< 10 April	12 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. — JJMC89 (T·C) 01:04, 19 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Chesny Young[edit]

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

Non-notable minor league baseball player; fails WP:NBASEBALL. Now out of MiLB after signing w/ independent league team Pozzi.c (talk) 23:45, 11 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. IntoThinAir (talk) 00:30, 12 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete not notable.-- Yankees10 00:42, 12 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete agree with nomination 9H48F (talk) 02:00, 12 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Baseball-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 04:51, 12 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Georgia (U.S. state)-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 04:52, 12 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Games-related deletion discussions. PATH SLOPU 13:41, 12 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. PATH SLOPU 13:41, 12 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. PATH SLOPU 13:41, 12 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Fails GNG, not enough indepth coverage by independent sources. ^Thanks,L3X1 ◊distænt write◊ 01:59, 13 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Another journeyman minor-leaguer. Fails WP:GNG and WP:NBASEBALL.Onel5969 ^{TT me} 02:18, 13 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails WP:NBASEBALL....William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 14:53, 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) B dash (talk) 02:24, 19 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Maureen Brady[edit]

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

WP:BLP of a writer, who has no strong or reliably sourced claim to passing WP:AUTHOR. The strongest notability claims here are unsourced assertions about minor literary "awards" that aren't instant notability passes, and mostly sound like council or foundation grants rather than actual awards, and the referencing is 50 per cent her own primary source profiles on the self-published websites of her own publishers and 50 per cent blogs, which means that it's exactly zero per cent notability-supporting coverage in real reliable sources -- and the only other attempt at "referencing" that was present here at all was a set of WP:ELNO-violating offlinks to her books' own sales pages on Amazon or their publishers' websites. As always, the notability test for a writer is not just that her work metaverifies its own existence on online bookstores -- it requires real, genuinely reliable media sources to devote attention to her writing, such as critical reviews of her books and/or actual journalism about her, but none of the sources here meet that standard. Bearcat (talk) 22:55, 11 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. Ceethekreator (talk) 23:11, 11 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Ceethekreator (talk) 23:11, 11 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. Ceethekreator (talk) 23:11, 11 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Bearcat. I see your nomination for the article Maureen Brady for deletion. Allow me to explain why I think this should not happen.

Maureen Brady's work is of historical importance. She was a prominent writer and publisher during the period of "women's fiction", specifically the advent of lesbian fiction in the 70s and 80s. She founded a very important publishing company -- Spinsters Ink -- which is of historical importance to lesbian and feminist publishing. And her early work was lauded by prominent lesbian feminists such as Audre Lorde.

I started this article before I was able to access the writer's archives. Much of the important press Brady received was at a time before the internet. As a lesbian feminist she is of a marginalized group and therefore it will take a little more work for me to access the citations that, I agree, are necessary to prove her notability according to Wikipedia's guidelines. However, I plan to visit an archive that will give me more information and my research will provide more relevant links. I do agree that the sources are slim, but I do plan to improve them. It would be a real disservice to delete the article prematurely, when Brady is such an important figure to the history of the development of women's fiction in the United States. (Recently the Feminist Press re-issued Folly, one of her early works, as a classic).

Please give me a few days to improve the article. Thank you for your feedback. Thanks, Osomadre.Osomadre (talk) 23:18, 11 April 2019 (UTC) Osomadre[reply]

Just to be clear, the correct approach to getting a topic into Wikipedia is not to create the article and then put the work into actually finding any references that properly support notability weeks or months later — the research comes first, and then the creation of the article follows, not vice versa. You also have the option of working on something in draftspace or your own user sandbox, and then moving it into mainspace when it's done.
Also, her personal archives aren't notability-supporting sources: what you need to show to make a person notable is media coverage about her in published reliable sources that are independent of her. So access to her personal archives isn't really the ticket here: what you need to get into is newspaper and magazine databases and books that might have covered her as a subject, not her own personal papers.
Bottom line is, we don't keep poorly sourced articles pending the possible future addition of sources that have not actually been found yet; when you want to create a new Wikipedia article, you do the referencing research first and then you create the article afterward. Bearcat (talk) 13:42, 12 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Keep for now. Osomadre made excellent points and I think that with the right citations/sources Maureen Brady could be an excellent addition. 9H48F (talk) 02:14, 12 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Found additional sources in JSTOR and reorganized slightly. I find using a lot of headlines in such a short article frustrating to read so removed those, but feel free to add back in if you think neccessary. 9H48F (talk) 13:16, 12 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep While I agree that the article was not ready for mainspace when it was moved from a draft, I'm not sure why, as a brand new article, it came straight to AfD, rather than having notability and better sourcing tags added. It looks clear to me that the subject will meet WP:AUTHOR. I have found and added some reviews of her books, and there are more in newspapers and in journals that can be added. RebeccaGreen (talk) 15:18, 12 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your help, RebeccaGreen and 9H48F. Visiting the writer's archives, which I did today, was helpful to find things out that I couldn't find out by searching the web. As many of the author's reviews were from pre-internet times, unfortunately I was not able to use some of the ones I found today because they are not online. I think it's very clear at this point that this article and this author meets the notability guidelines. The criticism from Bearcat was helpful and now I think the article is much improved. Question: when can we agree to let the article stay put? Thanks, Osomadre. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Osomadre (talk • contribs) 01:21, 13 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Osomadre: 1. Sources do not need to be online, per WP:SOURCEACCESS. If you have the title of the article/review, the name of the author, the title, date, volume, issue and page numbers of the journal/book it appeared in, then add the sources to the article. 2. When an article has been nominated for deletion, it is usually discussed for 7 days before being evaluated for closing. If there is no a clear consensus, it may then be extended so that more editors can add to the discussion. So it's likely that this will remain open until 18 April, at least. RebeccaGreen (talk) 03:44, 13 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you RebeccaGreen. I did not know that about citations not needing to exist online. I am a new Wikipedia editor -- I joined as a result of the #ArtandFeminism Women's History Month Edit-A-Thons, and so far the only editing I had done was on visual artist pages, which I'm much more familiar with as an artist myself. Do you recommend JSTOR? It seems you found some great things that are inaccessible through a regular google search. Thanks again, Osomadre. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Osomadre (talk • contribs) 12:10, 13 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Osomadre: There are many types of search for material Google does not find. Look at WP:The Wikipedia Library to start with. JSTOR is included there but, unless I am mistaken, anyone at all can register for free.[1] Access is then limited but not in a way I have ever found to be a problem. Have you discovered Wikipedia:WikiProject Women artists yet? Personally I think references to offline articles are even more useful than online. Using these brings back onto the web information that could otherwise become lost: it is very important to cite them carefully. Thincat (talk) 09:27, 18 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I have only looked at the article in its present state but seems there is sufficient (referenced) information to establish that her work has "won significant critical attention" WP:AUTHOR #4c. Thincat (talk) 09:49, 18 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you Thincat! That is so helpful. It's so good to connect with other Wikipedia editors who are interested in correcting the systemic bias. I appreciate your suggestions and am just learning a lot including how to create manual references...All the best, Osomadre — Preceding unsigned comment added by Osomadre (talk • contribs) 02:03, 19 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) 01:04, 19 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Beat Party![edit]

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

There was this song once, and then some parties in Melbourne in 2009. That’s it. Not notable. Mccapra (talk) 22:46, 11 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. None of the cited sources mention the parties that are the ostensible subject of this article. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 04:56, 12 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 04:57, 12 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 04:57, 12 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, the article dose not meet WP:GNG Alex-h (talk) 08:10, 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) 01:03, 19 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Aptal Nisan[edit]

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

This article is an April Fool hoax that has survived for nine years. Mccapra (talk) 22:38, 11 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 05:03, 12 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Turkey-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 05:04, 12 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment to expand on my nomination: the term ‘Aptal Nisan’ means ‘April idiot’. Nisan=April and Nişan=engagement. Look at the View history page to see who created this. There are no sources for it. The alleged history is spurious and nonsensical. ‘Kravat’ is a modern loan word and nothing to do with Muslim tradition. Etc. Etc. Someone has had a good long laugh with this one. Mccapra (talk) 07:57, 12 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete though it's quite amusing none the less. I read the article in full and do concur this does not seem at all credible. Google "Aptal" returns "stupid" and "Nisan" returns "April" (i.e. April Stupid, translating to "April Fool"). As noted by the nominator, the username of the creator seems consistent with this too. Someone has put effort into it, although has no place on wikipedia Bungle ^{(talk • contribs)} 09:18, 12 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Fails WP:V. Circumstantial evidence for hoax, as noted above, is compelling. 24.151.50.175 (talk) 17:20, 12 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Fails WP:V. Hoax quite plausible (e.g. beyond the creator's username, and details of the custom, Battle of Talas at 751 is inconsistent with the 1670s) - but as we fail V absent any sources proving a hoax is not required. Icewhiz (talk) 13:39, 15 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy/Snow Delete - Beautiful, fails V, etc. Smmurphy^(Talk) 17:00, 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 delete. — JJMC89 (T·C) 01:03, 19 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Lucy in the Sky (disambiguation)[edit]

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

The only extant article whose base name is "Lucy in the Sky" is Lucy in the Sky, about the film.

Karolina Dean is apparently alternatively known as "Lucy in the Sky", but that can just be indicated in a hatnote at Lucy in the Sky. If the Beatles song is also known colloquially as simply "Lucy in the Sky", we can link to Lucy in the Sky with Diamonds in the hatnote too.

"William Shatner's version" is a cover (?) and doesn't have its own article. The video game isn't even known as "Lucy in the Sky with Dynamites" like the DAB page claims it is, according to the article, and it's simply a "bonus CD" which a limited edition of the game came with, not to mention it's "Lucy in the Sky with Dynamites", not "Lucy in the Sky". Things named "Lucy" after the Beatles song listed in the See also section are outside the scope of a disambiguation page (none of the articles indicate they are known alternatively as "... in the Sky" either), and can just be covered in Lucy in the Sky with Diamonds.

Overall, there is nothing to disambiguate that a hatnote at Lucy in the Sky can't. Nardog (talk) 22:35, 11 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know if there really is a primary topic here. Besides the film, there's also the superhero and the Beatles song (at least in some contexts it's referred to as just "Lucy in the Sky" [2]). That's three proper entries so far, and if we exclude the "see also" entries (I'm not sure how relevant they are) then yes, two of them can be linked from a hatnote on the third one, if that one is a primary topic. – Uanfala (talk) 22:51, 11 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Disambiguations-related deletion discussions. – Uanfala (talk) 22:52, 11 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nominator. The following hatnote could be added to the top of Lucy in the Sky, replacing the disambiguation page:

MarkZusab (talk) 23:32, 11 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Comics and animation-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 05:06, 12 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Video games-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 05:07, 12 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - per the reasoning of the nominator and the voters above. Since there seems to be only one thing that is literally titled "Lucy in the Sky" (the film), this disambiguation page really stretches the requirements for what that type of page is supposed to accomplish. Hatnotes at the various existing articles with very similar titles should suffice. ---DOOMSDAYER520 (Talk|Contribs) 12:28, 12 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. This nomination makes a convincing argument for deletion (as long as only 3 relevant articles exist).
Note: everything that follows was added after Nardog's below comment; Nardog was referring to commentary that I have since removed from this page (most of it was revised and added to the RM).
~~As the original version of this comment emphasized, I previously thought the closely related title Lucy in the Sky should be moved.~~ I've since withdrawn that RM; Nardog's arguments were convincing. The linked RM discussion will probably still be useful for this AfD's closer, as it addresses Uanfala's above comment (though primary topic comments may not strictly be necessary for the determining how this AfD should be closed). e^πi (talk | contribs) 13:42, 12 April 2019 (UTC) (revised 12:30-12:41, 13 April 2019 (UTC))[reply]
- That's an RM matter, here let's focus on whether to delete the DAB page. Nardog (talk) 12:45, 12 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  - Fair enough. I didn't intend to pollute the venue, but you are correct to call me out on doing so. I will ~~try to~~ avoid doing so again in the future.
  - @Nardog: I have now opened the requested move (linked above). e^πi (talk | contribs) 13:42, 12 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete with hatnote per MarkZusab above. Shhhnotsoloud (talk) 08:42, 14 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per the above discussion. Aoba47 (talk) 22:39, 16 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Videogameplayer99 (talk) 02:30, 18 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) 01:02, 19 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Kho Boon Cheng[edit]

