to reconsider.E.M.Gregory (talk) 14:17, 11 April 2019 (UTC) Thanks to Necrothesp for sourcing. Still needs improvement, but I think we can keep it as a significant university building.E.M.Gregory (talk) 15:07, 11 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. @E.M.Gregory: I've added some citations to the article. It was the first joint faith university chaplaincy in Britain, the basis for the university logo (which suggests it's seen as pretty iconic) and is listed on the Twentieth Century Society database. I suspect it will eventually be listed (yes, purely supposition, but an educated guess). No, there isn't a lot of material online, but I think there's just about sufficient notability here. The university appears to have published a pamphlet on the building and its history, incidentally, but not online. -- Necrothesp (talk) 14:54, 11 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I am impressed and thankful at the work Necrothesp has done to improve the article. It is definitely a better article. That said, there are now four citations: the first is a very brief listing; the second is two paragraphs in a book; the third is the university's own website; and the fourth is arguably not an independent source, being the university's student newspaper, and then it's merely one sentence in an article. That is an improvement, but it does not meet WP:GNG's "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject". By all means, add a paragraph and a picture to the Lancaster University article, but this still doesn't meet any notability criteria. Bondegezou (talk) 15:23, 11 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I just added a reference where this structure receives in-depth coverage in a scholarly architectural text. As such, it is a landmark in its area.--Epiphyllumlover (talk) 22:38, 11 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

That reference was already added. Best I can see, it's two paragraphs in a book. That's not what I would call "in-depth coverage". This remains some way from meeting WP:GNG. Bondegezou (talk) 23:40, 11 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep as has reliable sources coverage as added to the article so it no longer needs to be deleted. Two paragraphs or even one can be enough for significant coverage when they include numerous facts about the subject Atlantic306 (talk) 13:12, 13 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

If you take the 2 paragraphs in the book as in-depth coverage, then we have one (1) example of in-depth coverage in a reliable source. WP:GNG requires multiple such examples, usually interpreted as 3+. Still fails WP:GNG. Bondegezou (talk) 14:41, 13 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Not significant enough to merit its own article. Merge with the article about the university. Rathfelder (talk) 12:08, 15 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) B dash (talk) 06:08, 18 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Neville Bowker[edit]

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

Doesn't appear to meet any of the specific criteria in WP:NSOLDIER. Highest honor seems to have been the DFC, which is a third-order medal. Only substantial reliable source about him that I found is this book, which isn't enough for GNG. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 04:39, 3 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. CASSIOPEIA^(talk) 06:15, 3 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Aviation-related deletion discussions. CASSIOPEIA^(talk) 06:15, 3 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Indonesia-related deletion discussions. CASSIOPEIA^(talk) 06:15, 3 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Zimbabwe-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 06:16, 3 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. In general in the past we have kept articles about aces. -- Necrothesp (talk) 15:29, 3 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Being an ace is not one of the criteria under NSOLDIER, so we cannot assume notability simply on that basis. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 10:53, 4 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I said in the past we have assumed notability for aces. There is precedent for doing so. Wikipedia is governed by precedent and consensus, and there is certainly precedent for assuming that aces are notable. -- Necrothesp (talk) 11:05, 4 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, we've always accepted fighter aces before. They invariably have coverage. (And nine Second World War kills is pretty impressive when you remember that it was in a biplane.) Hawkeye7 (discuss) 21:00, 4 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MarginalCost (talk) 16:50, 10 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment the sole source in the article does not state how many aircraft victories he scored while flying the biplane Gladiator, but the book shows that it was only one victory, not nine. I am not !voting as I am not familiar with precedent or otherwise regarding articles about aces, but I just wanted to note the erroneous statement above. I will also note that (a) the references are insufficient to meet the GNG - one is a blog and the other a brief mention in a book; and (b) elsewhere in WP certain things (such as aircraft) are regarded as intrinsically notable regardless of the dearth of coverage of same. YSSYguy (talk) 23:41, 11 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - by long-standing WP:CONSENSUS, "being a flying ace" is considered establishment of notability Q.E.D.. The fact he is a flying ace is documented in reliable sources, therefore notability is established. In addition as he was Rhodesian (modern-day Zimbabwe), WP:CSB may well be a consderation. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 06:53, 15 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Systemic bias on wikipedia against white residents of British crown colonies, the famous 28th grievance of 1776 199.247.43.170 (talk) 11:06, 15 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep passes WP:GNG Article is badly in need of an ambitious edit and development. Needs work - not afd WP:NOTCLEANUP Lubbad85 (☎) 20:18, 16 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Keep

Norman Maphosa[edit]

