< 22 April	24 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. -- Scott Burley (talk) 02:03, 1 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Virac Town Center[edit]

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

Does not meet WP:GNG, WP:NGEO. What little coverage exists appears to be limited to local papers of dubious reliability (Catanduanes Tribune), and the article with the most significant coverage of the subject doesn't even have a byline. _signed,Rosguill ^talk 22:37, 23 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Shopping malls-related deletion discussions. _signed,Rosguill ^talk 22:37, 23 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. _signed,Rosguill ^talk 22:37, 23 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Philippines-related deletion discussions. _signed,Rosguill ^talk 22:37, 23 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Except for one news article that alleges that it was built from drug cartel money, i see nothing else here that suggests notability. Kill it :/--RioHondo (talk) 08:05, 24 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Draftify Requires rewriting to suit wiki guidelines. Let it be placed in a draft for future rework.Germcrow (talk) 17:57, 24 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Not a necessary article with very minimal sources and/or notability. Don't even see why it's even been created, if anything, it probably should've been included in the Virac wikipage. Cheesy McGee (talk) 13:18, 28 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, i don't see anything different from any other mall, does not meet WP:GNG. Alex-h (talk) 15:28, 29 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 La Habra Fashion Square. -- Scott Burley (talk) 02:07, 1 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

La Habra Market Place[edit]

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

Disputed PROD. The article concerns a shopping center that is a borderline strip mall with a handful of ordinary stores but no major anchor tenants. Search results from the LA Times only show a handful of blurbs and other passing mentions. The old mall might be notable, but this one clearly is not. Sounder Bruce 22:02, 23 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Fine I'll move content to La Habra Fashion Square adapt and point LH Market Place to it Keizers (talk) 22:10, 23 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Shopping malls-related deletion discussions. Sounder Bruce 22:32, 23 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. Sounder Bruce 22:32, 23 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. -- Scott Burley (talk) 02:08, 1 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Aditya Pratap[edit]

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

Does not meet WP:GNG, WP:NLAWYER. The article doesn't describe any accomplishments beyond being a lawyer in various court cases, and all available coverage appears to be either trivial mentions, quotes, or articles written by the subject. _signed,Rosguill ^talk 21:44, 23 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. _signed,Rosguill ^talk 21:44, 23 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Law-related deletion discussions. _signed,Rosguill ^talk 21:44, 23 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. _signed,Rosguill ^talk 21:44, 23 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Sir, I have tried to improve the article. Please do review and consider. Thank You. — Preceding unsigned comment added by DSN18 (talk • contribs) 11:02, 24 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@DSN18: I don't see any new sources added, just some copyediting, so as far as this deletion discussion is concerned, nothing has changed. _signed,Rosguill ^talk 17:24, 24 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Rosguill Sir, As suggested by you i have added more new references to improve the article. Please do review and consider. Thank You. — Preceding unsigned comment added by DSN18 (talk • contribs) 06:08, 25 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The additional sources don't have in depth coverage either. I would be swayed if you could find coverage that provides actual analysis of Pratap, as opposed to just quoting him in the context of a case. Also, please stop calling me sir, it's extremely weird (unless you call your coworkers "sir", in which case you do you). _signed,Rosguill ^talk 06:40, 25 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I'm not seeing notability here. A lawyer, pretty much like any other. Two of his cases were covered in the news, but that's not unusual. If there were very important cases, that might be an argument for articles on the cases, but 1) they aren't particularly notable, and 2) even if they were, the lawyer would not be notable by contagion. TJRC (talk) 19:29, 29 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per TJRC. Couldn't find any sources indicating the possibility of notability on a cursory search. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs^(talk) 17:11, 30 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was merge to Turbofan. -- Scott Burley (talk) 02:11, 1 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Bypass duct[edit]

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

Request deletion or merging to a larger article. No reference listed. Tagged with ((Unreferenced)) since December 2009. Tyw7 (🗣️ Talk) — If (reply) then (ping me) 21:24, 23 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. Tyw7 (🗣️ Talk) — If (reply) then (ping me) 21:25, 23 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. Tyw7 (🗣️ Talk) — If (reply) then (ping me) 21:25, 23 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Aviation-related deletion discussions. Tyw7 (🗣️ Talk) — If (reply) then (ping me) 21:25, 23 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Yes, it needs references - but there are plenty available via a simple Google search. It is in dire need of some TLC, but WP:DINC. Jmertel23 (talk) 21:54, 23 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Jmertel23, I feel the subject can be merged with another article, possibly the turbo fan one? --Tyw7 (🗣️ Talk) — If (reply) then (ping me) 23:24, 23 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Tyw7 I wouldn't be opposed to a merge, but it wouldn't be my first choice. Jmertel23 (talk) 12:41, 24 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Unreferenced article on a subject that can easily be expanded. Spyder212 (talk) 22:26, 23 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Spyder212, I think it should be merged since the duct itself won't pass WP:GNG. --Tyw7 (🗣️ Talk) — If (reply) then (ping me) 23:26, 23 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
delete Clearly notable as a topic, but so what? We have no article. Andy Dingley (talk) 11:02, 24 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Merge into Turbofan. Are we really going to have an article for every component of a turbofan? There's one for combustion chamber, but at least that one applies to internal combustion engines in general. The bypass duct is too specific to warrant a stand-alone article. --Deeday-UK (talk) 11:47, 24 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, we should have an article for every component of a turbofan! It's what we do. For what possible reason wouldn't we? Andy Dingley (talk) 12:08, 24 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Because we are an encyclopedia, not a Haynes manual. How much can you write about turbofan bypass ducts that cannot fit in the Turbofan article? Not much, in my view. --Deeday-UK (talk) 14:13, 24 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. Tyw7 (🗣️ Talk) — If (reply) then (ping me) 12:02, 24 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Merge and delete. Bypass ducts are just ducts used in a trivially particular way. They appear in many places, with the annular ducts in turbofans being just one example. The parent turbofan article could do with a technical section on the fan and ducting that make it distinct from other jets, so the content here should be merged across. There is no rationale for keeping this as a redirect to anywhere. — Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 12:02, 24 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep A quick before search shows there's been a lot written about bypass ducts. Most of the results are technical, so difficult for me to source, but I think it clearly passes WP:GNG. I support keeping this, but if not kept, should at least be merged, perhaps to turbofans. SportingFlyer T·C 23:01, 25 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
SportingFlyer, well I think it's a part of the turbofan --Tyw7 (🗣️ Talk) — If (reply) then (ping me) 00:27, 27 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Merge and delete Its part of something. As to how easy it is to source, then source it, its been how many days not and not one source had been added.Slatersteven (talk) 10:10, 28 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Merge whatever is useful (seems to be the picture, and a little bit of the text which is un-sourced however) to Bypass ratio, which this article is umm, a POVFORK (or DUCTFORK?) of. The bypass duct is what makes the Bypass ratio. Bypass ratio article already discusses the duct. One could make an article on the "Bypass duct" - however the current article is less developed than its parent article (Turbofan or Bypass ratio) and lacks sources.Icewhiz (talk) 13:42, 29 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Turbofan. Obviously the need for any separate treatment has not been pressing enough over the last decade to add even a minimum of sources. As a component of an already heavily covered mechanism, there seems to be no mileage in having a standalone article on this; any material will be more usefully presented in context. --Elmidae (talk · contribs) 21:23, 29 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. -- Scott Burley (talk) 00:22, 1 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Marko Hucko[edit]