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

Prod that was removed. A possible autobio of a person from what I can tell is non notable with no reliable sources to be found. Wgolf (talk) 22:20, 11 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Malaysia-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 22:29, 11 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. PATH SLOPU 13:42, 12 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as there are no sources to meet WP:GNG. Wikipedia has a high bar for inclusion and we can't have articles about every IT professional who's started a company. – Uanfala (talk) 12:00, 15 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Actually, Wikipedia has a low bar for inclusion, and this resume submitted as an article manages to hit well under that bar. It has no reliable sources, nor can I find any. -- Whpq (talk) 14:40, 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) 01:02, 19 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Allen Blakemore (political consultant)[edit]

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

Only RS I can find (couple Texas Tribune pieces) mention him only in passing as speaking for one of his clients. Fails WP:GNG, violates WP:SPIP. BubbaJoe123456 (talk) 22:06, 11 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 22:18, 11 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Texas-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 22:19, 11 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:NOTADVERTISING, which this almost certainly is. Best, GPL93 (talk) 02:40, 12 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete,Serving notable persons does not make him notable, I agree withWP:NOTADVERTISING , Alex-h (talk) 08:24, 17 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - This is advertising and the early versions of the article are a direct copy of his website bio making this also a copyright violation. -- Whpq (talk) 14:44, 17 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:NOTADVERTISING -Roxy, the dog. wooF 16:40, 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) 01:01, 19 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Top Gun (film series)[edit]

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

Much ado about not much. A series article for two films seems like overkill, and the article is basically repeats information already in the individual film articles, and adds some tables with incomplete information. BilCat (talk) 21:47, 11 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 21:58, 11 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 21:58, 11 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I feel the need, the need to delete. Two films, especially with one not even released yet, do not make a series. Does the word "sequel" ring a bell? Clarityfiend (talk) 06:30, 12 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Absolutely not. A 'series' of films/books/games/etc. is synonymous with multiple. There is no "rule" nor declaration that equates to "more than two". The Top Gun: Maverick film has finished production, and more information will come about during the marketing phase of post-production. The article is significant enough to have Wikipedia article. If the article needs more information, why not add to it - instead of requesting its deletion? Constructive editing would contribute to the article. Again disagree entirely, and the fact that there is no rule for how many entries in a series determines what a 'series' is - is why I made the page in the first place. This page should not be deleted.--DisneyMetalhead (talk) 12:18, 12 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
- NOTE: The word Latin "series" comes from the word 'serere' which means 'join, connect' - which has evolved into the modern word. Additionally the definition of series has no specific number of installments required - as @CAPTAIN RAJU: & @BilCat: have stated. Series: "a number of things, events, or people of a similar kind or related nature coming one after another: ... a set of books, maps, periodicals, or other documents published in a common format or under a common title. - a set of related television or radio programs [OR FILMS], especially of a specified kind..." (emphasis added by myself). Again, user preference over definition has no place. The page by definition is constructive and valid. If your complaint is what's included in the document -- add to it!--DisneyMetalhead (talk) 12:25, 12 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

A search for "Top Gun film series" brings up this article and Top Gun: Maverick, and nothing else. 'Nuff said. Clarityfiend (talk) 18:43, 12 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I actually have no issue with a two-film "series" as a concept, but with the content of the article itself. Two films are not enough, in my opinion, make a good series article. All potential content, tables aside, would be better covered in each individual article, and the tables themselves are incomplete, as one film hasn't even been released. Even after release, the article isn't going to include much non-duplicate content. A good rule of thumb for splitting out content in any type of article is when a section or group of sections so overwhelms the rest of the article that it would make sense to cover that content in its own article. We're no where near that in this case. - BilCat (talk) 21:27, 12 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Two films does not make a series, especially considering one's not even out yet. JOE BRO 64 14:07, 12 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, does not meet WP:NFILM or WP:GNG, no evidence of WP:NFOE (just substitute the word "film" with "series"). Coolabahapple (talk) 13:34, 13 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) 01:01, 19 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Exodus: Book I[edit]

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

Obviously non-notable. The fact that it can be argued to incorporate particular sociological concepts does not mean that it inherits notability from those concepts. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 21:35, 11 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 21:43, 11 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 21:44, 11 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete non-notable. Fails WP:NBOOK. No independent reliable sources discuss the book. --David Tornheim (talk) 22:22, 11 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete no evidence of notability given nor found in a search - cannot find significant independent coverage of the book and it does not appear to have received any critical attention, therefore fails WP:BOOKCRIT. Hzh (talk) 19:13, 18 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. It looks like the article has been significantly updated since being listed at AFD and the consensus now is that it passes WP:BASIC (non-admin closure) Dusti ^{*Let's talk!*} 02:42, 18 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Anthony Bliss[edit]

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

Article on a non-notable clergyman. No clear claim of notability and no sources found in a WP:BEFORE. RetiredDuke (talk) 21:09, 11 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 21:11, 11 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 21:11, 11 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep-just added seven in-line references, he appears to be notable.--Epiphyllumlover (talk) 22:31, 11 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per sourcing by Epiphyllumlover.E.M.Gregory (talk) 07:40, 12 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as is shown to be notable as an author rather than clergyman as per the multiple reliable sources added to the adticle so that WP:Basic is passed and deletion is no longer necessary Atlantic306 (talk) 13:15, 13 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Inline citations improved by reFill tool.--Dthomsen8 (talk) 02:23, 18 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) 01:01, 19 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Mahnaz Badihian[edit]

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

Deleted via PROD in 2017, contested at my user page. Restoring for community discussion. I didn't find much in the way of sources except this short article from the virtual US-Iran Embassy, so I'm leaning delete, but maybe there's sources in Farsi I didn't see. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 10:06, 4 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Poetry-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 10:09, 4 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 10:09, 4 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Maryland-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 10:10, 4 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Iowa-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 10:11, 4 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Oregon-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 10:11, 4 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Iran-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 10:12, 4 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete inadequate sources to show notability.John Pack Lambert (talk) 20:38, 4 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ceethekreator (talk) 20:34, 11 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I do not see the coverage needed to meet WP:GNG. I also don't see that she meets WP:NAUTHOR. Papaursa (talk) 23:43, 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) 01:00, 19 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Jerrÿ Jay (music producer)[edit]

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

No evidence of notability, sources are routine listings of events or songs, not indepth independent sources about the artist. Fram (talk) 09:26, 4 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Ceethekreator (talk) 09:33, 4 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. Ceethekreator (talk) 09:33, 4 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Myanmar-related deletion discussions. Ceethekreator (talk) 09:34, 4 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ceethekreator (talk) 20:33, 11 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. PATH SLOPU 13:45, 12 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I don't see any evidence of notability. --Tataral (talk) 07:28, 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 Withdrawn by nominator. Sources found. (non-admin closure) UnitedStatesian (talk) 13:28, 16 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Vital Pharmaceuticals[edit]

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

Declined PROD. WP:BEFORE reveals no sources that come close to the necessary WP:CORPDEPTH required fro a company article. UnitedStatesian (talk) 18:35, 11 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. Ceethekreator (talk) 19:28, 11 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Ceethekreator (talk) 19:28, 11 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Florida-related deletion discussions. Ceethekreator (talk) 19:28, 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 19:52, 18 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Riley's Trick Shop[edit]

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

Doesn't appear to have received significant coverage in multiple independent reliable sources. Opting for AfD to allow users with access to offline sources (as the establishment is old) to chip in, however, searches in databases of such sources e.g. WorldCat don't look too promising. SITH (talk) 17:50, 11 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 17:52, 11 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Illinois-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 17:52, 11 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

delete No indication of notability and my search found nothing that shows the GNG is met. A self published book and an article about their closing (in a local section of the Tribune) are not enough to show notability.Sandals1 (talk) 14:40, 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. TonyBallioni (talk) 17:45, 18 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

List of most-disliked YouTube Indian music videos[edit]

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

Possible duplication of another article, List of most-disliked YouTube videos. Why do i say this? Most of the videos are not even indian, why is Baby here? Why is Its Everyday Bro here? Why is Marsha and the Bear: Recipe for Disaster here? TheWin RatHere! 16:50, 11 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 17:04, 11 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 17:04, 11 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 17:05, 11 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete List is not of Indian videos, even if it were that would be absurd to break out the main list by country. Reywas92^Talk 18:03, 11 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete This is a strange list, but maybe the creator duplicated the list intending to make his/her own Indian list, but I agree with Reywas92 that a new list by country of the most disliked videos is not a good idea, the main article is good enough as coverage. Garlicolive (talk) 02:37, 12 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom and the above comments. Lugnuts ^{Fire Walk with Me} 06:43, 12 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete for a number of reasons. First, it's a non-notable spinoff from another article and secondly it's full of WP:OR. Ajf773 (talk) 08:41, 12 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete because . . .Graywalls (talk) 22:27, 13 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete This looks to me like an abandoned list project. The only relevant sentence is the claim that "On September 24, 2018, Freak Penne from the Malayalam-language film, Oru Adaar Love, became the most disliked video on the video-sharing platform. " which may or may not be true if we restrict the field to videos produced in India. For the record, that video has 903K dislikes, a respectable number but there's no easy way to tell if that was indeed, or still is, a record. The table itself is just the first 10 entries in List of most-disliked YouTube videos where the first entry has been replaced by the aforementioned "Freak Penne" video with the wildly incorrect info that it has 16 million+ dislikes. Pichpich (talk) 19:16, 17 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above and nom Rollidan (talk) 16:31, 18 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 soft delete. WP:REFUND applies. TonyBallioni (talk) 17:44, 18 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Don Snell[edit]

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

Never held any major roles, pretty much all the standard extra/minor character parts and is not notable for his business either. No coverage and the only mentions in papers (even in print copies that I searched through) are pretty standard like property transactions. The best article on him is the obit in playbill, however it still in no way establishes notability. Praxidicae (talk) 16:45, 11 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 17:09, 11 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 17:10, 11 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 17:10, 11 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 17:10, 11 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Texas-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 17:11, 11 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 17:12, 11 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 17:27, 11 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 17:28, 11 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 17:31, 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. TonyBallioni (talk) 17:44, 18 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Jon Hart Design[edit]

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

No coverage beyond local sources and even those are mostly puff pieces, interviews or press releases. Praxidicae (talk) 16:41, 11 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Declined at AFC three times the creator moved it to main space regardless. It fails WP:CORP. Theroadislong (talk) 16:49, 11 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fashion-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 17:33, 11 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Texas-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 17:34, 11 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 17:35, 11 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

It's a bag place; they make bags. Nothing here proves they are notable enough to have an article. Drmies (talk) 18:11, 11 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Not enough to demonstrate notability. Eagleash (talk) 03:22, 14 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, although might be a case of WP:TOOSOON, but currently it doesn't pass either WP:GNG or WP:CORPDEPTH.Onel5969 ^{TT me} 14:48, 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 soft delete. WP:REFUND applies. TonyBallioni (talk) 17:44, 18 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

App Empire: Make Money, Have a Life, and Let Technology Work for You[edit]

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

Questionable notability. Claims in article about download numbers are suspect. Article has strong air of paid editing. Also see author's article as well: Chad Mureta which was created by a sockpuppet around the same time as this article. PureRED | talk to me | 16:38, 11 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. SD0001 (talk) 17:31, 11 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. SD0001 (talk) 17:31, 11 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 17:37, 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. TonyBallioni (talk) 17:43, 18 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Spindle Magazine[edit]

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

I'm not seeing how this passes muster for an encyclopedia. Laun chba ller 16:33, 11 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 17:44, 11 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Arts-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 17:45, 11 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fashion-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 17:45, 11 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Photography-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 17:46, 11 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of News media-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 17:46, 11 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 17:46, 11 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 17:47, 11 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: I can't see how this passes either WP:ORGCRIT or WP:WEBCRIT. The only people who seem to mention it anywhere are current and former writers on their own websites or blogs. As a print magazine, it only ran for six issues before moving entirely online, so there's no indication of lasting significance, more like "blink and you missed it". The publisher and editor Heather Falconer sold the brand in 2016, and it now seems to have evolved into a kind of artistic LinkedIn... both creative artists and brands are invited to submit their details for consideration. But as either a print or online magazine, it doesn't appear to pass any notability criteria. Richard3120 (talk) 20:05, 11 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: The article was created with no independent sources and stayed that way for over 7 years. Attempting to find sources on this publication only leads to passing mentions as well as unreliable blogs and primary WP:SOAPBOX sources. Just because it WP:EXISTS doesn't mean it should have an article, especially if there have been no independent sources (or any sources really) added to the article since it was created. StaringAtTheStars^✉Talk 18:49, 15 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