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

Being a civil servant (even a high-ranking one) does not guarantee notability in the same way that being an elected representative does, and neither does being a vice-chancellor of a university (chancellor yes, but second fiddle, no). I haven't found enough independent in-depth sources to substantiate a claim of notability under GNG. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 04:53, 3 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 06:10, 3 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Zimbabwe-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 06:10, 3 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. Necrothesp (talk) 15:34, 3 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. You obviously aren't aware that in most Commonwealth universities, the vice-chancellor is the boss. The chancellor is merely an honorary role usually held by a notable individual from public life. They are wheeled in to present degrees etc, but the VC is the university's actual chief executive and professional head. The "second fiddle" is actually the deputy vice-chancellor or pro-vice-chancellor. I don't know whether Solusi University counts as a "major academic institution" under WP:NACADEMIC, but if it does then Maphosa is certainly notable under those criteria. -- Necrothesp (talk) 15:39, 3 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I wasn't, but we can certainly leave this open to let the community weigh in on whether Solusi counts as a major institution. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 10:55, 4 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep -- On looking at the university website, I can find no reference to the university having a Chancellor. I suspect this means that Chancellor is an honorary post, possibly held by someone like the President. The university website also had an article about a new pro-vice-chancellor in 2015: a professor who had been Dean of Education in another institution. As a Commonwealth (or is it former Commonwealth) country Zimbabwe is likely to follow British (not American) practice as to what "professor" means. Peterkingiron (talk) 16:20, 7 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MarginalCost (talk) 16:49, 10 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep as vice chancellor (Commonwealth tradition as highest non-honorary office) of a major academic institution per WP:NACADEMIC #6 ("Criterion 6 may be satisfied, for example, if the person has held the post of president or chancellor (or vice-chancellor in countries where this is the top academic post) of a significant accredited college or university"). Solusi is accredited by the Ministry of Education. The Herald (Zimbabwe) ("Established in 1994 and generally acknowledged among the best Zimbabwean universities...The National Council and the Ministry of Higher Education, now Zimche issued a charter establishing Solusi University in July 1994.") and Solusi History ("In 1991, subsequent to the creation by the Zimbabwean Parliament of the National Council for Higher Education, Solusi College submitted an application for establishment as a fully accredited private university. In March 1992, an on-site inspection by members of the National Council, and continuing dialogue of church and college administrators with the National Council and the Ministry of Higher Education led to the gazetting by government, in July 1994, of a charter establishing Solusi University.") [Note: the latter self-published reference cannot itself establish notability but does offer more detail illuminating the first, independent, reference.] 24.151.50.175 (talk) 16:36, 12 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. — JJMC89 (T·C) 00:54, 18 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Waiting for Your Love (film)[edit]

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

Nonnotable Chinese film. 0.06 million RMB is nothing in 2014 Chinese cinema (the top 2014 Chinese film grossed 1169 million). Douban is basically a Chinese version of IMDB so Wikipedia:Citing IMDb applies. Timmyshin (talk) 16:30, 10 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of China-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 16:42, 10 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 16:43, 10 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete on account of subject failing WP:NFILM. -The Gnome (talk) 11:53, 17 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. — JJMC89 (T·C) 00:53, 18 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Jon Kemmer[edit]

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

Another minor leaguer who didn't make it to the majors. Fails WP:NBASEBALL. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 15:59, 10 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Baseball-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 16:11, 10 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Pennsylvania-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 16:11, 10 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 16:11, 10 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Mexico-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 16:12, 10 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Maryland-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 16:12, 10 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Not notable.-- Yankees10 00:07, 11 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete The coverage is typical for a career minor leaguer and he definitely fails to meet WP:NBASEBALL. Papaursa (talk) 23:45, 17 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. — JJMC89 (T·C) 00:53, 18 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Cheryl L. Waite[edit]

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

Fails WP:NPOL/WP:JUDGE and WP:GNG. Reads like a resume as well. GPL93 (talk) 14:49, 10 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 14:56, 10 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Law-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 14:56, 10 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Ohio-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 14:57, 10 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. I can't find much coverage on her beyond for being the first woman elected to her position (but, then again, that was a pretty cursory search). Gilded Snail (talk) 17:43, 10 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Not Notable 9H48F (talk) 02:28, 12 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. ~ Amory (u • t • c) 14:16, 17 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Gary Concepcion (youth politician)[edit]