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

Fails WP:NHOCKEY. Played one game in Slovak Extraliga and had a brief and uneventful professional career. This one is painfully obvious and I feel almost sorry to have to go through a nomination for this one. Tay87 (talk) 21:20, 23 April 2019 (UTC) Tay87 (talk) 21:20, 23 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Ice hockey-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 21:42, 23 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 21:42, 23 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Slovakia-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 21:43, 23 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Fails NHOCKEY and GNG. For future reference @Tay87: for such slam dunk cases you can follow Wikipedia:Proposed deletion instead and only come to a full Afd if it is objected to. -DJSasso (talk) 17:33, 24 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Yes I was looking for that but couldn't find it. This should help in future. Cheers. Tay87 (talk) 18:24, 24 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. Fenix down (talk) 22:00, 30 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Francis Moyap[edit]

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

Contested PROD. Concern was Article about a football manager who fails WP:GNG and who has not managed a club in a fully pro league. PROD was contested by the article's creator without providing a reason. Sir Sputnik (talk) 21:02, 23 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. Sir Sputnik (talk) 21:03, 23 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Sir Sputnik (talk) 21:03, 23 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Papua New Guinea-related deletion discussions. Sir Sputnik (talk) 21:03, 23 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Fails WP:NFOOTY, which states that managers are presumed notable if they "have managed in a competitive game between two teams from fully-professional leagues". I cannot find any sources that would enable him to meet the WP:GNG guidelines either (only passing mentions). Jmertel23 (talk) 21:43, 23 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions.CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 21:45, 23 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Does not meet notability criteria as per WP:NSOCCER, poor sources only. Spyder212 (talk) 22:28, 23 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - fails WP:GNG and WP:NFOOTBALL. Giant Snowman 08:30, 24 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, Being just a football manager does not make him notable. Fails WP:GNG, Alex-h (talk) 15:36, 29 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 deleted under CSD A7/G11 etc and contributing editor indefinitely blocked Nick (talk) 21:16, 23 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Rahul Kumar Yadav[edit]

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

Non-notable blogger creating a page about themselves. PROD/CSD tags were removed by an IP. Rsrikanth05 (talk) 20:55, 23 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

speedy delete per my tags. There’s no reason this needs to go through AFD. Praxidicae (talk) 20:59, 23 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@Praxidicae: I brought it to AfD only because the last time I reverted an IP removing CSD/PROD tags, I was told that it shouldn't be restored and it had to be brought here. --Rsrikanth05 (talk) 21:03, 23 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. -- Scott Burley (talk) 00:22, 1 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Neurofeedback Training Company[edit]

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

No indication that subject meets WP:NORG notability guidelines. Of the two independent, reliable sources, 1) the Newsweek article does not mention the company at all, and 2) the ICT journal only mentions the product that the company uses (made by a different company); there is nothing about the subject itself. My WP:BEFORE has brought up no additional sources that can be used to establish notability. Jmertel23 (talk) 19:49, 23 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 20:13, 23 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 20:14, 23 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 20:14, 23 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Health and fitness-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 20:14, 23 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 20:15, 23 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Colorado-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 20:15, 23 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Nom is correct - the only secondary sources in the article do not mention the company - they mention a product (NeurOptimal) that is used by the subject, but not made by the subject. I can't find any significant coverage of the subject itself in reliable, secondary sources, so fails WP:NCORP. GirthSummit _(blether) 10:02, 24 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
delete no evidence of notability found in this startup. Graywalls (talk) 01:47, 25 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Its not a startup, it is well estabilshed company found 2011, with employees and offices across the US. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dalibor.Selucky.TC (talk • contribs)
Delete. Not notable, and I would have G11'd this. Natureium (talk) 03:08, 28 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
~~Keep~~ *Hello, I studied carefully guides for page deletion, and:

"...A primary test of notability is whether unrelated people with no vested interest in the subject have actually considered the company, corporation, product or service notable enough that they have written and published non-trivial, non-routine works that focus upon it..."

The articles linked to this wiki page are then from the variety of places across the web talking mainly the product. Of course, the product is what nearly always defines a commercial unit.

As an example, would you talk about Company Huawei on its own, without disclosing info about their founder, place and products or services?

Some companies important as companies, due to their size. But one cannot really talk about Ford without talking about cars, OR Henry Ford, OR innovation done by their owner, OR their connection to nazy.

And Wikipedia understands this and thus allows the company to be notable based on their product - if they developed it or not.