<please do not delete the Spindle Magazine Wikipedia page. The company has change tremendously since its inception (when the page was created) and its Wikipedia needed to be updated to showcase the company's full range. I have added many citations so that any doubt as to relevance and authenticity is cleared. Thanks very much>Soldi2019 (talk) 12:47, 18 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. TonyBallioni (talk) 17:42, 18 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Raidió na dTreabh[edit]

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

Article appears to be an attempted promotion for a new ~~business~~ radio station, with no evidence of notability. Two sources in the article (in Irish) are a fundraising request and a brief promotional announcement, and nothing further could be found. Editors have tried to pad the article with photos of the city the station is in and links to similar stations in the "See also" section, but none of those pertain to the station itself. ---DOOMSDAYER520 (Talk|Contribs) 15:02, 11 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. ---DOOMSDAYER520 (Talk|Contribs) 15:04, 11 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Ireland-related deletion discussions. ---DOOMSDAYER520 (Talk|Contribs) 15:04, 11 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Raidió na dTreabh is not a "business" but a internet radio station which hopes (and probably will get eventually in my opinion) a community radio license in Galway. ~~Darren J. Prior~~ — Preceding unsigned comment added by Darren J. Prior (talk • contribs) 15:10, 11 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Okay but that does not solve the notability issue. ---DOOMSDAYER520 (Talk|Contribs) 15:18, 11 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: I think this is just way WP:TOOSOON and even then I would be surprised. ww2censor (talk) 15:20, 11 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 15:26, 11 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Radio-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 15:26, 11 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

It's not as if the station does not exist; I don't see what the problem is with leaving the page as a stub. ~~Darren J. Prior~~ — Preceding unsigned comment added by Darren J. Prior (talk • contribs) 17:22, 11 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

See WP:EXIST. ---DOOMSDAYER520 (Talk|Contribs) 12:10, 12 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

One of the articles linked on the page, not two of them, is a fundraising request. The other two links are noteworthy I believe. ~~Darren J. Prior~~ — Preceding unsigned comment added by Darren J. Prior (talk • contribs) 17:27, 11 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. WP:GNG and WP:NRADIO do not seem to be met. On the former (GNG), the only sources that seem to be available establish the subject's existence, but not its notability. (There doesn't appear to be any news coverage for example - either in local or national media). On the latter (NRADIO), a radio station's notability is often based on its audience size, broadcast history, or programming output. I do not see how this subject can be seen to meet those criteria. (In that it has no audience/history/output). In short: delete. For now at least. (Could always recreate if/when the subject actually gets up and running. And builds up an audience/content/history/coverage). Guliolopez (talk) 10:09, 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. Randykitty (talk) 17:04, 18 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comrade Phils[edit]

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

Failing WP:GNG on the basis of lacking substantive coverage in reliable, independent sources. Most of the material is primary (authored by the subject) or based on reports by the subject without apparent editorial verification. As a side note, this has a long history of deletions, e.g. Comradephils or Philsville by various authors. _pseudonym Jake Brockman ^talk 12:11, 11 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Journalism-related deletion discussions. _pseudonym Jake Brockman ^talk 12:12, 11 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Nigeria-related deletion discussions. _pseudonym Jake Brockman ^talk 12:12, 11 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Clearly not notable, fails WP:GNG. Hughesdarren (talk) 12:16, 11 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Citing instances of previous deletion as points is out of place. We should centre on the notability and reliable sources angle. One of the newspapers that carried his news is notable for reporting issues related to corruption. The final call is on the community to decide. Uche2018 (talk) 16:40, 12 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Uche2018: Please can you go through WP:notability (people). and let me know where Comrade Phils falls into so that I can assist in evaluating his SNG, for now I'm thinking WP:POLITICIAN, but he doesn't satisfy the requirement enough to me.HandsomeBoy (talk) 12:15, 18 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: I'm sure Comrade Phils has good intention for the Nigerian populace, but article retainment is based on notability guidelines, its not Wikipedia's job to promote/publicize individuals fighting corruption.HandsomeBoy (talk) 12:15, 18 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 no consensus. Horrible article with hardly any sources. Given the low participation in this debate, no prejudice against another nomination soon. Randykitty (talk) 17:00, 18 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Paul Westwood[edit]

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

Non-notable musician. Not finding any evidence of significant independent coverage of this musician. No significant reviews of his music or book. WikiDan61^ChatMe!_ReadMe!! 20:55, 28 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. WikiDan61^ChatMe!_ReadMe!! 20:56, 28 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. WikiDan61^ChatMe!_ReadMe!! 20:56, 28 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 22:17, 28 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Dusti ^{*Let's talk!*} 03:25, 4 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Per Wikipedia:Notability_(music)...

Musicians ... may be notable if they meet at least one of the following criteria..

'Has been the subject of multiple, non-trivial, published works appearing in sources that are reliable, not self-published, and are independent of the musician or ensemble itself'

The article lists two books that he's been published in or covered in

'Has won or been nominated for a major music award (...)'

Paul was made an Honorary Associate of the Royal Academy of Music in 2006.

There's at least two of the criterion right there where he meets it. The article is ugly, needs a major clean up... but that's not a valid reason for deletion. Dusti ^{*Let's talk!*} 04:38, 4 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment @Dusti: Which two books is he covered in? Westwood wrote two published books (The Bass Bible and The Bass Bible 2) but I don't see any mention in the article about any book that has been published about him. Westwood has been interviewed as a "subject matter expert" for the book The Quest for the Melodic Electric Bass (ISBN 9781472434821), but that's not the same as being the subject of the book. He is mentioned once, in passing, in Turned Out Nice Again (ISBN 9781848877573), but again, this is not a book about him. Also, I don't know that being made an Honorary Member of the Royal Academy of Music counts as a "major music award." WP:MUSIC lists specific awards that would satisfy this criterion; the RAM Honorary Membership is not among them. WikiDan61^ChatMe!_ReadMe!! 11:57, 4 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Jovanmilic97 (talk) 10:37, 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. Randykitty (talk) 16:57, 18 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Francis Vicente[edit]

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

Apparent subject of the article Francis John Patrick M. Vicente himself requested the article to be deleted. Also to ascertain if the subject's notability since admittedly most sources are primary sources or routine coverage on coaching assignment changes. Hariboneagle927 (talk) 03:25, 4 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 04:49, 4 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Philippines-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 04:49, 4 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep a head coach of a national team is certainly notable. A quick google news search churns up a significant amount of third party references with his name in the headlines. As long as he does not edit it himself i guess.--RioHondo (talk) 16:02, 4 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Jovanmilic97 (talk) 10:37, 11 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Meets sports notability guidelines due to him being a national team coach. Also passes WP:GNG. THEFlint Shrubwood (talk) 21:32, 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!*} 02:57, 18 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Maria Barnaby Greenwald[edit]

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

Non-notable local politician. The article incorrectly state she was on the New Jersey Superior Court, she was only a county surrogate. Neither that position, being mayor, or county freeholder gives her notability under WP:POLITICIAN Also, I believe WP:NOTMEMORIAL applies here too.Rusf10 (talk) 02:31, 4 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. CASSIOPEIA^(talk) 03:15, 4 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of New Jersey-related deletion discussions. CASSIOPEIA^(talk) 03:15, 4 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep

first woman mayor of Cherry Hill
first directly elected mayor of Cherry Hill
first woman elected to the Camden County Board of Chosen Freeholder
first woman director of Board of Chosen Freeholders
first woman surrogate for the New Jersey Superior Court in Camden County
Camden County Hall of Justice named in her honor

Djflem (talk) 08:10, 4 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Mayors of townships are not handed an automatic notability freebie just for existing as mayors, but this article is referenced nowhere close to well enough to get her over WP:NPOL #2 ("major local political figures who have received significant press coverage") — and no, being the first woman to hold a not-inherently notable role is still not a notability freebie that exempts her from having to have better referencing than this, either. Every community that exists at all will always have its own first woman or women to have done local-interest stuff, so "first woman to do a not inherently notable thing" is not an inclusion freebie in the absence of a much greater depth and range and volume of sourcing than this.
If she'd been the first woman mayor in the history of the entire United States, that would mean something because she would have a lot more coverage, but Wikipedia does not routinely accept "first woman mayor of her own small town" as an article-clinching notability claim in the absence of evidence that she received much more substantial coverage for that distinction than is being shown here. And none of the other things in Djflem's list mean much either: directly elected mayors, county councils and court surrogates are still not inherently notable roles, so being the first woman in her own local area (but very far from the first woman nationwide) to accomplish those things is still not an automatic inclusion freebie — and having a piece of local public infrastructure named after her is not an instant notability pass for a local politician either, because that would hand a majority of all municipal politicians everywhere a free exemption from actually having to be referenced well enough to pass NPOL #2. Naming stuff after local political figures is just what towns and cities and counties do, not a thing that automaticallly makes the namesake so "inherently" notable that she's exempted from having to be referenced properly just because a building exists with her name on the front door.
No matter what local firsts a mayor or county councillor can claim to represent, the inclusion test for politicians at the local level still requires them to have a lot more reliable source coverage about them than this actually shows: one short obituary blurb, one paragraph about her on one page of a local history book published by a print-on-demand house and three primary sources that do nothing to support notability is not enough to make a smalltown mayor notable regardless of her gender. Bearcat (talk) 14:29, 4 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. A Newspapers.com search finds 715 hits in the Philadelphia Inquirer alone. A national search yields 1,563 results. I haven't gone through all of these, but I've looked into some of the Inquirer plus 6 New York Daily News hits, and this is not routine, trivial coverage.Jacona (talk) 13:13, 5 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Jovanmilic97 (talk) 10:37, 11 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per above. Wikieditor19920 (talk) 20:18, 11 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Specifically which keep argument? That she is the first women (mayor/freeholder/etc.) of a specific town/county (ie. gender=notability) or that there are a lot of newspaper hits (ie WP:GOOGLEHITS & WP:ITSINTHENEWS)--Rusf10 (talk) 20:56, 11 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

This was enough to persuade me that the article should be kept. Wikieditor19920 (talk) 19:39, 12 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment This is not just internet-age google hit count we're talking about. This is genuine coverage in Newspapers in New Jersey and elsewhere. In addition to all the New Jersey Coverage, there are over 700 newspapers.com articles in the Philadelphia Inquirer alone, and more in other Philly publications. I'm not going to try to list them, but that level of coverage doesnt apply to your average freeholder. Since Philly might be considered local, there are also articles from NY papers, including for instance The New York Daily News including the February 26, 1979 issue. There's coverage in The Morning News from Wilmington, Delaware - 3 articles dated September 1, 1977 September 23, 1977, January 12, 1995. Much of the NY and Delaware coverage discusses the mayor and two events/issues: a workfare proposal and a police force sickout. With these, this article meets the general notability guideline Jacona (talk) 19:12, 12 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as per Djflem's list of achievements above. Particularly as first woman mayor of the town, she was a pioneer for women in public office in her area. MurielMary (talk) 10:18, 14 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Per available sources, clearly passes the WP:GNG. gidonb (talk) 20:07, 14 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Djflem's explanation above, and MurielMary. Hundreds more references readily available on newspaper engines on the internet, will try and add more soon. SEMMENDINGER (talk) 11:58, 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 no consensus. Given the low participation in this debate, no prejudice against another nomination soon. Randykitty (talk) 16:56, 18 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Terry Moore (broadcaster)[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