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

Failing WP:GNG. Possible WP:COI editing. Largely unsourced. This appears to be the only editorial coverage about the individual. No mention of the alleged offices and positions. _pseudonym Jake Brockman ^talk 12:19, 10 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. _pseudonym Jake Brockman ^talk 12:20, 10 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. _pseudonym Jake Brockman ^talk 12:20, 10 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. _pseudonym Jake Brockman ^talk 12:20, 10 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. _pseudonym Jake Brockman ^talk 12:20, 10 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Subject passes WP:GNG. Subject is mentioned in independent, reliable sources. At least one office is referenced. Added Reftag for additional sources. More references can be added once retrieved or once new sources become available. There is enough proof that is a genuine and authentic article through the current references and photos. Subject is also unique. WP:GNG states that being in a number of third party publications, independent of the subject satisfies it. User talk:Qualitee123 13:29, 10 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Delete if we can't just speedy delete it. The subject fails WP:GNG and there is only one non-primary source, more or less a "local boy does the right thing type article", and the "office" held is a youth position that clearly fails WP:NPOL. Additionally the number of "own work" photos, including those of awards and certificates that only the subject would be in possession of, in the article damn near confirms it's an WP:AUTOBIO. Best, GPL93 (talk) 14:43, 10 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment in light of Onel5969's comments I say we Speedy Delete and WP:SALT. No need to deliberate on an article thats already been deleted multiple times. Best, GPL93 (talk) 15:29, 10 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Gary Concepcion has already been salted - this is effectively a title that circumvents the salt. I think a proper AfD decision should be appropriate to settle this for now and the future. We can always WP:SNOW if there's broad consensus in a day or two. I wouldn't know which CSD to use to be honest. It's not really irreparable promo, there is a credible claim of significance, it's not a hoax or vandalism. _pseudonym Jake Brockman ^talk 15:40, 10 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete and salt the article. This COI editor has recreated this same article half a dozen times in two days. Clearly fails notability criteria. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 14:55, 10 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and salt, per Onel5969. --Ser Amantio di Nicolao^{Che dicono a Signa?}_{Lo dicono a Signa.} 15:40, 10 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Clearly not notable. --Michig (talk) 05:51, 11 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete with salt. Nothing stated here passes WP:NPOL at all, so his only basis for inclusion would be if he could be shown to clear WP:GNG on the sourcing, but the overwhelming majority of the references here are primary sources that do not constitute support for notability at all. People do not get into Wikipedia by having staff profiles on the self-published websites of their own employers, or self-published campaign literature, or mentions in meeting minutes — reliable sources means media coverage, not just any document you can find that happens to have his name in it, but the only reference here that is actually a reliable source is a piece of purely local media coverage in a non-notable context. GNG is not automatically passed the moment a person has gotten their name into their local media once — if it were, we'd have to keep an article about every single person who was ever president of a church bake sale committee, and every single person who ever had a piece of human interest coverage written about them for having an unusual number of toes. Rather, GNG tests for the volume, depth, range and context of the coverage, and nothing here passes those tests at all. Bearcat (talk) 18:08, 14 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete-the page Gary Concepcion has been salted. I accidentally put a previously afd on Gary Concepcion (politician) thinking this was AFD but not yet. Wgolf (talk) 23:34, 14 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Referencing significantly improved since discussions. More article improvement tags added too.Qualitee123 (talk) 22:36, 16 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Let me summarise the sources one by one in the order they are shown as of now: 1) Facebook post by local police (local interest story), 2) Local media report about a possible crime (local interest story), 3) Council publication - introduction of youth council candidates (candidates are not inherently notable), 4) same as 3, 5) Council meeting minutes (does not support notability), 6) more council meeting minutes, 7) council meeting minutes, 8) council press release about a public awareness film (does not mention subject), 9) no mention of subject, 10) Youtube video (actually says "unavailable" and does not play for me, 11) another Youtube video that does not play, 12) press kit related to 8. Has a picture of the subject but no mention, 13) related to 8. Subject briefly seen, but no mention, 14) youth awareness video, subject has a short speaking part as part of a panel of other teenagers, 15) repeat of 1, 16) repeat of 2, 17) talks about police cadets in general, no mention of subject, 18) talks about ambulance service in general, no mention of subject, 19) no mention of subject, 20) broken link, 21) broken link, 22) broken link, 23) no mention of subject.

In summary (not counting dupes): there is 1 local media editorial editorial coverage, 1 police social media release, 1 youth council candidate pamphlet, 3 meeting minutes, 7 sources that don't mention the candidate (other than possibly a picture without name attribution), 1 mention in passing. 4 broken reference. This still is unlikely to pass "significant coverage" for WP:GNG.