As a matter of fact, Wikipedia discourages talks about the company, just because it is a company, and states:

"...the sources must describe and discuss in some depth the treatment of the employees or major changes in leadership instead of just listing the fact that the corporation employs 500 people or mentioning that John Smith was appointed as the new CEO..."

Thus I vote for keeping the page up and live, and perhaps list it for improvements by listing more details. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dalibor.Selucky.TC (talk • contribs)

Delete: Articles about the general field or about the tool utilised by this company are insufficient for the WP:NCORP criteria. I do not see evidence for the notability of the company. (Nor would its use in a case study be sufficient to establish notability if an article on the NeurOptimal product was under consideration here.)AllyD (talk) 16:17, 30 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
~~Keep~~ Perhaps the article could change its focus towards the NeurOptimal as actual Neurofeedback tool, would that be rather fitting? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dalibor.Selucky.TC (talk • contribs)

Dalibor.Selucky.TC please only provide one Keep opinion. I have struck the second above (and your earlier long comment would also be taken as a Keep). AllyD (talk) 16:55, 30 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) Crystallizedcarbon (talk) 06:00, 30 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Carl Kline (White House official)[edit]

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

Per WP:BLP1E and WP:PAGEDECIDE. Kline appears only to be notable for his involvement in the Trump administration's security clearance imbroglio of early 2019. Even if his job in the White House means he's not a "low profile" individual under our BLP policy, as a matter of pragmatism his involvement in that controversy is better explained in a comprehensive article about the controversy itself rather than in a biography. That article could be called, for instance, Security clearances during the presidency of Donald Trump. Please note, I've started a related AfD for Tricia Newbold. R2 (bleep) 18:28, 23 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 18:35, 23 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose: While it may have been premature to start an article on Kline, details of his actions continue to emerge so it is too soon to say that his page should be deleted or merged. It could do with some fleshing-out, though, since it is short on biographic information. Websurfer2 (talk) 04:19, 24 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Kline appears to have taken two dozen unusual, important, and decisive actions over a period of two years in granting security clearances to persons who did not quality under regular rules. News coverage of those actions is piled up in the shorter period of time that he has been identified in public, but even that covers two months from many reliable sources. It's a historic situation, a natural subject for national security documentation where his name is likely to appear for decades to come, possibly in parallel to Aldrich Ames or Robert Hanssen. An argument for WP:BLP1E seems to depend on it being a brief blip of news about a one-time event, the "imbroglio" -- but the events Kline caused went for a longer time and have a long-term effect. They aren't a brief scandal. I say the BLP1E argument is not relevant and say the news coverage standard applies. -- econterms (talk) 11:52, 24 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

To clarify, I'm not suggesting that there was only a brief blip of news about Kline, just that Kline's notability is almost solely about his involvement in Trump administration national security clearances, and that for BLP and pragmatic reasons the subject matter is more appropriate for an article devoted to that topic. R2 (bleep) 19:02, 24 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

And, in fact, Google Trend suggests that Carl Kline's notability really has been a brief blip concurrent with the recent event of Kline's actions becoming public. R2 (bleep) 22:06, 24 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: WP:PAGEDECIDE says:

Sometimes, when a subject is notable, but it is unlikely that there ever will be a lot to write about it, editors should weigh the advantages and disadvantages of creating a permanent stub.

IMO, it is fine if the Kline article remains a WP:PERMASTUB.

Also, WP:BLP1E says:

avoid having an article on a person when each of three conditions is met:
If reliable sources cover the person only in the context of a single event.

If that person otherwise remains, and is likely to remain, a low-profile individual...

If the event is not significant or the individual's role was either not substantial or not well documented.

Kline fails condition 3, and arguably also fails condition 2 (as noted by R2). Therefore, WP:BLP1E does not apply to Kline.

Kline does meet WP:BIO.

Kline therefore merits a Wikipedia article. Zazpot (talk) 10:37, 25 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Sources suffice to establish notability.E.M.Gregory (talk) 13:03, 29 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

E.M.Gregory, would you mind reading the nomination and responding? No one questions that there are enough sources to satisfy GNG. R2 (bleep) 16:37, 29 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The event in which Klien was involved is so significant, his role in the event is so substantive, and coverage is extensive and in such depth that we can confidently keep this page despite noms concerns.E.M.Gregory (talk) 18:31, 29 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. Although people can discuss a move/repurposing of the page if they feel that the coverage is more about the security clearance aspect than about her personally. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 07:56, 1 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Tricia Newbold[edit]

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

Per WP:BLP1E and WP:PAGEDECIDE. Newbold appears only to be notable for blowing the whistle on the Trump administration's security clearance practices in early 2019. Even if her whistleblowing results in her losing her "low profile" status under our BLP policy, as a matter of pragmatism her involvement in that controversy is better explained in a comprehensive article about the controversy itself rather than in a biography. That article could be called, for instance, Security clearances during the presidency of Donald Trump. Please note, I'm starting a related AfD for Carl Kline (White House official). R2 (bleep) 18:22, 23 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Maine-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 18:37, 23 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 18:38, 23 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I think the related AfD you mean is Carl Kline (White House official) StarM 01:10, 25 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, thanks, fixed. R2 (bleep) 19:10, 25 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note that Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Carl Kline (White House official) closed as "Keep".E.M.Gregory (talk) 09:48, 30 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep the event in which Newbold was involved is so significant, her role in the event is so substantive, and coverage is extensive and in such depth that we can confidently keep this page despite noms concerns.E.M.Gregory (talk) 18:30, 29 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

This page could be usefully linked from an article about Security clearances during the presidency of Donald Trump.E.M.Gregory (talk) 18:34, 29 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

note that coverage has been continuous for 4 months [1], this is NOT your garden variety WP:BLP1E.E.M.Gregory (talk) 18:39, 29 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