Renomination following a no-consensus closure. This is WP:BLP of a local radio and television personality, which is still referenced almost entirely to content created by his own colleagues rather than genuinely independent evidence of encyclopedic notability. Six of the ten sources here are directly published by his own station or its co-owned sister stations in the same city; two more are duplications of the same wire service obituary bylined by a coworker of his; one is a very short, unsubstantive blurb on the website of his market's other television station, and the last is simply a Google Books directory entry for a book he wrote, which is being used solely to metaverify its own existence rather than showing that it achieved anything that would get him over WP:AUTHOR. None of this constitutes evidence that he had a nationalized notability claim for the purposes of getting a Wikipedia article, and media outlets don't get to self-publish their own employees into the "just because media coverage exists" brand of notability. Bearcat (talk) 19:14, 27 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Icewhiz (talk) 20:22, 27 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Radio-related deletion discussions. Icewhiz (talk) 20:22, 27 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. Icewhiz (talk) 20:22, 27 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. Icewhiz (talk) 20:22, 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 04:24, 3 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 10:04, 11 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: There are several obituaries from a varity ofsources, to me he seems to satisfy WP:SIGCOV if nothing else, all these obituaries seem to imply notabillity. SSSB (talk) 10:51, 11 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The obituaries are virtually all directly affiliated: the majority are from his own employer, and two more that appear to be independent coverage on the surface were both still written by one of his own colleagues. So those sources all fail the independence test — and the only source in the entire article that actually represents genuinely independent coverage of him is a very brief and unsubstantive blurb. A single-market local broadcaster, who doesn't automatically clear the subject-specific inclusion criteria for broadcasters, does not suddenly pass GNG just because his own coworkers eulogized him as a friend. Bearcat (talk) 16:46, 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 no consensus. Randykitty (talk) 16:55, 18 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Bernard Delemotte[edit]

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

Fails WP:GNG. I tagged it for speedy deletion, but another administrator declined it because Delemotte is "associated with notable people". To the extent that's a valid reason for declining an A7, it's certainly not a valid reason for keeping an article. The subject has to be notable in their own right. Bbb23 (talk) 17:31, 26 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I didn't just do that, I also added a news source where he is name checked. I can't do much more because he appears primarily in French news pieces which will take time to sort out. I am tending towards "keep" or "merge" but I would like to evaluate the news pieces first. Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 17:45, 26 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I saw that. It ain't much of a mention. But I'm not invested in this. If the community decides to keep the article, I have no problem with that.--Bbb23 (talk) 18:12, 26 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Oh sure, my point was rather than adding a source to an article is a far stronger case for declining a speedy than just "well, it doesn't really look like one I guess" Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 18:15, 26 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Icewhiz (talk) 18:45, 26 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. Icewhiz (talk) 18:45, 26 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of France-related deletion discussions. Icewhiz (talk) 18:45, 26 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 04:00, 3 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 09:54, 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. I'm discounting the view of Narine1202 because, as the nominator notes, their history makes it likely that they are an undeclared paid editor. Sandstein 19:54, 18 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

ESMO Corporation[edit]

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

minor specialized company manufacturing automobile wiring components. The references are almost entirely either listings or mere notes, which is not enough for NCORP. Article by a spa, presumably an undeclared paid editor, but no actual proof of that DGG ( talk ) 01:49, 26 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 01:52, 26 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 01:52, 26 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of South Korea-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 01:52, 26 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. hi there,

I created ESMO Corporation page believing that it is a company that is worth having a wikipedia page.

First of, I disagree with your opinion that the references are almost entirely either listings or mere notes. Please check out https://www.vietnambreakingnews.com/2018/07/esmo-starts-construction-of-wiring-harness-plant-in-vietnam/ and this https://www.autonomousvehicletech.com/articles/195-volex-and-nexen-tech-enter-into-strategic-partnership articles only that talk about ESMO corporation having an impact on economic growth of Vietnam, etc.
The reason you might think that the company is too small to be on Wikipedia is probably becase it was renamed ESMO Corporation from the previous Nexen tech, which is a quite known company in Korea.
When adding sources I was trying to add mostly English sources thinking that the reviewers might have some difficulties with Korean language. I can add more sources in Korea if you think it would help to prove my point.
Another reason to think that ESMO Corporation should be on Wikipedia is the comparison with similar companies, like Furukawa, Fujikura, Yura Corporation d.o.o., etc. so please check out those pages and give it another thought.
To be honest, I spent quite a lot of time and effort to create this page, as you should know, and I hope that my work will not be a waste of time. So, please, if you have any suggestions, please tell me how to improve the article and don't delete it right away.

Thank you and I will get back to you if I have more comments to add, Hope you will give this another thought and help me out.

Regars, — Preceding unsigned comment added by Narine1202 (talk • contribs) 02:13, 26 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Narine1202 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 02:15, 26 March 2019 (UTC) — Note to closing admin: Narine1202 (talk • contribs) appears to have a close connection with the subject of the article being discussed. [reply]

Comment. Being that the company is a publicly traded company, i believe it is notable but the problem here is there is definitely a COI issue with the article. I have also noticed a few creations of the author and they all seem promotional like WP:PAID. My take is article should be moved to AFC where it will be scrutinized and moved to mainspace when ready or preferably reduce the article to one paragraph. Lapablo (talk) 16:39, 28 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. Thank you for your comment @Lapablo,

I was again reviewing wikipedia's policy regarding companies that are notable to be on wikipedia and sources that are regarded reliable secondary and what is significant coverage. I believe that some of the sources for ESMO Corporation page definitely fulfil these criterias. According to wikipedia, substantial coverage in independant sources includes e.g. a news article discussing a corporate merger/partnership, a source that illustrates the environmental impact of the corporation (and I assume economic impact will also be considered substantial coverage), and others, examples of which you can find in the article sources. So, I believe there is no problem with the company being notable or worth having a wikipedia page. Regarding the claim about WP:PAID, again I am not paid for creating this article and defending my hard work is I guess natural. Lastly, according to wikipedia's deletion policy if consensus is not reached within 7 days the article should stay in the mainspace as default. It is already 7 days the article is reviewed for deletion and I would like to finally know what is going to happen to the article. Again, if you think it is better to add more sources in Korean I will do that or if you think I need to edit the source if the tone is not neutral I will again do that. I just only require to give a certain answer as to what I am supposed to do to help this article be finally considered good enough to be on wikipedia. Thank you, Narine1202 Narine1202 (talk)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 03:41, 3 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 09:51, 11 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment There is no presumption that a public company is notable, except for those on the main board of the NYSE or the LondonSE, What is true, is that it is easier to write an article on a public company, at least a US pubic company, because of the availability of audied financial data. DGG ( talk ) 05:43, 14 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment With all due respect @DGG, this is a Korean company and unless you are aware of the Korean market you can't really claim that the company is not notable cause it is not on NYSE or LondonSE. Your claim was not clear. Another thing, it has been almost 3 weeks the article is here for the discussion, while according to the regulations the consensus should be reached within a week and if not any than the article stays. I do understand that all of the editors are busy with a lot of new articles and all but I would really appreciate if I know the outcome of this discussion as soon as possible.

Narine1202

I'm not saying thaty. I'm merely saying a company of the main board of the NYSE is almost certainly notable --these are a small minority of the publlic companies in the US. It doesn't apply to the auxiliary listings--companies listed there, and non-listed companies, may or may not be notable. Some of them are very famous very notable firms, but most are very small. I said the same about LSE because it's been accepted in many afds--I have much less knowledge there. Other UK copanies may of may not be. For other exchanges in other countries we don;t make the same presumption of notability , but that doesn't mean they are not notable, just that it has to be shown independently of the stock exchange membership. DGG ( talk ) 04:02, 15 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I agree with DGG that the sources are not sufficient to establish notability. --Randykitty (talk) 16:29, 18 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 no consensus. I’m not sure that the added coverage really meets the threshold of the GNG in regards to significant independent coverage focused on Wall the person, but none of the earlier delete opinions factored in the added sourcing uncovered during the AfD, whereas it was considered in later keeps. If another AfD is filed in the future, it should deal with the quality of the coverage in these sources. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs^(talk) 16:04, 18 April 2019 (UTC) Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs^(talk) 16:04, 18 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Peter Wall (priest)[edit]

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

No indication of encyclopedic notability. Priests, even rectors and deans, are not inherently notable. bd2412 T 00:41, 26 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 01:03, 26 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 01:03, 26 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Ontario-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 01:03, 26 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, per nominator. --MrClog (talk) 07:30, 26 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, per nominator. CalOtter (talk) 13:07, 26 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, per nominator. Gimubrc (talk) 16:29, 26 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

*Delete , no indication of notability.E.M.Gregory (talk) 09:18, 27 March 2019 (UTC) Probably KEEP. He does come up in news searches on "peter Wal" + Niagara. I think we need time to take a closer look and source this one.E.M.Gregory (talk) 15:29, 27 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Clergy are usually notable and we have an article about every other Dean of Niagara. Andrew D. (talk) 11:07, 27 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep Deans of Cathedrals are generally notable. This article is however so slender that I would not have known. Peterkingiron (talk) 16:15, 27 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete the only clergy who are presumed notable are bishops, and even that is more open to question than some accept. Clearly there are not enough sources to show notability here.John Pack Lambert (talk) 04:58, 2 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Can we have some discussion of actual sources please?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 03:33, 3 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

What sources? There's the guy's LinkedIn (dubious as a source to begin with), a random blog, and an unattributed "guide" with no known provenance. Not exactly thorough. Gimubrc (talk) 20:49, 3 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

~~Delete~~ Clergy are not presumed to be notable – this lacks substantive independent sources to establish notability. All of the others in Dean of Niagara were created by the same user and likewise lack notability, so the WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS argument above is nonsense; they should be deleted as well. Reywas92^Talk 00:59, 4 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Au contraire Page creator has created over 6,000 aritcles of which 0.04% have been deleted. Dean of a cathedral is one of those positions that, while it does not confer notability automatically, in practice will almost always be filled by an individual who is notable by our standards. As is the case here.E.M.Gregory (talk) 13:04, 8 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Sure, because these sub-stubs are largely unread and it's quite a task to address this single-handed decision to make all these. I have struck my delete because you have shown articles exist which mention the incumbent, but it is preposterous to assume they are all notable, and this mass creation of sub-stubs sourced only to directories is unwarranted. Not every dean ran for election to bishop or had a local-interest article written about their singing trio. Bishop of a diocese is high elected position that may have inherent notability but dean is not. The Diocese of Niagara has a profile of its bishop, but Wall is part of the ministry of his local parish. Reywas92^Talk 20:49, 8 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Except, if one actually searches for sources, he has them:
gNews search: [3].E.M.Gregory (talk) 00:06, 8 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

and this book [4].E.M.Gregory (talk) 00:11, 8 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Lots more coverage of Wall in archive search:

Anglicans set to pick new bishop: [Final Edition] Boase, Sharon. The Spectator; Hamilton, Ont. [Hamilton, Ont]02 June 2007: A9. (Wall who, as Dean of the Diocese of hitNiagara, is second-in-command to...)
Anglican priest defends his marrying lesbian couple: [Final Edition] Standard; St. Catharines, Ont. [St. Catharines, Ont]19 Nov 2003: A9. (said Reverend Peter Wall, dean of Niagara and rector of Christ's Church... ...in September that a priest in Niagara had presided over a gay marriage and he...)
Urban Anglican dioceses urge clarity on same-sex issue: [Final Edition]Boase, Sharon. The Spectator; Hamilton, Ont. [Hamilton, Ont]04 June 2004: A06. (Wall, Dean of Niagara Diocese, said numerous Anglicans, "old and young, straight...)
New look for Christ's Church Cathedral; Beautification project will cost diocese $250,000: [Final Edition] The Spectator; Hamilton, Ont. [Hamilton, Ont]27 Sep 2002: A03. (Peter Wall, dean of Niagara and cathedral rector, says Bishopgate... Peter Wall stands in front of Christ's Church...)