I assume for a minute that you are writing about yourself. Don't get me wrong: you have done great things in your local community and what you have done is admirable. It really is. Notability guidelines are based on Wikipedia community consensus and they set a fairly high bar. This says nothing about your achievements. Take this as an example: there is a Wikipedia article about the mayor of Leicester, but there aren't any about his two deputies. The Chief Constable of the Leicestershire Police does not have an article. _pseudonym Jake Brockman ^talk 06:09, 17 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) Dusti ^{*Let's talk!*} 13:42, 17 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I was asked to expand on my closing rationale. This section has been added after this discussion closed. This is obviously a passionate topic for many. While the overall consensus was keep, there's also a consensus that there's much needed work to be done with the article. Keeping in mind that AFD is not cleanup, let's use the momentum and consensus established here to improve the article like a lot of editors have already been doing since this discussion started. In summary, the consensus is to keep, but also clean up and improve the article. Further, content discussions and article issues need to be discussed on the talk page for the article. Dusti ^{*Let's talk!*} 02:41, 20 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Nature therapy[edit]

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

This isn't a thing. Whole article is sourced to a leaflet from "Mind" in the UK, and nowhere do we learn what this "Therapy" does. (probably because there is no such thing.)

The whole thing can be summarised by the following phrase, popularised by my mother, Roxanna the dog, who said - "Why don't you go outside and get some air, it'll be good for you." Roxy, the dog. wooF 11:31, 10 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Health and fitness-related deletion discussions. CASSIOPEIA^(talk) 12:59, 10 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment this is quite a difficult call, because the article seems to have been created as an overview of a number of related topics, some of which already have articles and appear notable themselves, so the question of whether the article should exist seems to depends on whether there is value in having a overview article, rather than just on GNG. Of course, the article is badly in need of clean-up: the entire section A Notable Study, for example, makes medical claims based on a piece of synthesis around a single study, and needs excising, should the article be kept. --RexxS (talk) 12:59, 10 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep It's a range of things, being a broad topic. It's clearly notable as there are many books written about it, such as this. And it's not difficult to find respectable sources for the medical aspects such as this systematic review. Andrew D. (talk) 14:08, 10 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Andrew, once again I find you blatantly arguing for OR, this time on an article with medical implications. You clearly put so little thought into the above !vote that you didn't even notice that this was a cut-and-paste move created by a sock for the purpose of advertising -- do you at least agree that the page should be moved back to its original title to preserve the pre-2018 page history? Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 23:35, 10 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Most of the current content – about 75% – has been created by Camimitchell35 for Wikipedia:Wiki Ed/Eureka College/PSY 101 General Psychology (Spring 2019). As this is an educational project with professional supervision, we should not disrupt this good faith activity. Andrew D. (talk) 12:15, 11 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Andrew, thank you for this comment. I tremendously appreciate this and your evaluation of the information included within the article.Camimitchell35 (talk) 15:06, 15 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - This was originally Forest therapy. It encompasses a broad variety of subforms of therapy. Robert McClenon (talk) 15:06, 10 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

According to doc James on the article talk page, he merged forest therapy to this article. No comment on the fact that there is no attempt to define what conditions this “therapy” is meant to treat in the article OR any of the “sources”! -Roxy, the dog. wooF 15:34, 10 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per [7]. As they say, WP:NOTCLEANUP and a case for WP:TNT hasn't been made. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 15:12, 10 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep TreeHugger recently had an article about this [8] talking about the research done at the University of Michigan [9] on how they measure how long in nature someone needs to be by monitoring "changes in two physiological biomarkers of stress – salivary cortisol and alpha-amylase". Its a real thing, it has been studied, and there is news coverage about it. Dream Focus 16:33, 10 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
keep per above two editors rationale--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 20:24, 10 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep "forest bathing" redirects to this article and is covered at other language wikis with many more sources there, which could be copied as needed (example). This concept is more popular in Japan and the continent but might be unfamiliar to some. Per WP:BEFORE. -- GreenC 21:56, 10 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Worthy article well sourced and WP:NOTCLEANUP Lubbad85 (talk) 22:39, 10 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
TNT delete WP:MEDRS applies here, and per the sources cited by User:Headbomb this really should be better written, or not included as part of the encyclopedia. I wouldn't be opposed to userfying or draftifying. Even if this page is kept, it should be redirected to its original title, Forest bathing, to preserve the page history; Wikipedia doesn't look kindly on content forks or copy-paste moves or whatever this was. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 23:25, 10 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