With all due respect I don't think one story in January, none whatsoever for two months, then all the other stories being in April amounts to any kind of "continuous" coverage over that entire period. IntoThinAir (talk) 16:31, 30 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

the simplest gNew search [2] shows coverage in January, February, March and April. Only a few of these stories are on the page, many will be echos, but, as I said, coverage has been continuous and it continues as Trump officials clash with Congress over hearing demands.E.M.Gregory (talk) 17:06, 30 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I find it very hard to believe that the WP:LOWPROFILE reference isn’t an inappropriate and discriminatory joke about the subject. Horse Eye Jack (talk) 02:45, 30 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Ha. No. Please assume good faith. R2 (bleep) 16:21, 30 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

And FWIW I made a very similar WP:LOWPROFILE argument at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Carl Kline (White House official). R2 (bleep) 16:27, 30 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

note that According to The Atlantic, "Newbold set an important mark when she became the first official currently serving in Donald Trump’s White House to take accusations of wrongdoing to Congress—and to put her name publicly behind them."E.M.Gregory (talk) 17:16, 30 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. MBisanz ^talk 20:22, 30 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Valerie A. Johnson[edit]

AfDs for this article:

Articles for deletion/Valerie A. Johnson

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

Does not meet notability requirements. No significant media coverage. Her home was in one episode of a TV show, but nothing about her, even the appearance in the show, is significant or notable. PhobosIkaros ✉ 18:14, 23 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 18:39, 23 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Law-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 18:40, 23 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Some of the WP:RS in the article looks neither self-published nor COI writing:

She was named and served on the State Board of Elections. [3][4][5][6][7][8]Press Release from State Board of Elections [9]
which later hit a snag: [10]
her vote on commission mentioned in this article: [11]
This a substantial write up on her: [12][13]
In 2019, she helped resolves a dispute regarding candidates for sheriff.[14]
Assuming this is good RS and not pay-to-play and WP:INDEPENDENT, it adds to notability: [15]

I don't consider the HGTV episode to contribute at all to her notability at all, because I do not see it covered in any WP:INDEPENDENT sources. That line should probably be deleted from the article. --David Tornheim (talk) 19:03, 23 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete The items mentioned above aren't significant coverage and only minor mentions. If you google my name, there's hundreds of hits where I'm mentioned in passing. Serving on the State Board of Elections doesn't meet WP:NPOL. Dusti ^{*Let's talk!*} 20:44, 25 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Closest thing to a claim of notability is "She was also elected into the National Academy of Social Insurance in 2010", but I don't think that gets her over the line. TJRC (talk) 19:25, 29 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete fails WP:SIGCOV.E.M.Gregory (talk) 00:40, 30 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. -- Scott Burley (talk) 00:14, 1 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Gnostic saints[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

I just closed Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Gnostic saints and moved this article, previously at Gnostic saints (Christian), to this title. But it has issues of its own that merit deletion.

Basically, it's not sourced and, as far as I can tell after a quick search, not reliably sourceable (WP:V). It may be entirely made up or based on some fringe ideas. The people listed here are sometimes described as Gnostics in their articles, but not as saints or the subject of veneration. The article Gnosticism makes no mention of saints. A Google search for "Gnostic saints" yields what looks like a bunch of self-published websites about esotericism. I don't see the basis of a verifiable article or list here.

And for what it's worth, the creator is a blocked sock of a banned editor, Ekajati (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), and there have not been any substantial content edits by others. Sandstein 17:24, 23 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 17:48, 23 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 17:48, 23 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Philosophy-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 17:49, 23 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Italy-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 17:49, 23 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Greece-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 17:49, 23 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete The respective subject articles do not even mention their supposed sainthood. Reywas92^Talk 18:05, 23 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Either delete or categorize, if the latter holds up to category standards. John M Wolfson (talk) 18:55, 23 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

There is already Category:Gnostic saints (Christian), which has the same problems and will also need to be deleted. Sandstein 20:17, 23 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
- Then delete both. John M Wolfson (talk) 05:34, 24 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Did not find any reliable sources to support any content on this page... Spyder212 (talk) 22:34, 23 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Rename and repurpose as List of Gnostic leaders or such like and purge medieval heretics into a separate category. The category should be renamed to match. At present it contains an Albigensian (a movement foreshadowing Protestantism); a Cathar (a non-Catholic sect in southern France); and a few other oddballs, none of whom appear to be Gnostics (who believed they has some secret revelation beyond scripture).

That would be the creation of an entirely different article, to which I have no objection, but it doesn't prevent deleting this one. Sandstein 17:40, 25 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete rarely used term. Possibly a reference to the "Gnostic Saints" of Ecclesia Gnostica Catholica and Liber XV, The Gnostic Mass. Google Scholar also shows some usage to talk about Sufism. I'm thinking possibly a redirect or disambiguation to one or both of those topics might be advisable, but maybe this is just too obscure a term with too much variation in meaning for that to work. SJK (talk) 07:16, 28 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. MBisanz ^talk 20:22, 30 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

V. Sadasivan[edit]

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

Fails WP:GNG, and WP:POLITICIAN Akhiljaxxn (talk) 11:01, 16 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 11:22, 16 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 11:22, 16 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 11:23, 16 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 16:31, 23 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete— per nom. Mccapra (talk) 17:29, 23 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete fails WP:GNG. Dreamy Jazz 🎷 ^{talk to me | my contributions} 20:23, 23 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Does not meet general notability criteria. Spyder212 (talk) 22:35, 23 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 Automated analyser. MBisanz ^talk 20:21, 30 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Cobas Mira[edit]

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

Not notable, not written encyclopedically Natureium (talk) 00:59, 9 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. MarginalCost (talk) 14:10, 9 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. MarginalCost (talk) 14:10, 9 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Automated analyser - I can't find evidence of notability for this particular model, but there's no reason not to redirect. I did find a paper in the Journal of Automatic Chemistry analyzing the machine itself, but it notes at the end that Roche Diagnostics provided materials and "technical support" in the study, which probably makes it less than independent. In any case, multiple sources would be required to keep. MarginalCost (talk) 14:17, 9 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Randykitty (talk) 10:15, 16 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 16:28, 23 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. MBisanz ^talk 20:21, 30 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Howard Pressman[edit]