Keep In sum: ~~WP:TROUT article creator for annoyingly and irresponsibly creating a page without sourcing it.~~ But the fact is that Hall is notable. As Dean he has managed a number of notable things, like the dis-interment and re-interment of graves of historically disparaged individuals, renovations of notable ecclesiastical buildings - and more, I haven't sifted thought even a fraction of the hits. Plus he has been a lighting rod in Anglican circles on gay marriage (note book above). I urge page creator User:Bashereyre to repent, return and redeem himself by upgrading this and the articles on the other Niagara Deans.E.M.Gregory (talk) 00:34, 8 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
- I can't access the archive you can, but which of these sources go into any level of biographical detail about Wall? These all appear to be passing mentions or quotations, including the book, which looking at the info page is not even a published reliable source. Managing a building renovation and reinterring bodies are nice lines on a resume as part of the job, but it doesn't confer notability – the sources are about the church, not Wall himself. Most of the GNews hits are from The Anglican Journal, published by the Canadian Anglican Church, so I don't think that counts as independent. This article creator has indeed irresponsibly started literally thousands of clergy sub-stubs like this one – this incumbent may in fact have a preponderance of mentions in the news but the previous ones are certainly not inherently notable. Reywas92^Talk 06:59, 8 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Reywas, He is hard to search - there are so many Peters Wall, plus the CBC has a correspondent named "Peter Wall" who appears to have reported from every town where "our" Peter has lived. Nevertheless, take a look at the material I added from just the first two articles I read. Articles I found using "Bishop Cronyn" as a keyword. I'll get back to the stuff I found in my first search, but appreciate any help you can render building the article. I'm sure you can think of some search terms I might miss.E.M.Gregory (talk) 11:21, 8 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

"This article creator has indeed irresponsibly started literally thousands of clergy sub-stubs like this one"

Hi I am "this article creator". Perhaps User:Reywas92 would care to read Wikipedia:Civility Bashereyre (talk) 14:25, 8 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I stand by my statement. You have made countless minuscule articles on every Anglican dean, without showing evidence of notability, for example Maurice O'Corry. How does a listing in a clerical directory such as that in George Warren (priest) establish notability? Reywas92^Talk 20:49, 8 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Just for the record, Maurice O'Corry was appointed the Dean of Armagh in 1380 and deprived in 1398. Brief entries of this sort are useful to historians of the late middle ages. Reywas92, Please AGF, let Maurice O'Corry rest in peace, and keep the focus on Rev. Wall.E.M.Gregory (talk) 23:34, 8 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

WP:HEY I have begun a HEYMANN upgrade, only begun - there is a good deal of WP:SIGCOV on Wall's career, from the 90s forward. Although sources exist from which this article can be expanded, I believe that it now meets WP:BASIC.E.M.Gregory (talk) 11:54, 8 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Surely any stub article is just that, one that can be expanded. As has been proved countless times. The creator is giving others the opportunity to do just that. No one contributor can be expected to know everything about everything, although Google's original intention was to do just that.Bashereyre (talk) 08:31, 9 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

One day, hitting the random search button it yielded this. Grumpy Old Man, not an article about me but an episode of Family Guy. How is this notable? I would never dream of sticking a delete notice on it, even though this sort of cartoon is not my bag. The main article on FG is definitely notable and maybe if after a few series they had decided on a different approach, that would be notable. Maybe if they did an episode that really hit home ie straight after a mass murder such as Sandy Hook or the Christchurch mosques, that would be notable. My point- why is Grumpy Old Man notable but the Dean of an Anglican Cathedral not. Just saying...Bashereyre (talk) 14:49, 9 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per the improvements made to the article since this discussion began. Bradv🍁 13:15, 8 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I probably don't need to spell this out, but I am by no means endorsing the argument above that priests, or deans in particular, are inherently notable. I'm just commenting on this one. Bradv🍁 23:37, 8 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: To discuss the improvements that have now been made.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 09:51, 11 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

More coverage exists in news archives, detailing his management of the cathedral property (large, public buildings have complexities that get covered, Hall's the decision maker on this stuff.). More coverage also exists of his role in the first gay marriage in Canada performed by an Anglican priest in an Anglican church, and the impact of that wedding on his career. Major, reliable newspapers. National coverage. I do think he meets WP:BASIC. But I also understand that many editors lack access to the news archives that make his notability easy to see.E.M.Gregory (talk) 15:47, 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 no consensus. A possible merge elsewhere can be discussed on the article's talk page. Randykitty (talk) 16:17, 18 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Kenneth Preston (journalist)[edit]

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

I can't find any significant coverage, fails WP:BASIC. I believe that WP:BLP1E applies. wumbolo ^^^ 21:02, 26 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Journalism-related deletion discussions. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 21:43, 26 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Florida-related deletion discussions. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 21:43, 26 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The subject is very notable.

https://thehill.com/opinion/education/382560-exclusive-broward-countys-100-million-failure-on-school-safety?amp The Hill covered him.

http://thefederalist.com/2018/05/07/rubio-asks-feds-investigate-obama-school-discipline-rules-affected-parkland-shooting/ The Federalist. Senator Marco Rubio asked for an investigation over Preston's report.

https://www.weeklystandard.com/alice-b-lloyd/the-broward-blame-game?_amp=true Weekly Standard covering Preston.

https://www.washingtonexaminer.com/press-release-red-alert-politics-celebrates-30-under-30-award-winners Won a '30 under 30' award.

https://www.dailysignal.com/2018/04/11/student-journalist-says-parklands-discipline-policies-weakened-school-safety/

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HPef9pO44xA Appeared on the Daily Wire with Michael Knowles.

https://www.browardbeat.com/reports-broward-schools-sat-on-100-million-earmarked-for-school-safety/ Broward Beat

He also has 12,000 followers on his Twitter page, and his tweets gain significant attraction. There are other students from Parkland that are far less notable and have active pages, ex: Alfonso Calderon (activist)

Chrisrow (talk) 23:28, 26 March 2019 (UTC) Chrisrow[reply]

Chrisrow, isn't the last phrase a classic OTHERSTUFFEXISTS argument? The sources you list are far more convincing per NEXIST. gidonb (talk) 05:33, 27 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

So can we close the discussion? Chrisrow (talk) 00:02, 28 March 2019 (UTC)Chrisrow[reply]

The opinion article from The Hill is not appropriate to demonstrate notability. wumbolo ^^^ 21:59, 28 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Besides that source, are the others suitable? Chrisrow (talk) 03:34, 29 March 2019 (UTC)Chrisrow[reply]

The interview probably isn't, see WP:IV. wumbolo ^^^ 15:25, 29 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

So all other sources support notability in your opinion? gidonb (talk) 00:19, 31 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The award is a press release, and all other sources are opinion pieces reporting on the same thing. The passing mention in The Federalist is just a mention. I think that neither of WP:GNG or WP:BLP1E is satisfied. wumbolo ^^^ 16:33, 31 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 01:53, 3 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep:Passes WP:BIO, WP:JOURNALIST --PATH SLOPU ^(TALK) 08:47, 3 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: Links given above satisfies WP:GNG.--PATH SLOPU ^(TALK) 08:48, 3 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to Broward County Public Schools#Controversies and grand jury investigation: The sources from The Daily Signal and The Weekly Standard would count towards WP:GNG if they presented significant coverage on Kenneth Preston himself. However, these sources (as well as the other linked sources above) are focused on the investigation mentioned here. Regarding Kenneth Preston, it is not true that each of these sources addresses the topic directly and in detail (per GNG). Therefore Kenneth Preston does not pass WP:GNG. On top of that, this falls squarely into WP:BLP1E. If a new article is created specifically about this investigation, then this material can be merged there instead. — MarkH21 (talk) 04:58, 11 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 09:40, 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. Randykitty (talk) 16:16, 18 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Richard Johnsonbaugh[edit]

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

Subject does not pass WP:GNG pr WP:NACADEMIC. A Web of Science (standard metric) search returned 13 papers with few citations (13, 13, 4, 4, 1, 1, 0, 0, ..., 0). A Scopus search returned 9 papers and textbooks with few citations (27, 22, 7, 4, 2, 2, 2, 1, 0). These are typically too few to pass #1 of WP:NACADEMIC and there is no evidence of passing any of the other criteria. — MarkH21 (talk) 09:32, 11 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Mathematics-related deletion discussions. — MarkH21 (talk) 09:32, 11 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 09:49, 11 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Oregon-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 09:49, 11 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Illinois-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 09:49, 11 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. Google Scholar shows lots of citations for his books. At least one has been translated into Spanish. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 13:47, 11 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
- It shows four undergraduate-level (self-described) textbooks with (173, 79, 69, 31) citations and papers with (47, 38, 32, 31, 27, 20, 16, 14, 12, 11, 10, 8, 7, 6, ...) citations. The textbooks would fall under criterion 4 of WP:NACADEMIC but cannot be said to have made a significant impact in the area of higher education, affecting a substantial number of academic institutions. His research, especially considering that Google Scholar includes non-peer-reviewed sources in the citation count and that discrete mathematics & algorithms tend to have higher citation counts, does not seem to be influential enough for criterion 1 of WP:NACADEMIC. Looking through the MathSciNet reviews, there isn't much evidence of having developed a significant new concept, technique or idea, made a significant discovery or solved a major problem in their academic discipline. — MarkH21 (talk) 16:31, 11 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep per WP:PROF#C4 and WP:AUTHOR. I agree that his research doesn't seem to have had much impact, but that's a different criterion, and failing it does not prevent achieving notability some other way. It's hard to count exactly how many books he has because some of them (such the ones with "programming" in the title) seem to have overlapping content, but he has at least four distinct clusters of textbooks. I found and added to the article five published reviews of three of these, enough I think for WP:AUTHOR. And the Discrete Mathematics book in particular has gone through eight editions from its original 1984 publication to its most recent in 2018, and has been translated into Spanish, weak but persuasive evidence that it is widely used (WP:PROF#C4). I also ran a Google search for "Johnsonbaugh" "syllabus" site:.edu -site:depaul.edu (to find other universities using his textbooks) and found over 500 hits. —David Eppstein (talk) 20:39, 11 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
- Perhaps we have different interpretations of WP:AUTHOR, but I do not see the existence of five reviews of three undergraduate textbooks as evidence of Criterion 1: The person is regarded as an important figure or is widely cited by peers or successors. or Criterion 4: The person's work (or works) has: (a) become a significant monument, (b) been a substantial part of a significant exhibition, (c) won significant critical attention, or (d) been represented within the permanent collections of several notable galleries or museums. It definitely does not match criterion 2 or 3.
  Regarding Criterion 4 of WP:NACADEMIC, the specific note that you are applying says: several books that are widely used as textbooks (or as a basis for a course) at multiple institutions of higher education. Indeed, I see that Discrete Mathematics and Foundations of Mathematical Analysis are used in multiple syllabi, with a two or three uses of ~~Algorithms~~, Applications Programming in C++, and Applications Programming in ANSI C each. That's two books that could be (arguably) "widely used", but even with those I don't see "several books" being so. — MarkH21 (talk) 21:01, 11 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  - For WP:AUTHOR, you're looking at the wrong criterion. The one I had in mind is #3: his books are the subject "of multiple independent periodical articles or reviews". —David Eppstein (talk) 21:09, 11 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    - Ah, but this criterion pertains to individual works or collective bodies of work (not all of his books as a collective unit since they are intellectually distinct). Of his works, only Foundations of Mathematical Analysis has multiple reviews and the condition that this work is the subject of multiple independent periodical articles or reviews is a supplementary requirement in addition to it being recognized as a significant or well-known work. I don't think it has that status though (and I do know it – I used it when I was an undergraduate!). It's an undergraduate textbook with 66 citations on Google Scholar that isn't commonly referred to in literature (unlike e.g. Algebra by Lang, Algebraic Geometry by Hartshorne, the Princeton Lectures in Analysis series by Stein and Shakarchi, etc.). — MarkH21 (talk) 21:28, 11 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
      - His books (plural, three of them) are the subject of multiple reviews (plural, five of them). And the evidence that it is well-known is that it's widely reviewed; what other kind of evidence could you be asking for? That's how I've always seen this criterion used. I think any finer-grained parsing is just WP:WIKILAWYERING. —David Eppstein (talk) 21:37, 11 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
        It's just a difference of opinion then. I don't think the three undergraduate textbooks are significant enough for Criterion 3 of WP:AUTHOR alone or as a collective body (but three unrelated textbooks with minor significance do not make one significant body of work anyways). Reviews provide evidence towards significance but do not determine them. I am pointing out that the criterion agrees with that view because it says: In addition, such work must have been the primary subject of... multiple independent periodical articles or reviews. It is not an attempt to intentionally and inappropriately misinterpret the criteria or game the system. — MarkH21 (talk) 21:45, 11 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
      - Also, "two or three uses of Algorithms" is false. I see it listed (either as the coursebook or as recommended reading) at Cal State Los Angeles, U. Cyprus, Rose-Hulman, U. Virginia, Siena, Birmingham, U. Central Florida, U. Texas Dallas, Natl. U. Singapore, Bemidji State, Pondicherry Engineering College, U. Hyderabad, National Taipei U. Tech., etc. —David Eppstein (talk) 21:48, 11 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
        Oh whoops! I must have eliminated too many hits when I modded out the Discrete Mathematics textbook from my previous search. — MarkH21 (talk) 21:51, 11 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. David Eppstein (talk) 21:38, 11 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. I'm convinced by Eppstein's rationale that he is sufficiently notable. --Tataral (talk) 02:48, 13 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep He appears to meet some basic thresholds as hashed out above.-TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 16:10, 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 delete. There seems to be good consensus that this person is currently not notable (this is even asserted by several "keep" !votes) and that this may be a case of TOOSOON. However, keeping a copy in an editor's sandbox is not a good solution for two reasons. First of all and most importantly, the copy paste to User:Mary Mark Ockerbloom/sandbox/Natani Notah violates our copyright, because the edit history has been lost. Second, articles deleted at AfD should not be kept in a user's personal space indefinitely. There is nothing wrong with making a note to self to revisit this yearly and if this person at some point becomes notable, it will be easy enough to undelete the current version and work from there. Because of the copyright issue, I will also delete the current sandbox version. Randykitty (talk) 15:50, 18 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Natani Notah[edit]