This content content fork was created by Wasserlurchi (talk · contribs) a few hours before he was blocked for socking in order to create said content fork.[10] The fact that after multiple speedy deletions of this article in the past this is apparently the best that those who want this article could come up with heavily implies that userfying/draftifying would not be much good, but maybe User:Andrew Davidson wants to take a stab at it? It would certainly be better than repeating the same old irrelevant arguments he pulled at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Dark Lady (character) and several dozen other AFDs where WP:BROAD applied just as little as it did here, and I'd really like to see what he means by that -- inserting a bunch of OR about how walking in the woods is good for your health, cited to sources that don't mention either "nature therapy" or "forest bathing"? Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 23:33, 10 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Doc James: I was trying to figure out who was responsible for the atrocious/anachronistic "stealth OR" in the lead and found this. Obviously you can't be blamed for merging bad content written by other editors years earlier, but it got me wondering about the cut-and-paste move issue: you're an admin who could just delete the fork and move the original page, so if you thought this was the right title why not just do that? Apologies in advance if you don't remember. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 00:31, 11 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Nature therapy already existed (yes I know only for a few days). But it is a broader term than "forest bathing" so merged that here. I have no concerns with this being aggressively trimmed. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 01:04, 11 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included by Andrew Davidson in the Article Rescue Squadron's list of content for rescue consideration. --Tryptofish (talk) 00:00, 11 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep as per others. Needs work, but there's already evidence of sufficient good quality citations to meet WP:GNG. Bondegezou (talk) 12:26, 11 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. The journal papers by Oh, Hansen and Kamioka are sufficient to establish notability of nature therapy/forest therapy. The article still requires clean-up. Axl ¤ [Talk] 13:21, 11 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - I did see a journal or newspaper article published last year, wherein a doctor stated the benefits of Nature therapy. I'll search for it....and post it shortly.--The Eloquent Peasant (talk) 16:55, 11 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Level C, don't bring that. It (very likely) will not qualify WP:MEDRS and is as useful as not being printed at all. ∯WBG^converse 17:03, 11 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

This is the article in the Japan Times. https://www.japantimes.co.jp/community/2018/05/02/our-lives/stressed-bathing-woods-just-doctor-ordered/#.XK9z3TBKhxA The Eloquent Peasant (talk) 17:06, 11 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe this should be linked to the Nature Therapy article, as it seems associated to the topic. In Germany some towns are categorized as health resorts and can charge a tax for being "healthy" for its citizens. (paraphrased) Luftkurort .--The Eloquent Peasant (talk) 18:55, 11 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

FWIW, I brought The Japan Times to RSN for MEDRS purposes last year, and it was rejected. JT can't even get basic facts about Japanese cultural history right (as was highlighted with with the Reiwa debacle last week[11][12][13] -- I actually didn't know until just know that someone apparently called the Konjaku Monogatarishū Japan's "oldest collection of stories", apparently never having heard of the Nihon Ryōiki or the super-famous Tales of Ise), so they definitely cannot be used as a reliable source in medical articles. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 23:12, 11 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

This is completely unrelated to this discussion, but I've recently had people run over my comments and nitpick any errors or "misrepresentations" I made, even obvious mistakes (this has a tendency of happening on AFDs right before they are closed); I've also been repeatedly criticized for supposedly not being willing to admit I'm wrong. So I'm proactively admitting fault and issuing a correction. That said, it's completely off-topic for this AFD, so collapsing.
Reading a bit more closely, it looks like that article originally said The "Konjaku Monogatari" is Japan's oldest collection of stories: the tag preview says The "Konjaku Monogatari" is one of Japan's oldest collection of stories while the live version of the article correctly says The “Konjaku Monogatari” is one of Japan’s oldest collections of stories, and I'd be willing to bet it was corrected in two stages. Yeah, it's possible that The "Konjaku Monogatari" is one of Japan's oldest collection of stories was the original wording and was simply a misprint, but in my experience the JT editors a lot better at catching English grammatical errors than they are at catching factual errors -- more likely, someone noticed the factual error after it was published, and it was corrected hastily, with no one noticing that the correction included a grammatical error; an obvious grammatical error in the lead sentence of an article that was submitted for publication and went through an editorial process seems less likely. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 13:27, 12 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

This is completely unrelated to this discussion, but I've recently had people run over my comments and nitpick any errors or "misrepresentations" I made, even obvious mistakes (this has a tendency of happening on AFDs right before they are closed); I've also been repeatedly criticized for supposedly not being willing to admit I'm wrong. So I'm proactively admitting fault and issuing a correction. That said, it's completely off-topic for this AFD, so collapsing.