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

Delete. The subject of this article does not meet the guidelines for notability other than stating he is the brother of an ex-footballer? UK Wiki User (talk) 09:44, 16 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Not notable with no reliable third-party sources. Google turns up multiple people with this name and the article subject is barely among them. sixtynine ^{• whaddya want? •} 17:34, 16 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Radio-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 10:04, 16 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 10:04, 16 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep I've updated the article and added a reference although the article does need further improvement. Rillington (talk) 16:48, 17 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 16:25, 23 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Does not meet general notability criteria, not much coverage in secondary sources (some names but never the subject and unsure whether it's really him), and WP:NOTGENEALOGY. Spyder212 (talk) 22:42, 23 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Not notable with no reliable sources. Article doesn't pass WP:GNG. The only sources come from the BBC. Presenter pages aren't classed as RS. - Funky Snack (Talk) 13:16, 24 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Fails WP:GNG Germcrow (talk) 17:56, 24 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, non notable radio presenter fails WP:SIGCOV.E.M.Gregory (talk) 00:43, 30 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, non notable radio presenter Lubbad85 (☎) 01:07, 30 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. MBisanz ^talk 20:21, 30 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Phil Kennedy[edit]

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

Non-notable BBC local radio presenter, who, although has other stuff behind him, there's no evidence or reliable sources. - Funky Snack (Talk) 15:39, 23 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Radio-related deletion discussions. ...William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 15:54, 23 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. ...William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 15:54, 23 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete fails WP:GNG Lubbad85 (☎) 01:07, 29 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete non-notable radio presenter, fails WP:SIGCOV.E.M.Gregory (talk) 00:44, 30 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. MBisanz ^talk 20:21, 30 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Josh Zuckerman (musician)[edit]

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

Fails WP:GNG and WP:MUSICBIO. Promotional article of a non-notable musician, with no in-depth independent sources found. All his records have been independently released and not via major labels. The article was almost entirely created by two SPA editors, one of which has the username "Webmasterjoshzuckerman" – several times the article states "according to Zuckerman's website...", and indeed most of the "Early life" and "Early career" sections are straight WP:COPYVIO from the biography on the artist's own website [16]. There are a couple of interviews in gay community websites [17], [18], but these probably don't pass RS and in any case are primary sources that fail to corroborate most of the information present in the current article. Please note there is also a television and stage actor called Josh Zuckerman who frequently comes up in searches for this name. Richard3120 (talk) 15:17, 23 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Richard3120 (talk) 15:09, 23 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. Richard3120 (talk) 15:09, 23 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of New Jersey-related deletion discussions. Richard3120 (talk) 15:10, 23 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I am also nominating the following related page for Mr. Zuckerman's debut album because it is not notable and fails WP:NALBUM:

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. Richard3120 (talk) 15:15, 23 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sexuality and gender-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 17:52, 23 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Missouri-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 17:53, 23 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete all: Fail WP:NMUSIC and WP:NALBUM all sources are WP:PRIMARY, no chart placings or major label signings. Ceethekreator (talk) 22:46, 24 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete all - as an attempted promotion and written like a fan site with details that are irrelevant for the general reader. Except for some minor interviews at LGBT sites, nothing can be found on the singer or album beyond self-created social media and his own website. ---DOOMSDAYER520 (Talk|Contribs) 13:56, 25 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as PROMO for a non-notable musician.E.M.Gregory (talk) 00:49, 30 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. MBisanz ^talk 20:21, 30 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Anna Brelsford McCoy[edit]

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

GNG fail. there is some minor local coverage but it does not rise to the level of notability overall. ThatMontrealIP (talk) 13:58, 23 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Artists-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 14:58, 23 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 14:58, 23 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Pennsylvania-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 14:58, 23 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I added several long newspaper articles about her. And local coverage does not negate GNG as long as they are significant and independent. We have sources from The News Journal and several from the large news source the The Philadelphia Inquirer. Passes GNG. Megalibrarygirl (talk) 22:13, 23 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I took out one of the sources you added (this one), as it was from someone's personal web site. Your additions did improve the article, but not I notice that all the Philadephia Inquirer articles are by the same author-- Catherine Quillman. So we have:

three articles by Catherine Quillman (#2,3 and 7),
a book the subject authored (#6, Anna Brelsford McCoy (2001). John W. McCoy: American Painter.),
an article almost entirely about her husband (#4, Pirro, J.F. (May 2009). "Old Man River".) that says only this in about 3000 words: "For 18 years, Weymouth was married to Anna B. McCoy, Andrew Wyeth’s niece and herself an artist."
ref five, which is actual SIGCOV, and finally
the first ref, from a private art gallery that is a small biography.

So we really have only two people who have written independently an in depth about her. The coverage/recognition is very slim. I know that there is an urge in AfD to save articles on women subjects at any cost, given Wikipedia's gender disparity in coverage, but I think where notability is slim, as in this case, we are better served deleting the non-notable and instead finding and creating articles on truly notable subjects. There is no real recognition of her work as as artist here: museums, major exhibitions etc. Just two writers who wrote about her in a routine way. (For example, Catherine Quillman seems to be the actual notable person in the article.) ThatMontrealIP (talk) 22:31, 23 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@ThatMontrealIP: I didn't add the "personal website" reference. I just cleaned the reference up. It's also not really a personal website article. It was printed at some point at Out & About, an independent, but defunct website. The article was archived on a person's personal site. It doesn't matter that Quillman wrote about her multiple times. What she wrote is significant and over the course of several years. I'll add Quillman to the Women in Red list for journalists. Thanks for the tip! :) Megalibrarygirl (talk) 20:39, 24 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Agree with Megalibrarygirl, passes WP:GNG with addition of long newspaper articles. Curiocurio (talk) 14:56, 24 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep , due to sources found during this discussion.E.M.Gregory (talk) 00:47, 30 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was merge to Rocky De La Fuente. MBisanz ^talk 20:20, 30 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

American Delta Party[edit]