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

Not yet a notable artist. Sources are either not independent, not indepth, or blogs and the like. No Google News results, no other sources which could help establish notability. Fram (talk) 13:33, 26 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Artists-related deletion discussions. CASSIOPEIA^(talk) 13:38, 26 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. CASSIOPEIA^(talk) 13:38, 26 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Arts-related deletion discussions. CASSIOPEIA^(talk) 13:38, 26 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. CASSIOPEIA^(talk) 13:38, 26 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Fails WP:ARTIST, so the question is WP:GNG. She is on her way to a career, but both a search and a perusual of the article sources turns up only event announcements and trivial coverage of the regular artist things she has participated in, like exhibitions, and an interview here or there. There is basically no significant independent coverage in reliable sources. Sculpture magazine is prominently mentioned but all I saw there was a statement that she had received a student award and a picture of her work, without critical writing. A case of obvious self-promotion as the page reads like a CV, and also WP:TOOSOON.ThatMontrealIP (talk) 16:06, 26 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Please keep I understand your concerns. A few edits have been made since the above posts. I would argue that Natani is a notable artist as evidenced by her lectures, exhibitions, and residencies at universities and other leading institutions. By and large, women of color, and American Indian artists are grossly underrepresented in mainstream media, and in trade and academic publications. Consequently the face more questions about their notability in the real world and on wikipedia. Interviews, smaller more community focussed publications, and institutional event texts are often the best we have to work with. This reinforces real life inequity and replicates it on wikipedia. This posting was decided on and co-written by a number of students at Cornell University as part of the Art & Community editathon which is specifically designed to insert more articles about notable but underrepresented artists into the wikipedia archive. The students are not affiliated directly in anyway with the artist and are not interested in self-promotion. I hope you will reconsider. JVadera (talk)

I agree with what you say, but recognizing social inequities is not how we establish notability on Wikipedia; we are not here to right social wrongs. We just condense and report on established sources, of which there are not enough to (currently) establish notability here. Efforts to correct the imbalance of representation on Wikipedia are very welcomed! However because all editors are essentially assumed to be ignorant of the subject, there have to be independent reliable sources to establish the notability of an article subject. We do not make editorial decisons: others in reliable sources do. That is the way this whole encyclopedia has been built. ThatMontrealIP (talk) 18:15, 27 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 03:53, 3 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment The only two references still present in the current version of the article fail to verify the statements for which they are cited. Which might make one wonder where all that information came from in the first place. Below is a list of all the sources that have been used in the article in earlier versions.

Vexations (talk) 21:00, 3 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Any conclusions from the above list?ThatMontrealIP (talk) 00:55, 4 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep for now. I agree many of the previous list of sources are COI. However I know the person who began this article is new and it seems that many editors are helping to try to flesh this out more appropriately. I'd like to give JVadera and his student, Eoghanrdempsey, a bit of time to finish their work (University level) as they may have access to offline material for sources that would help stabilize the article. Yes, the article should've had all of this before being published, but it is actively being edited, so I'd like to see where it lands. Thanks!Heathart (talk) 03:09, 8 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Heathart, Eoghanrdempsey hasn't edited since creating Natani Notah on 26 March 2019. Can we reasonably expect that keeping the article will result in improvements? Draftifying is an alternative to deletion if Eoghanrdempsey and JVadera could convince us that they have access to independent, reliable sources that we haven't found yet and they are available to expand the article using those sources.Vexations (talk) 11:35, 10 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed. Draftifying sounds like a good idea if @JVadera: is willing take that on?Heathart (talk) 16:18, 10 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 09:12, 11 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Notah is interesting and doing good work, but WP:TOOSOON in my opinion. I have spent considerable time searching for sources to validate the information in the article. Notah is very early career; she is included in the Heard Museum's American Artists Resource Collection Online, but I was able to confirm only 1 solo exhibition. She has a few publications in magazines, and may be a contributor to the third edition of Colonize This! edited by Daisy Hernández, to appear July 2019. Seed Beads and Skirts: A Native American, Feminist Art Practice sounds fascinating but it is her M.F.A. Thesis.

To reach notability, she needs: (1) more solo exhibitions (2) inclusion of her works in major galleries or museums (3) discussions of her work that are not written by herself ~~or an exhibition's venue or curator~~. If the original creators of this article can cite such reviews and discussion from paper-based sources (newspapers or books) that could help. Otherwise I would say try again in five years when she has done more. I am saving a copy in my sandbox, with a note to revisit yearly. I would be happy to have people continue to work on it there if they wish. (My sandbox would be a more stable location than Draft:) Regretfully, Mary Mark Ockerbloom (talk) 13:26, 13 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Draftify per Mary Mark Ockerbloom's proposal. I'd like to make one observation, if I may. I'm a little bothered by "not written by herself or an exhibition's venue or curator", because it weakens WP:ARTIST. When a museum curator provides critical analysis of an artist's work in an artist monograph, that is a reliable source. It should not be disregarded as "not independent". Museums obviously have a relationship with the artists they exhibit, but they are independent. A museum exhibit is a acknowledgement of an artist's significance. It should be a considerable factor in evaluating notability. Vexations (talk) 15:48, 13 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for the correction, @Vexations:. If you feel that I've been overly strict in judging the article based on the citations available, please say so. I agree that curators are a valuable source of information, and if you feel the weight of being including in group exhibitions (of which quite a number are listed) is sufficient to support notability in this case, I'm happy to consider that possibility. Mary Mark Ockerbloom (talk) 20:22, 13 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I think you've given a very fair assessment of what we can get from the sources. Notah is an emerging artist who has not yet received sufficient critical attention to sustain an article about her. It would be a waste to delete the material we have gathered so far, and since you offered to care for the draft until the sources become available, and the original author has not responded, we should take you up on your offer. Vexations (talk) 21:52, 13 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Mary Mark Ockerbloom's comments are spot on. However I do not understand the the draftify idea being kicked around above. We have all taken a serious shot at finding good sources and have not succeeded. It will take years for her to develop notability required for an article. A draft will be gone in 6 months. Why not just delete, with allowance for WP:REFUND? ThatMontrealIP (talk) 02:55, 14 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Happy to rework Thank you everybody for your thoughtful analysis. Not sure exactly how draftify works or if it is just better to move the draft over to my sandbox?JVadera (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 11:44, 15 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Emerging consensus seems to be that she does not pass Wikipedia's guidelines for notability at this time, based on the sources we've seen. Deleting the article would lose the work; moving it into the official Draft space is only a temporary solution (drafts may be deleted after 6 months). A personal sandbox is more stable, so moving this into someone's sandbox is likely the best solution. If you want help with it in future you are welcome to tag me about it. Mary Mark Ockerbloom (talk) 19:32, 16 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep for now I generally believe that this individual, while doing good work, is not notable yet to the point that she merits her own page. I generally look to see if the sources are national or international in scope. However, I appreciate the work being done on this page and would encourage the authors to continue. Leaving it up will enable them to do that. If, in another 6 months or so there has been no updates or edits of value, a RFD is approrpriate. Coffee312 (talk) 21:06, 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 delete. Randykitty (talk) 15:35, 18 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

John Dwyer (mathematician)[edit]

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

No evidence that the subject (this particular John Dwyer) satisfies WP:GNG or WP:NACADEMIC. There are almost no independent sources on the subject at all, while MathSciNet only returns his PhD thesis with no citations. Web of Science and Scopus searches returns many John Dwyers but none in mathematics or computer science. — MarkH21 (talk) 09:07, 11 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Mathematics-related deletion discussions. — MarkH21 (talk) 09:11, 11 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 09:15, 11 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 09:15, 11 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Even if one would consider his web page as reliable source, there in nothing in it that suggests he could pass WP:GNG or WP:NACADEMIC: only one or two (two in the article, one in his webpage) textbooks at undergraduate level; no research publication, no nonacademic work, no prestigious position; even his PhD in fluid mechanics seems to not having been published. D.Lazard (talk) 09:55, 11 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
- Also worth noting that the publisher of the textbooks is Algana, which is not reputable and has him as its director. — MarkH21 (talk) 10:01, 11 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

~~Delete~~: Per nom. --FIFAukr (talk) 15:02, 12 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Pileon !vote struck as non-autoconfirmed editor is blocked as a VOA with a suspicious editing pattern. ^Thanks,L3X1 ◊distænt write◊ 01:45, 13 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I don't think Fellow IET is enough for WP:PROF#C3, as it's more or less "employed in a managerial role and member in good standing for five years" rather than a more selective honor (Honorary Fellowship, a higher grade of membership, might be). I can't find the citations that would allow him to pass #C1. So the only possible remaining source of notability would be as a textbook author (#C4 and WP:AUTHOR). But his books appear to either be self-published or from a very minor publisher (I can't tell which) and I can find neither published reviews of them nor evidence that they have been assigned as textbooks in any major institution of higher learning. So I can't find evidence of notability that way either. —David Eppstein (talk) 20:36, 12 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. —David Eppstein (talk) 20:38, 12 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. No evidence of him passing WP:PROF or WP:GNG. --Tataral (talk) 22:57, 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 no consensus. Debate suffered from a lack of participation. No prejudice to taking this to AfD again in a month or so. Randykitty (talk) 15:33, 18 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Health and Social Care[edit]

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

Unreferenced personal essay Rathfelder (talk) 20:47, 27 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 21:08, 27 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 21:08, 27 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 21:08, 27 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. I agree the article as it now exists needs a considerable amount of work. As a (UK) subject of study and a professional area, I think the subject is probably notable. There are some possible sources out there: Report: Health and social care integration: update on progress (Audit Scotland); Health and social care funding explained (if that is agreed as a reliable source); Commons Health and Social Care Committee (probably a primary source, unsure). Another editor has added some refs since this was nominated. Tacyarg (talk) 12:23, 2 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

There are already thousands of articles about health and social care. Something as general is this is pretty useless. It seems to really be about training for jobs in health and social care. But routes to qualification are specific to different countries. And Wikipedia is not a prospectus.Rathfelder (talk) 13:32, 2 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 04:09, 3 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 09:05, 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 soft delete. WP:REFUND applies. Randykitty (talk) 15:30, 18 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

SATO 48[edit]

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

Unremarkable Film Festival of local importance, Fails WP:Event. Lacks any sources Grey Wanderer (talk) 00:02, 27 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. KCVelaga (talk) 00:27, 27 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. KCVelaga (talk) 00:27, 27 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Missouri-related deletion discussions. KCVelaga (talk) 00:27, 27 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sheldybett (talk) 08:08, 3 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 09:02, 11 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

i guess im just confused...how "remarkable" would sato have to become to have a page? -historic66 — Preceding unsigned comment added by Historic66 (talk • contribs) 17:42, 12 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Randykitty (talk) 15:23, 18 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hayley LeBlanc[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

Not notable at the current time. Has been part of a few web series but mainly notable as being part of the "Bratayley" YouTube channel which, due to lack of coverage, isn't enough for her to have an article. Andise1 (talk) 20:04, 3 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 20:24, 3 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 20:25, 3 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 20:25, 3 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Texas-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 20:26, 3 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 20:27, 3 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 09:01, 11 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete No evidence of meeting WP:GNG and created as what seems to be part of a deliberate promotional campaign. JamesG5 (talk) 07:57, 16 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:GNG Thegooduser Life Begins With a Smile :) 🍁 02:37, 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 Speedy deleted WP:G4. (non-admin closure) Ceethekreator (talk) 10:59, 11 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Jayanta Nath filmography[edit]