Reading a bit more closely, it looks like that article originally said The "Konjaku Monogatari" is Japan's oldest collection of stories: the tag preview says The "Konjaku Monogatari" is one of Japan's oldest collection of stories while the live version of the article correctly says The “Konjaku Monogatari” is one of Japan’s oldest collections of stories, and I'd be willing to bet it was corrected in two stages. Yeah, it's possible that The "Konjaku Monogatari" is one of Japan's oldest collection of stories was the original wording and was simply a misprint, but in my experience the JT editors a lot better at catching English grammatical errors than they are at catching factual errors -- more likely, someone noticed the factual error after it was published, and it was corrected hastily, with no one noticing that the correction included a grammatical error; an obvious grammatical error in the lead sentence of an article that was submitted for publication and went through an editorial process seems less likely. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 13:27, 12 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep it. There are plenty of sources explaining the topic, so I think the article is worth keeping.107.152.3.3 (talk) 02:39, 12 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Additionally, I have been working with this article extensively and using it as grounds to find more information about the subject (specifically for a class that I am in), and it would be tremendously helpful if the article could remain.107.152.3.3 (talk) 02:42, 12 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - It needs work, not deletion. The range of topics covered are notable. -- Dane ^talk 04:08, 14 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - In its current form, the article is a guide leading to articles on a variety of notable forms of therapy. If some of them are not notable, they can be nominated for deletion. This is sort of a disambiguation list, and satisfies notability and other guidelines. Robert McClenon (talk) 18:49, 14 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. 78.26 _{(spin me / revolutions)} 18:51, 17 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Tom Gaston[edit]

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

Footballer who fails WP:GNG and WP:NFOOTY BlameRuiner (talk) 08:21, 10 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 08:27, 10 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 08:27, 10 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of France-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 08:28, 10 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Ireland-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 08:28, 10 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions.CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 08:29, 10 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - fails WP:GNG and WP:NFOOTBALL. Giant Snowman 08:36, 10 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom and above: fails WP:NFOOTBALL and WP:GNG. SSSB (talk) 10:48, 10 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Doesn't pass on NFOOTY, and while there is some coverage it does not rise, in my opinion, to SIGCOV. Quite possibly a case of WP:TOOSOON. Icewhiz (talk) 13:00, 10 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete not WP:GNG Lubbad85 (☎) 02:11, 13 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Fails WP:GNG and WP:NFOOTY. -- Dane ^talk 04:04, 14 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Sandstein 14:23, 17 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

History of Internet browser advertising filter systems[edit]

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

The entire article is based on just one self-published source, a series of blog posts by AdGuard. I originally considered merging this into a new "History" section in the Ad blocking article, but wasn't able to validate most of the claims in the nominated article with reliable sources. This article fails WP:V and WP:OR, and should be deleted. — Newslinger talk 07:55, 10 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Advertising-related deletion discussions. — Newslinger talk 07:55, 10 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. — Newslinger talk 07:55, 10 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. — Newslinger talk 07:55, 10 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. — Newslinger talk 07:55, 10 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. — Newslinger talk 07:55, 10 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 08:11, 10 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 08:11, 10 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Barely any technical content in it. scope_creep^Talk 09:12, 10 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
delete it looks like a ctrl c, then v from a PDF somewhere. I support the presumption of delete unless compelling evidence is made against it. Graywalls (talk) 22:38, 11 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Agree with above....It looks like a copy and paste of a paper. Not encyclopedia worthy. -- Dane ^talk 03:57, 14 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy keep. Nomination withdrawn. (non-admin closure) _pseudonym Jake Brockman ^talk 07:05, 11 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Alaa Salah[edit]

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

WP:TOOSOON, WP:NOTNEWS. This is a tough one. There certainly is a lot of media buzz about the individual. However, at this point, the Washington Post says they have not been able to identify the person. Alaraby says details about the person remain unknown as of 16 hours ago. Her identity is apparently based on a whatsapp exchange with Buzzfeed... This all seems too soon and rushed to be in line with verifiability and probably front-running notability. _pseudonym Jake Brockman ^talk 07:22, 10 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. _pseudonym Jake Brockman ^talk 07:23, 10 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. _pseudonym Jake Brockman ^talk 07:23, 10 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Africa-related deletion discussions. _pseudonym Jake Brockman ^talk 07:23, 10 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Hi Jake Brockman,

As the original author of the article, I saw your comment and went back to search for evidence of her identity. In fact, you are right that The Washington Post noted they were unable to identify her and Alaraby said the person's details were unknown. However, searching further, I found that she was identified by at least two sources. Firstly, there is this article on MSN, which says that "The Washington Post could not confirm the woman’s identity, BuzzFeed and some Arabic-language news outlets have identified her as Alaa Salah, a 22-year-old engineering and architecture student (https://www.msn.com/en-za/news/world/why-this-viral-photo-is-becoming-a-symbol-of-womens-rights-protests-in-sudan/ar-BBVMVdi).

I also found another article, published by CNN, which says that the woman in the picture was identified by someone who caught her on video, and who identified himself to CNN as her friend. The friend is Ahmen Awad who also confirmed that he and Alaa went to the same college. (https://edition.cnn.com/2019/04/09/africa/photo-woman-chanting-sudan-uprising-scli-intl/index.html).