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

Political party that has no elected representatives and virtually no members. Article is thinly sourced, but more specifically this organization isn’t notable aside from being a vehicle for Rocky De La Fuente and his presidential campaign. All the information here could easily be merged into those two articles where appropriate. Toa Nidhiki05 13:54, 23 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 14:57, 23 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 14:57, 23 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Pennsylvania-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 14:58, 23 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to Rocky's presidential campaign page. This was not so much a party as it was the banner hung on Rocky's independent candidacy. The website is gone, so there is no reasonable expectation of a future to this (and if that should change, article can always be resurrected.) --Nat Gertler (talk) 17:47, 23 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Merge per all. John M Wolfson (talk) 19:46, 23 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Merge as above, but leaving this as a redirect to the specific section in the Rocky De La Fuente page. In anticipation of the imminent merger of this page, I have transferred most of the relevant information here to the page Rocky De La Fuente 2016 presidential campaign. The need also remains at least some relevant portions to be used in main Rocky De La Fuente page as well. werldwayd (talk) 21:22, 23 April 2019 (UTC) werldwayd (talk) 21:39, 23 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
- Merge and REDIRECT to Rocky De La Fuente.E.M.Gregory (talk) 12:03, 29 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. MBisanz ^talk 20:20, 30 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Julian Clegg[edit]

AfDs for this article:

Articles for deletion/Julian Clegg

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

Local radio presenter with no reliable sources and minimal information. Both links provided are profile pages. - Funky Snack (Talk) 13:04, 23 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 13:14, 23 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 13:14, 23 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete a non-notable radio presenter.John Pack Lambert (talk) 15:00, 27 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

delete Non-notable. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.132.213.17 (talk) 08:49, 29 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. MBisanz ^talk 20:20, 30 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Knoema[edit]

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

Contested prod. Created by an obvious UPE, the sole sources are a seven-year-old deadlink, a reprinted press release on a blog (don't be misled by the "Guardian" url, this is just a blog hosted by their website), and a couple of links to websites they helped set up. A WP:BEFORE search gives a lot of hits, but they all appear to be either PR churnalism of the company's own press releases or routine mentions in passing. ‑ Iridescent 12:30, 23 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Washington, D.C.-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 12:33, 23 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 12:33, 23 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the Article Rescue Squadron's list of content for rescue consideration. 7&6=thirteen (☎) 16:29, 23 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The Guardian source seems reasonable, being written by a reporter who regular writes for that newspaper on data issues. And it's not difficult to find another independent source. Andrew D. (talk) 16:17, 23 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Here's a second book source. And here's a second item from VentureBeat, based on this from Journalism.co.uk. On another note, it appears to be used as a source in scholarly publications often enough that, arguably, we should have an article on it so that people looking into that source have something other than the company's own website to go by. XOR'easter (talk) 19:16, 23 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
- Adddendum The dead link can be read at the Wayback Machine, fortunately. It's of dubious editorial status, being written by a "contributor network" member rather than an actual journalist, but the publication is notable, and they do claim that "contributor network" posts cannot be advertorials. XOR'easter (talk) 19:24, 23 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Leaning delete. I looked at the new sources listed by the two editors above, and I am still concerned about churnalism. Our own page on Journalism.co.uk says that they are an advertorial site. The book sources are essentially the same thing, Data Science For Dummies and Getting a Big Data Job For Dummies. The popular articles seem to be typical "articles" growing out of company press releases. The scholarly sources are less about the company than about the company's technology, and it looks to me like a better approach would be to have a page about the technology rather than about the specific company. --Tryptofish (talk) 21:44, 23 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep , on balance. The sources are just sufficient, and the deciding factor is the desirabiity about being flexible in retaining infromation about sources likely to be used at WP. DGG ( talk ) 03:21, 25 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Revisiting the question, I agree with DGG. XOR'easter (talk) 20:05, 25 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Andrew D. comments Lubbad85 (☎) 14:42, 29 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. MBisanz ^talk 20:20, 30 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Atomera[edit]

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

Has not attracted enough coverage to meet WP:CORP SmartSE (talk) 12:19, 23 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 12:34, 23 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 12:34, 23 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 12:34, 23 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, actually. I'm usually quite allergic to company writeups that rake together splinters of notability, but here I believe we are just over the threshold. These four used sources [19][20][21][22] each are independent, reasonably in-depth, and more than passing mentions of the company, and I'd say that in the aggregate they do the trick. --Elmidae (talk · contribs) 22:44, 23 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I agree with Elmidae. Mccapra (talk) 23:02, 23 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. MBisanz ^talk 20:19, 30 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Jason Keever[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

I don't see anything different from the first AFD aside from some new uncredited roles on iMDb as a production assistant, despite the clear attempt to WP:COATRACK here. Praxidicae (talk) 11:06, 23 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Ceethekreator (talk) 11:30, 23 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. Ceethekreator (talk) 11:30, 23 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. Ceethekreator (talk) 11:30, 23 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Advertising-related deletion discussions. Ceethekreator (talk) 11:30, 23 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of North Carolina-related deletion discussions. ...William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 12:21, 23 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Wow, Praxidicae, way to jump all over something right away. I've clearly cited other sources than IMDb, although it is an accredited source within the film industry and policed very well. So, if you would like to attack verifiable newspaper and advertising agency sources then please be my guest. As this is a page still in progress it will have additional information added. Congratulations on your editor of the week, you must have amazing articles that have no room to be chipped away at or attempts at COATRACKING. Ridiculous. If all articles are viewed this way, there will never be another subject added to Wikipedia. Mrsandoval70 (talk) 20:24, 23 April 2019 (UTC)mrsandoval70[reply]

iMDb is not a reliable source nor is it "policed well" and I can give you hundreds of examples of this, however your immediate attack still doesn't address issues I brought up - almost nothing has changed since the last AFD and you wrongfully attempted to fluff up the article by claiming he had bigger roles in all of the films you mentioned than he actually did - all of which are uncredited. Also "advertising agencies"? Yeah, those aren't good sources.Praxidicae (talk) 20:40, 23 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - nothing here looks anything like notability. Mentions and/or press releases only. Fails WP:GNG Velella ^{Velella Talk} 20:33, 23 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Does not meet general notability criteria. Spyder212 (talk) 22:24, 23 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom and salt. Fails WP:CREATIVE by a wide margin, and I don't want to have to revisit this. Clarityfiend (talk) 23:25, 23 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Exactly ten edits, then a promotional article for someone whose article was previously deleted at AfD as the eleventh edit? That's a bingo. Delete under WP:NOTPROMO, which is policy. Bakazaka (talk) 00:04, 25 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete not WP:GNG Lubbad85 (☎) 02:43, 26 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete piling on.E.M.Gregory (talk) 00:53, 30 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. MBisanz ^talk 20:19, 30 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Kat Wisniewski[edit]