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

Creator who created the recently deleted (several times over) "Jayanta Nath" has now created a filmography page for the same person. Going to copy the reasoning from the other AfD: Non-notable singer/director, their only supposedly notable film (Hriday Kapowa Gaan) hasn't received the necessary coverage to pass WP:NFILM, nor have the others, so fails the various N criteria for creative people (thanks Praxidicae) Dreamy Jazz 🎷 ^{talk to me | my contributions} 08:45, 11 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I have warned the creator with a level 2 warning for undisclosed WP:PAID, as a level 1 warning was given only 10 days ago (which included a paid warning) Dreamy Jazz 🎷 ^{talk to me | my contributions} 08:51, 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 no consensus. Randykitty (talk) 15:15, 18 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

List of Georgia distilleries[edit]

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

Fails WP:NOTDIRECTORY. Only one entry even has an article. Clarityfiend (talk) 08:22, 3 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Food and drink-related deletion discussions. Icewhiz (talk) 08:34, 3 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Icewhiz (talk) 08:34, 3 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. Icewhiz (talk) 08:34, 3 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Georgia (U.S. state)-related deletion discussions. Icewhiz (talk) 08:34, 3 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom and WP:NOTDIRECTORY. Ajf773 (talk) 08:37, 3 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Additional comment, two items on the list have just been created as stubs, each by participants in this discussion. Ajf773 (talk) 19:03, 5 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I did already mentioned that I did that in my comment below which was made two days ago. Dalton Distillery isn't really a stub, looks about the size of a short article. Dream Focus 22:02, 5 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The topic passes WP:LISTN as it is easy to find substantial sources such as North Georgia Moonshine: A History of the Lovells & Other Liquor Makers. Notice that this source highlights the Lovell brothers, who seem to be quite notable, but we don't have an article for them yet. One of the purposes of lists is to help identify "articles that have yet to be written". Deletion of the list would therefore disrupt Wikipedia's development. Andrew D. (talk) 09:13, 3 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I agree with Wikipedia:Manual_of_Style/Lists#Development being a legitimate reason to keep this article. I did a news search for the first thing on the list that didn't have an article and easily found sources to create one. Other things on the list without an article yet can probably have them created as well. Nothing gained by deleting this list article. Dream Focus 18:36, 3 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the Article Rescue Squadron's list of content for rescue consideration. --Tryptofish (talk) 19:36, 3 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The topic passes WP:LISTN This is a worthwhile and useful list for readers. Makes navigating the encyclopaedia easier. 7&6=thirteen (☎) 19:42, 3 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete This is not the place for a compilation of non-notable local businesses, fails WP:NOTDIR. Reywas92^Talk 00:39, 4 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete wikipeida is a not a directory.--Rusf10 (talk) 22:54, 6 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Merge with the nearly-as-atrocious List of breweries in Georgia (U.S. state) into List of wineries, breweries, and distilleries in Georgia (U.S. state), along the lines of List of wineries, breweries, and distilleries in New Jersey. As an aside, if this page survives AFD as a stand-alone article, it still needs to be moved to List of distilleries in Georgia; if 7&6=thirteen is right to say this is useful to readers, it would be more useful if it didn't look like a sub-list "things in Georgia" but rather a sub-list of "distilleries". Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 12:12, 9 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Also should disclose that I came here following the ARS listing. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 05:21, 12 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: I'm not seeing a clear consensus here... let's try and give this a few more days with some more discussion
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Dusti ^{*Let's talk!*} 08:18, 11 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note to closer It might be worth considering the AFD !voting patterns of those who have !voted one way or the other in this discussion, and the possibility that all but the first "keep" !vote came here after the first posted about it to the "Article Rescue Squadron", and violated that project's rules by not disclosing the notification here (both the fact that the notification was made, and the fact that they came here because of the notification.) Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 08:58, 11 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Lists of this sort are appropriate compromises. There has been a considerable pressure from the many WPedians with predominantly local interest to cover every one of these distilleries in a full article. Though I understand their motivations--they have become of considerable interest to many people in a revival of local production, there isn't really sufficient material for NPOV articles. On the other hand, some will be of importance, and combination articles are explicitly recognized in WP:GNG as alternatives to deletion. Sometimes there isn't even enough for that, and then a list is suitable. It provides for further growth, and it ensures that those who look for something here--something which it is not unreasonable to expect in an encyclopedia -- will find at least the minimum. I've been a member of the ARS since it started, even though I am very reluctant to have articles on purely local often transient companies like this. The appropriate course is a compromise.

the main reason to be non-inclusive in our coverage of local companies like these is that the articles will generally tend to be promotional , for the lack of anythign else to say. Promotionalism is a true danger. If we become a place for advertising we're useless as an encyclopedia . Minor variations in notability are much less important, expecially those based upon forced interpretations of principles thar rely on words of special meaning to Wikipedia, alien to ordinary use. Inclusion in a list cannot be promotional, and therefore is not dangerous. It's a minimal compromise, and the opposition to it seems unduely dogmatic.

One might think that in a system like WP, where the prniciple for deciding is consensus, it would be easy to rea h compromises. That is apparently not the case--people here tend to interpret consensus as everyone else agreeing with them. The net result is often that those willing to compromise see their position taken as weakness, and consensus usually amounts to agreement on which of two sides is the stronger. Instead of consensus preventing fighting, it is just another weapon in the ongoing battles. DGG ( talk ) 01:00, 13 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. Randykitty (talk) 15:06, 18 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Pattie W. Van Hook[edit]

Delete Per WP:NOTMEMORIAL, one of many transcribed obits created by a now-banned user. OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 20:08, 4 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

Fails WP:GNG. ...William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 21:58, 3 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. ...William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 21:59, 3 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Louisiana-related deletion discussions. ...William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 21:59, 3 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Tennessee-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 22:00, 3 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 22:01, 3 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Thsmi002 (talk) 23:25, 3 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep It looks OK to me. Tony May (talk) 04:00, 6 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Need more than an obit to establish notability. Best, GPL93 (talk) 00:42, 8 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: This clearly needs some more discussion
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Dusti ^{*Let's talk!*} 08:17, 11 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. While I'm not convinced that the creator's ban status is relevant here, this subject seems to fail GNG and any other standards of notability. Can't find good non-obit sources. Gilded Snail (talk) 18:36, 11 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. The article doesn't really make the case for notability (president of a state-level society that does not currently have an article, and first female president of that society, are things that one could potentially be notable for but I'd need to see more evidence) and searching did not turn up anything better than the one unlinked local obituary (possibly a family-written obit, I can't tell) that we currently have as a source. That's not good enough. —David Eppstein (talk) 22:01, 13 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 Draftify. Given that the subject appears to meet WP:PROF, draftifying is probably the best solution. Randykitty (talk) 14:58, 18 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Roman Balabin[edit]

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

Failing WP:GNG and WP:PROF. A researcher who publishes. Run-of-the-mill. Essentially a very bloated WP:AUTOBIO that summarises their published papers. WP:NOTWEBHOST also applies. _pseudonym Jake Brockman ^talk 07:52, 11 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. _pseudonym Jake Brockman ^talk 07:54, 11 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. _pseudonym Jake Brockman ^talk 07:54, 11 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. _pseudonym Jake Brockman ^talk 07:56, 11 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Switzerland-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 08:01, 11 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Russia-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 08:01, 11 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Germany-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 08:01, 11 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete Inappropriate autobiography. Mr. Balabin, a domain name isn't very expensive to put your CV on. Reywas92^Talk 19:09, 11 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
~~Delete~~Draftify: Aside from the obvious WP:COI and WP:NPOV issues, the subject's academic publications seem to have stopped following his doctorate in 2013. Fails WP:GNG and WP:PROF. Not notable. — Grand'mere Eugene (talk) 02:38, 12 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
~~Keep~~: WP:PROF. There is no such thing as a "run-of-the-mill" academic with h-index of 34 (Mendeley). Almost 300 citations in 2018. --FIFAukr (talk) 14:55, 12 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment @FIFAukr: We appreciate your contribution, given your account was only created today. However, perhaps you missed this caution on WP:PROF: Citation measures such as the h-index, g-index, etc., are of limited usefulness in evaluating whether Criterion 1 is satisfied. They should be approached with caution because their validity is not, at present, completely accepted, and they may depend substantially on the citation database used. They are also discipline-dependent; some disciplines have higher average citation rates than others. Thus, h-index numbers are not enough to establish notability when other evidence is absent. Cheers! — Grand'mere Eugene (talk) 23:41, 12 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Nevermind, I see you have been blocked as a "vandalism only account". Grand'mere Eugene (talk) 23:46, 12 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Draftify Notable, but totally unsuited for mainspace. The articles is extraordinarily non-encyclopedic to the extent that it almost represents a promotional tribute to him. It needs major work, beyond what what can be done here, but if it is kept in mainspace, I will do it there. Notability can be judged by citation, but not by any over simplistic method of just looking at h-index. h=34 can mean 34 papers each with 34 citations, which in most experimental sciences indicates no really significant work, or ,as here, with papers cited 280, 226, 217, 104, 177. ... which indicates a number of papers with very influential work--there are actualy 14 papers with over 100 citations each. .Grand'mere Eugene., would you care to comment of this point? Nor do I see how this record could be considered "run of the mill", as the nom proposes. DGG ( talk ) 01:38, 13 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment @DGG: I changed my vote above, assuming he must have published with the Zenobi group since his doctorate in 20113, but his publications alone may not be enough for WP:PROF. Removing this autobio would be a good start, so I'd be happy if you are willing to give it a go. Cheers! — Grand'mere Eugene (talk) 03:17, 13 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I'm trying to figure this out, but it may take some analysis. The article even in its present form admits he took an unusually longtime to the doctorate. Does this mean he remained an apprentice, and hisadvisor made use of his work for many joint papers, or that he worked on many important projects of his own even before he actually belatedly finished? I've known example of each pattern. Sometimes it is only those who actualy know the parties who can figure out the true contributions, but sometimes it can be figured out from the papers or even the metadata. DGG ( talk ) 06:08, 13 April 2019 (UTC) .[reply]

Delete. This looks like someone's CV placed to WP space for a purpose of promotion. I do not see any publications about this person. What exactly significant did he accomplish? This is not clear at all after reading the page. My very best wishes (talk) 03:43, 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 speedy keep per WP:SKCRIT#1. No valid rationale for deletion advanced. If you want to propose a merge, discuss it on the talk page; see Wikipedia:Merge#Propose a merger. – Joe (talk) 08:32, 11 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Underground Astronauts[edit]

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

Adequately covered in the Rising Star Cave article - this page is just CV enhancing puffery and could sensibly be deleted Bledwith (talk) 07:07, 11 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

MERGE Actually I think this a merge with a redirect. There's not a long term use of this term outside of the context of this specific cave and excavation. Bledwith (talk) 07:21, 11 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Archaeology-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 07:34, 11 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 07:34, 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. Randykitty (talk) 14:42, 18 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Mario Cuevas (boxer)[edit]

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

Appears to have no achievements to meet WP:NBOX and I have found no significant coverage in RS except for routine fight announcements and reports. Delete. Just Chilling (talk) 00:40, 27 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. IntoThinAir (talk) 03:54, 27 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. He fought for a Mexican national title, which would likely make him notable enough for inclusion. --Michig (talk) 07:39, 27 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Boxing-related deletion discussions. Icewhiz (talk) 07:50, 27 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Mexico-related deletion discussions. Icewhiz (talk) 07:50, 27 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete None of the titles he's fought for are listed at Wikipedia:WikiProject Boxing/Title Assessment so I have to say he fails to meet WP:NBOX. My search turned up some routine sports coverage, but not the significant coverage required to meet WP:GNG. Papaursa (talk) 00:41, 1 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ceethekreator (talk) 22:10, 3 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) 05:56, 11 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. PATH SLOPU 13:53, 12 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. PATH SLOPU 13:53, 12 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

~~Delete~~: Per nom. I agree with Papaursa: not notable. --FIFAukr (talk) 15:05, 12 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Pileon !vote struck as non-autoconfirmed editor is blocked as a VOA with a suspicious editing pattern. ^Thanks,L3X1 ◊distænt write◊ 01:44, 13 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

delete Fails to meet either the GNG or WP:NBOX.Sandals1 (talk) 15:21, 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. Randykitty (talk) 14:39, 18 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Steve Olson (actor)[edit]