Aside from these links, I believe that in having captured so much media attention, the article is worth having. Maybe what is needed more is more citation for additional verification as opposed to deletion. — Preceding unsigned comment added by ObongiFrank (talk • contribs) 09:34, 10 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, she meets notability standards and is very much in the headlines of a very hotbutton issue. At the very least, repurpose the article to be about her image. puggo (talk) 01:51, 11 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment this is probably as much about the image as the person. I have removed the overly POV-written sections and restructured. There may be merit to have a separate discussion if this article should be about the person or about the image or if this should indeed be rolled/redirected into the main article about the protests. Closing AfD for now. _pseudonym Jake Brockman ^talk 07:05, 11 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Sandstein 14:24, 17 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Raveena Deshraj Shrestha[edit]

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

The article does not meet the notability criteria. The article is promotional. Credible secondary sources establishing the notability of the subject do not exist at this time. Usedtobecool (talk) 07:16, 10 April 2019 (UTC) Usedtobecool (talk) 07:16, 10 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 07:27, 10 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Nepal-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 07:27, 10 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Failing notability. Wikipedia is not LinkedIn. _pseudonym Jake Brockman ^talk 12:50, 10 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Sandstein 07:13, 17 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hisham Hendi[edit]

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

There is some borderline notability, but most of the mentions are inherited from the company he manages. Arthistorian1977 (talk) 08:37, 25 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. Icewhiz (talk) 08:53, 25 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Africa-related deletion discussions. Icewhiz (talk) 08:53, 25 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Egypt-related deletion discussions. Icewhiz (talk) 08:53, 25 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - not enough in-depth sourcing from independent reliable sourcing to meet WP:GNG.Onel5969 ^{TT me} 00:33, 28 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Vanamonde (Talk) 04:17, 2 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 05:37, 10 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Sandstein 07:13, 17 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

May Charlez[edit]

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

The subject of this article fails WP:GNG and WP:MUSICBIO. A Google search of him doesn't show him being discussed in reliable sources. Versace1608 ^{Wanna Talk?} 00:52, 25 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Versace1608 ^{Wanna Talk?} 00:52, 25 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Versace1608 ^{Wanna Talk?} 00:52, 25 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Nigeria-related deletion discussions. Versace1608 ^{Wanna Talk?} 00:52, 25 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Move to draft to provide an opportunity for improvement. If it is not improved, it will end up deleted either way. bd2412 T 00:58, 25 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@BD2412: The page creator has not requested this. I don't understand your reasoning behind suggesting this. The subject is not notable and moving the article to draft space doesn't change that. Versace1608 ^{Wanna Talk?} 01:33, 25 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The page creator doesn't need to request a move to draft space of an article that would be best served by a move to draft space. I don't know what sort of media there is in Nigeria, but I would like to know whether anything of use can be found that we might miss. However, if nothing is done to properly source the article in draft space, it will be deleted anyway. bd2412 T 01:50, 25 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Vanamonde (Talk) 04:05, 2 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: I am seeing zero coverage on Google news. Basically, the only results from search engines are news portals providing download links to his songs, nothing on his career.HandsomeBoy (talk) 07:52, 2 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 05:35, 10 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as unambiguous WP:PROMO. Wikipedia is not a platform for (self-)promotion. Bakazaka (talk) 05:46, 17 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Sandstein 07:13, 17 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Jennifer Campbell[edit]

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

In looking at it for what it is, there are not reliable sources out there for the article to remain. Zilch. Trillfendi (talk) 16:42, 2 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. KCVelaga (talk) 17:24, 2 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. KCVelaga (talk) 17:24, 2 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. Ceethekreator (talk) 18:47, 2 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Ceethekreator (talk) 18:47, 2 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete When someones lead claim to fame is a one-episode TV role, they are just not notable.John Pack Lambert (talk) 20:33, 4 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Comment the article manages to leave out entirely her most prominent role as third in the cast list for all 22 episodes of Robin's Hoods, thanks Atlantic306 (talk) 22:21, 6 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 05:31, 10 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete for failing WP:NACTOR and WP:GNG. Her TV roles weren't that significant. Clarityfiend (talk) 22:23, 10 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete not WP:GNG Lubbad85 (☎) 02:00, 13 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails WP:NACTOR....William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 15:50, 14 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Sandstein 07:12, 17 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

GirlsAskGuys[edit]