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

I do not believe this individual meets WP:NAUTHOR as I can find no substantial coverage of her in reliable independent sources. I see from her biographical details that she teaches at Lillstreet Art Center and Blue Buddha Boutique, both of which feature among the citations for her article. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 10:42, 23 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 10:47, 23 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Artists-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 10:47, 23 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Illinois-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 10:48, 23 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 10:48, 23 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete no substantial, independent sources exist which can show notability. Fails WP:NBIO and WP:GNG. Jmertel23 (talk) 12:40, 23 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I have the impression that the author of the article has an undeclared conflict of interest. EXIx2 has been trying to write an autobiographical article about Joe E. Sanchez, and signs his contributions as Jose Sanchez (https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:EXIx2&diff=prev&oldid=413813922). Per the infobox, Kat Wisniewski's spouse is a person who is also named Jose Sanchez. Jose, please read WP:COI. Vexations (talk) 23:03, 23 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Just researched his book for another AFD. The author does not meet general notability criteria either, as per WP:NAUTHOR. Spyder212 (talk) 23:07, 23 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I apologize, I don't know how to comment on here properly so please forgive me for posting. You're half right and half wrong. Kat Wisniewski is a published artist and author, which is why I created the page. I originally created a page for myself because I felt some of my contributions were Wiki-worthy. I've since abandoned my efforts because of other things going on and left it on my user page because I was under the impression I could as long as it wasn't published. Kat is my wife, correct, but she does have published work. If the COI pertains to our pages piggybacking off each other, you're mistaken. Correlation does not imply causation. My user page was blanked for whatever reason, which I was fine with, but if the Wiki community feels that Kat's page and her book's page are not worthy of publication despite the references, just delete them. It's not worth it to go back and forth. — Preceding unsigned comment added by EXIx2 (talk • contribs) 18:25, 24 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete jewlerymaker/author fails WP:CREATIVE, failsWP:GNG.E.M.Gregory (talk) 00:55, 30 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. MBisanz ^talk 20:19, 30 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

New Connections in Chain Mail Jewelry with Rubber and Glass Rings[edit]

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

I do not believe this book meets WP:NBOOK as I can find no substantial coverage of it in reliable independent sources. The article is just a free advertisement for a non-notable book by an unknown author, Kat Wisniewski, whose Wikipedia article has just been created by the same creator. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 10:32, 23 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

~~Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 10:49, 23 April 2019 (UTC)~~[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 10:50, 23 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Clearly fails WP:NBOOK due to lack of published sources about the book. The only review I could find is from the Blue Buddha Boutique - with which the book's author is closely involved as per the "about" section on their website. Therefore, there are no independent sources regarding this book. Jmertel23 (talk) 12:37, 23 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
delete just can't see the notability, which the article BTW doesn't bother to assert anyway. Mangoe (talk) 12:57, 23 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Does not meet notability criteria as per WP:NBOOK. No relevant coverage... apart from having the book itself show up when researched. Spyder212 (talk) 23:05, 23 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete fails WP:NBOOK.E.M.Gregory (talk) 00:56, 30 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. Fenix down (talk) 14:49, 30 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Istvan Gaal (soccer)[edit]

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

Footballer who fails WP:NFOOTY. Only mentioned in external sources as a subject of an anecdote. BlameRuiner (talk) 10:28, 23 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 10:51, 23 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 10:51, 23 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 10:51, 23 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Hungary-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 10:51, 23 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions.CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 10:53, 23 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - fails WP:GNG and WP:NFOOTBALL. Interesting anecdote, but WP:BLP1E. Giant Snowman 10:57, 23 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Everything I find is about a director, film producer of the same name, so can't see anything towards WP:GNG. Govvy (talk) 11:04, 23 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Does not meet general notability criteria. Very few sources found, none seem to discuss this person as a soccer player. Spyder212 (talk) 23:04, 23 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete fails WP:NFOOTY.E.M.Gregory (talk) 00:57, 30 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) 16:46, 30 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

SubViewer[edit]

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

I don't see any evidence of notability here, and I don't see any in-depth coverage in Google search results. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 09:35, 23 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. CASSIOPEIA^(talk) 10:24, 23 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. CASSIOPEIA^(talk) 10:24, 23 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. CASSIOPEIA^(talk) 10:24, 23 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. CASSIOPEIA^(talk) 10:24, 23 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. CASSIOPEIA^(talk) 10:24, 23 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Fails the GNG; the only reliable sources I've been able to find for SubViewer are brief mentions of its file format being supported by other programs. --XenonNSMB (talk, contribs) 22:31, 23 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Does not meet general notability criteria. Very poor sources, none secondary or reliable in nature. Spyder212 (talk) 23:02, 23 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) 16:48, 30 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

DutchCulture[edit]