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

Olson doesn't appear to be notable. I found this student newspaper which confirms that he's an academic at SAIT Polytechnic who does voice acting as a hobby, but on its own that's not enough. I couldn't find any other reliable sources covering him. I don't see that he meets either WP:NPROF or WP:NACTOR. Huon (talk) 23:45, 3 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Ceethekreator (talk) 00:04, 4 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. Ceethekreator (talk) 00:04, 4 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. Ceethekreator (talk) 00:04, 4 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. Ceethekreator (talk) 00:05, 4 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. Ceethekreator (talk) 00:05, 4 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Just as for any other kind of actor, the notability test for voice actors is not simply the ability to copy and paste a list of their acting roles from IMDb or another IMDb-like directory — every actor has always had acting roles by definition, so just listing roles does not automatically hand an actor a free exemption from having to actually have any reliable source coverage about them. The notability test for people, regardless of occupation, always has less to do with what the article says, and more to do with how well the article references what it says. Bearcat (talk) 19:17, 8 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) 05:51, 11 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

delete Not seeing coverage to meet the GNG or anything that shows he meets WP:NACTOR. Sandals1 (talk) 14:58, 12 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Clearly fails the WP:GNG and WP:NACTOR. -- LACaliNYC ✉ 20:44, 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 redirect to Miss World Sri Lanka. (non-admin closure) Natg 19 (talk) 01:17, 18 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Thilini Amarasooriya[edit]

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

Whilst a winner at Miss Sri Lanka 2015 did not place at Miss World and no evidence of any notable activity since partipating in Miss World Dan arndt (talk) 10:08, 3 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Fails WP:GNG, only notable for one event.Dan arndt (talk) 22:57, 14 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Ceethekreator (talk) 10:19, 3 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Beauty pageants-related deletion discussions. Ceethekreator (talk) 10:19, 3 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sri Lanka-related deletion discussions. Ceethekreator (talk) 10:19, 3 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fashion-related deletion discussions. Ceethekreator (talk) 10:20, 3 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete No notability post the Miss World times which is 2015. Even prior to that, notability was scant as merely a participant. --Rsrikanth05 (talk) 12:04, 3 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Miss World Sri Lanka. Functional search term (WP:ATD-R). North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 08:13, 4 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete not enough sourcing to pass GNG.John Pack Lambert (talk) 21:04, 4 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, TheSandDoctor ^Talk 04:37, 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. Randykitty (talk) 14:37, 18 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Rhonda Abrams[edit]

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

GNG fail. Unsourced and I do not see good sourcing in a search. Also, possibly the most promotional article I have ever seen, although that is not a strict criteria for deletion. ThatMontrealIP (talk) 04:06, 11 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 04:49, 11 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 04:49, 11 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 04:49, 11 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 04:49, 11 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

comment might be WP:GNG however seems promotional and sources are weak and mostly self published. I may circle back if the article is improved but for now it would be a strong delete Lubbad85 (☎) 20:27, 11 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete promotional article on apparently self-published author. The promotionalism is made very evident by the convenient omission of the publisher of her books in the article--they are all published by "The Planning Shop"[5] by Lightning Source, a print-on-demand publisher. . It's also made evident by the article referring to her by the first name alone in the text, a characteristic device of PR writers trying to sound informal (except ofcourse, in some fields of popular entertainment, but the subject is rying to be a writer of serious instructional books on business. It is possible that the books might sell enoguh that she might be notable, but if so the article would have to be startedover without the obvious coi. And a promotional article that cannot be improved without complete rewriting is absolutely a strict criterion for deletion--in fact, it's a criterion for speedy. DGG ( talk ) 04:40, 13 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Good points. If you go to the "Planning Shop" website you will see that it is actually a company owned by the article subject: so all the books are indeed self-published, and we have no references in the article either.ThatMontrealIP (talk) 05:48, 13 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. Randykitty (talk) 14:34, 18 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Sprockettes[edit]

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

I don't think this meets any of our notability criteria. There's no enough in-depth sources forWP:GNG, WP:NORG (as a group), or WP:NARTIST (as performers). The sources in the article are a) a blog entry from a local brewery b) a decent article from a local paper c) a couple-sentence fluff piece in NPR and d) a defunct biking enthusiast periodical (with a limited scope if it's the same one referred to here).

It's not enough to hang an article on, and I couldn't find any more in-depth sources when I searched. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 03:28, 11 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Dance-related deletion discussions. IntoThinAir (talk) 04:02, 11 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Oregon-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 04:50, 11 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 04:50, 11 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 04:50, 11 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 04:51, 11 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Cycling-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 04:51, 11 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom, fails our notability requirements for organisations. I tagged this for dubious notability when I removed copyvio in 2015, and on looking again now still don't see it. There are two brief mentions in this book and a photograph in this one; there are a number of book mentions of other groups that have used the same name. Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 12:04, 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 keep. Nomination withdrawn. (non-admin closure) Kbabej (talk) 00:05, 12 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Scott Horscroft[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

There is no assertion of notability. Per a WP:BEFORE search, there just isn't coverage in RS. Kbabej (talk) 03:05, 11 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Kbabej (talk) 03:07, 11 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. Kbabej (talk) 03:08, 11 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 04:53, 11 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep has received five ARIA Music Awards nominations - satisfies criteria #8 of WP:NMUSIC. Dan arndt (talk) 10:00, 11 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for pointing that out, Dan arndt. I remembered that as winning a major industry award, but you're right. When I'm at my computer again I'll withdraw the AfD. --Kbabej (talk) 14:55, 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 10:05, 18 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Robot Master[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

Pure Fancruft. In the Mega Man series, Robot Masters are the names of the enemies who act as bosses at the end of stages, and this is a big list of all of them, effectively being a list of bosses from the Mega Man series. Not bad info per se, just not here. This belongs on a fan wiki. Robot Master can be handled in a single paragraph on the Mega Man page, or game by game, not an exhaustive list on its own. Harizotoh9 (talk) 02:07, 11 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. IntoThinAir (talk) 02:37, 11 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Video games-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 04:55, 11 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - this is just a massive block of unsourced or poorly sourced in-universe WP:GAMECRUFT and WP:TRIVIA. Should probably be mentioned as a couple sentences in the series article or something, but nothing nearly as exhaustive as this. Sergecross73 msg me 13:07, 11 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nominator and Sergecross73's comment. Aoba47 (talk) 18:25, 11 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Sergecross73. Videogameplayer99 (talk) 19:07, 13 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per all. - FlightTime (open channel) 00:53, 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 delete. Sandstein 10:05, 18 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Adriana Galetskaya[edit]

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

Insignificant Ukrainian artist. These awards have no value.--Kirill Samredny (talk) 00:47, 11 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2019 April 11. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 01:08, 11 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Ukraine-related deletion discussions. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 02:29, 11 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Artists-related deletion discussions. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 02:29, 11 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete artists who are notable do not generally have to pay for shows. The Florence Biennale is a well-known pay-to-play exhibition for artists that costs $4000 or more to exhibit in. Theredproject has a handy list of these fake shows here. The majority of sources here are self-generated (like the Florence Biennale) or press releases. ThatMontrealIP (talk) 02:40, 11 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletion discussions. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 02:42, 11 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 04:57, 11 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete does not pass notability guidelines for artists.John Pack Lambert (talk) 02:11, 12 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

~~Delete~~: Per nom. I agree with ThatMontrealIP research. Russian version is also AfD. FIFAukr (talk) 15:11, 12 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

!vote struck as editor is blocked as a VOA with a suspicious editing pattern. ^Thanks,L3X1 ◊distænt write◊ 01:43, 13 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. This is self-promotion, simultaneously on several WP. Search in Russian and Ukrainian languages does not find anything significant. My very best wishes (talk) 03:26, 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 delete. Sandstein 10:04, 18 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Kofi Danso[edit]

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

Does not meet notability criteria of WP:GNG or WP:BIO. References given do not discuss him significantly, and Google search for the name does not come up with anything that does, except for a couple of newspaper articles discussing controversy surrounding him. ... discospinster _talk 00:55, 11 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Per nominator. Subject does not meet general notability requirements and lacks significant coverage in reliable sources. Meatsgains^(talk) 00:58, 11 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Ghana-related deletion discussions. IntoThinAir (talk) 02:45, 11 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 05:54, 11 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Kofi Danso is my first article creation, I am willing to improve it to save it from deletion. Please advise. Thanks guys Straightshoot101 (talk) 08:28, 11 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I would suggest finding and adding reliable sources establishing the subject's notability. Meatsgains^(talk) 23:16, 11 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I haven't checked for alternatives but the current refs are all problematic. The Prague Post is not what it used to be and now accepts contributions from basically anyone who can write 500 to 1000 word articles in coherent English (see [6]) so the content there is probably self-written publicity. PRWeb, as its name suggests, publishes self-written PR. Zim Citizen is a blog. www.MiracleArena.ca is a dead link but was presumably the ministry's official website and thus not independent. IdeaMensch is "a crowdsourced interview platform for entrepreneurs, makers, and doers" and in fact the interiew's questions are a simple template as explained here (I'm not sure that sentence is clear but basically there is no interviewer, only an interviewee and again, this is basically self-written promo). Pichpich (talk) 20:17, 16 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete After looking for references, I'm convinced there's not enough material from third-party reliable sources to meet the general notability guideline. In fact, the only coverage in reliable sources does not concern his ministry but a sinister paternity lawsuit that he lost after telling the mother that she would die if she kept the baby. But Wikipedia is not news and this affair did not result in lasting coverage. Pichpich (talk) 20:27, 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 delete. Sandstein 10:03, 18 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Practical Microstrip and Printed Antenna Design[edit]

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

Hello. No claim of significance but A7 does not apply to books. I am not sure this book has even been released. Thanks and regards, Biwom (talk) 00:18, 11 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 00:47, 11 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. The book is a published by Artech House, a publisher of scientific and engineering books that are found in many academic libraries. Worldcat lists only one library (in Germany) that holds this book, probably because it has been published quite recently. I think the book is probably important to engineers who design antennas, but notability won't be demonstrated until some reviews are published. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 01:00, 11 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. This is a field in which a huge amount has been published, including numerous books. There is nothing that indicates this one stands out as being particularly notable. I'm sure the author has written a competent book, but there is nothing to show that he is stand-out notable or has a special place in the history of the subject. His citation counts according to Scholar are extremely low. This smacks to me of promotion of a newly published book. SpinningSpark 16:16, 11 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. The book is published and I am see many reference of this book. This is more a practical antenna design book and helpful for designers than a theoretical book as can be see in google book preview (book's content).Naveenchawala18 (talk) 17:59, 11 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
- You need to list the "many references" before that is convincing. Note that we require "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject" to meet the general notability requirements. The practicality or helpfulness of the book are not considerations used in Wikipedia when deciding whether to keep a page. SpinningSpark 18:47, 11 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete WorldCat includes three books with very similar titles on this subject. One [7] is found in 592 libraries, another [worldcat] in 721. But this particular book [8] is found in only one. DGG ( talk ) 05:07, 13 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep It. This book is the latest and different than other book published on similar subject as it include several modern technologies including 5G and automotive microstrip antenna. Sreyash21 (talk) 18:58, 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 10:03, 18 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Garrett Backstrom[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

Non-notable actor. Was previously nominated for deletion, and deleted. Natg 19 (talk) 00:11, 11 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Natg 19 (talk) 00:21, 11 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Natg 19 (talk) 00:21, 11 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Natg 19 (talk) 00:21, 11 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 05:57, 11 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 06:09, 11 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 06:09, 11 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sweden-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 06:25, 11 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

delete. Sources are sparse and doesn't meet WP:NACTOR.Citing (talk) 02:39, 18 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 10:02, 18 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Devan Watts[edit]

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

Had been previously deleted; non-notable minor league baseball player. Fails WP:NBASEBALL. Pozzi.c (talk) 02:30, 11 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Baseball-related deletion discussions. pozzi.c^(T) 02:43, 11 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete not notable.-- Yankees10 02:37, 11 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete does not appear to satisfy any of the criteria at WP:NBASEBALL. Also does not appear to satisfy the wp:gng as I could not find coverage in major independent sources.Zingarese talk · contribs 05:37, 11 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of North Carolina-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 06:25, 11 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 06:25, 11 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. --Tataral (talk) 22:55, 12 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails GNG as the few sources there are are local, not indepth enough.^Thanks,L3X1 ◊distænt write◊ 01:39, 13 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.