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

There do not seem to be any reliable non-local third party sources. The one article in Huffington Post, is by a "contributor", not their staff, the company exec wrote the one in Forbes, and the others are non substantial or local from the startups city. DGG ( talk ) 05:20, 10 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 05:41, 10 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 05:42, 10 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Missouri-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 05:42, 10 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 05:43, 10 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 05:44, 10 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fashion-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 05:46, 10 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment @DGG: What about mashable, would you consider that a reliable source? --Cerebellum (talk) 12:22, 11 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I have to go by the reputation of the author. Looking at their articles, I see a large number of chatty articles mostly on trivial new websites. Many of them , but not this one, have the caption "Editor's Note: This post is part of an ongoing series at Mashable - The Startup Review, Sponsored by Sun Microsystems Startup Essentials. If you would like to have your startup considered for inclusion, please see the details here." Of the ones dealing with new web sites but without that capition, asample showed 3 out of 10 with articles on WP. It would seem that the purpose of the contributors column is PR. DGG ( talk ) 18:27, 11 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per DGG's response above, the mashable article was the only non-local source that seemed reliable to me. --Cerebellum (talk) 21:32, 11 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Speedy deleted WP:G12. (non-admin closure) Ceethekreator (talk) 12:23, 10 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Melissa Chase (Milo Murphy's Law)[edit]

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

Article about non-notable fictional character substantiated with original research. Author rejected PROD. Cryptic Canadian 03:03, 10 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The article is quite unnecessary, the main page of Milo Murphy's Law covers what is necessary about the character. I'm in favor of deleting the article. PROD BastianGT (talk) 04:13, 10 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete tag added for possible copyright infringement as majority of article content taken from another website. Meszzy² (talk) 04:48, 10 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 04:54, 10 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 04:55, 10 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 04:55, 10 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Sandstein 07:11, 17 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Dennis Day (Mouseketeer)[edit]

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

WP:NOTNEWS Meatsgains^(talk) 02:03, 10 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. He was one of the original Mouseketeers and the unusual circumstances surrounding his lengthy disappearance and likely death are noteworthy contributions to historical, notorious, infamous celebrity crimes or murders.

I think the decision should be held off until the officials identify the remains found. Personally, I think if it is him, then the article should be kept as noteworthy. CFLeon (talk) 02:14, 10 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. I considered writing this, and have improved it, because there are two points of notability: his career as a child actor and his disappearance. National coverage of his disappearance extends back to when Dateline featured it in February this year. Yngvadottir (talk) 02:26, 10 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hello. I started this article about Dennis Day when I saw that there wasn't one. I was surprised because he was one of the original Mouseketeers. Whether or not the human remains found on his property turn out to be him is not relevant. The fact that he has no other acting credits listed on IMDB is not relevant. He was one of the original fucking Mouseketeers. That was a huge deal in 1950s America. It isn't possible to talk about that history without talking about Dennis Day. What's wrong with you people? Bitter Oil (talk) 03:06, 10 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 04:58, 10 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 04:58, 10 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 04:59, 10 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 04:59, 10 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Nevada-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 04:59, 10 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sexuality and gender-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 05:00, 10 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Keep Ignoring the aggressive rhetoric of the article creator, his disappearance and subsequent coverage (including the most recent development regarding a found body) means that Dennis Day satisfies WP:BASIC but only barely. That said, a lot of conflicting accounts of notability apply to this article. WP:CRIME and WP:NCRIME seem to discourage that reading of the article's notability while WP:ENTERTAINER seems to encourage the reading that his role as Mouseketeer alone was notable enough. I don't think the Mouseketeer page would be a good place to merge this either. Userqio (talk) 06:00, 10 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: per WP:GNG. All these sources stating that he is missing show that he is/was notable as an indivindual. SSSB (talk) 11:05, 10 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep per Userqio, SSSB, Yngvadottir. Mosaicberry (talk) 12:35, 10 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep with Yngvadottir's improvements. Fulfills requirements of GNG. ♟♙ (talk) 14:39, 10 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hey User:Meatsgains! Take a look at this]. Do you think all those people were suddenly interested in the other Dennis Day? No, they wanted to know more about the Mouseketeer! Bitter Oil (talk) 16:20, 11 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The reason I nominated for deletion in the first place is because the subject doesn't appear notable enough outside of his disappearance, which caused a significant spike in traffic. Please read through WP:NOTNEWS, While news coverage can be useful source material for encyclopedic topics, most newsworthy events do not qualify for inclusion. Let's let this AfD play out. Meatsgains^(talk) 23:07, 11 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Sure, people care now because he's in the news, but they are coming here because they want to learn more about him. That's not news, that's history. You wanna make a bet on how this AFD plays out? If the article is deleted, I will delete my account. If it isn't, you delete your account. How about it, Meatsgains? Bitter Oil (talk) 03:09, 12 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Passes WP:GNG. -- Dane ^talk 03:52, 14 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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