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

Fails WP:GNG/WP:CORPDEPTH. A few passing mentions and social media is all I found. Kleuske (talk) 09:22, 23 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Arts-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 09:24, 23 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Netherlands-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 09:25, 23 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. CASSIOPEIA^(talk) 09:25, 23 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. CASSIOPEIA^(talk) 09:25, 23 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. CASSIOPEIA^(talk) 09:25, 23 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Non-notable, does not pass WP:GNG. Skirts⁸⁹ 12:51, 23 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. I can’t find much either. Mccapra (talk) 17:43, 23 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Does not meet general notability criteria. Spyder212 (talk) 23:01, 23 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. The article is a fluffy and unintelligent PR piece. The topic is notable as DutchCulture is a new itteration of SICA and other organizations with a long and well-covered history. Still, in current state, we're much better off without the article. As a consequence, I'm rather happy with the direction of this discussion. While there shouldn't be a problem recreating it with the dry writeup of nl.wiki or translating it now to keep after all, this version would best be gone. It is rare that nl.wiki trumps en.wiki in anything. Since the fingerprints look clear, it may reflect a disrespect of DutchCulture for international audiences. gidonb (talk) 21:01, 27 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) 16:45, 30 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Sanjay Razdan[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

Previously Afd'd and refunded. Still unable to determine if notable. Ref 10 is advertising press release meaning promotional. Low h-index. Non notable. scope_creep^Talk 08:39, 23 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 08:41, 23 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Florida-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 08:41, 23 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 08:42, 23 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Pennsylvania-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 08:42, 23 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the Article Rescue Squadron's list of content for rescue consideration. 7&6=thirteen (☎) 16:12, 23 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete the article as written is a CV, and the sources are directory listings. Even if sources could be found to show notability, the article would need to be entirely rewritten. Natureium (talk) 14:08, 23 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Sources are all very spammy as is the article in question. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 15:56, 23 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Looking for independent sources shows very little in the way of "significant coverage in multiple sources". The most used source in the article is Dr. Sanjay Razdan, which is a two sentence "profile" of Razdan containing a link "ARE YOU DR. RAZDAN? Claim/Edit Your Profile". That's not even up to the quality of self-published content. --RexxS (talk) 17:49, 23 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. IntoThinAir (talk) 19:32, 23 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Does not meet general notability criteria. Poor sources- pretty much any physician involved in some research has just as many sources coming up with their name... Spyder212 (talk) 23:00, 23 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Citations, from Google Scholar: 76, 72, 48, 43 .... For biomedicine, we usually expect at least one article with >100. The three highest are reviews, which alwaysget higher citations, so I judge it's a little below the boundary for WP:PROF. Promotionalism is certain present--a string of very minor "" honors" -- "Marquis Who's Who in Medicine and Healthcare" DGG ( talk ) 02:05, 24 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep WP:ANYBIO subject received many awards and has made a widely recognized contribution in his field. WP:NOTPAPER. As to the votes to delete because the article needs a rewrite...WP:NOTCLEANUP. Lubbad85 (☎) 17:12, 24 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
- WP:ANYBIO: "... has received a well-known and significant award or honor, or has been nominated for such an award several times." What is the well-known and significant award Razdan has received? The awards mentioned in the article are so well-known that not a single one of them has a Wikipedia article. "... has made a widely recognized contribution that is part of the enduring historical record in his or her specific field (Generally, a person who is "part of the enduring historical record" will have been written about, in depth, independently in multiple history books on that field, by historians)." What are the multiple history books that contain the in-depth coverage of Razdan's contributions to his field? Not one of these multiple history books is cited in the article. Notability requires verifiable evidence, not mere assertions. This article obviously fails ANYBIO as well as GNG. --RexxS (talk) 17:29, 24 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
delete per nominators rationale--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 21:57, 24 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I tried, but can't find WP:RS per WP:Before. I would love to improve the article away from the precipice. He seems to be notable in his world (and maybe common usage) — he seems to have good credentials, but not provably notable per WP:GNG in Wikipedia. We are trying to build an encyclopædia, and those are the rules. 7&6=thirteen (☎) 22:20, 24 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Comment WOW, a lot has happened here since I was on Holidays. Well, it's god to see that a lot of people are interested in this page because the other in the lists are hardly voted and same happened to the first nomination that I just checked. Anyway, based of WP:GNG it clearly says If a topic has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject, it is presumed to be suitable for a stand-alone article or list. So, if this is not notable I guess half of the articles on Wikipedia should be deleted. I am impressed from the profiles of people participated here and disappointed that notability is based on personal opinions as someone who failed to get the article down came again with a force. This Dr is well known in the field and helped 1000s of people to fight cancer and diseases, received awards, peer review journals, publications widely used in the medical field. and if this DR is not notable based on references then these Henry Dalton, Donald L. Custis and many other like these must be deleted as they lack references. So, please better decide if these are policies or something else. And if there are references in question like someone mentioned above is a press or something you can remove. I was creating a page for a second DR who is helping humanity but I think I should not or better I'll ask in TEA HOUSE before creating a new one because what I'm raeding on WP:GNG and WP:PROF MaxiColeman40 (talk) 16:02, 25 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - MaxiColeman40 I am also surprised - To make your point...Mr. Whipple and Charlie the Tuna each get a stand alone article...let that sink in. I hope you do not get discouraged from starting articles. Also RexxS You have stated your opinion - and now you should let the editors vote without being WP:Tendentious Lubbad85 (☎) 21:38, 25 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@Lubbad85: Please learn how to indent your responses. There's a good guide at MOS:LISTGAP. This is a discussion, not a vote. That means that editors are expected to debate their positions based on Wikipedia policy, which you have singularly failed to do. Your stated reasons to keep do not meet what is required by ANYBIO and you should expect other editors such as myself to make that clear as part of the debate. Calling another editor "tendentious" is a personal attack and I'll ask you politely to strike it. Resorting to ad hominem argument against criticism is a sure sign that you have no policy to back up your assertions. --RexxS (talk) 00:46, 26 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Subject is notable in the medical field related to both Urology and Robotic Surgery. Subject wrote the first ever book on Urinary Continence and Sexual Function After Robotic Radical Prostatectomy which is a significant contribution in the field of Urology. See link: https://www.springer.com/us/book/9783319394466 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2600:1700:7BB0:950:303C:2403:1A6C:944 (talk) 11:59, 25 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I think that the immediately preceding comment was by User:IceChris77, and that editor had inadvertently failed to sign in and was editing so that the school IP showed up. 7&6=thirteen (☎) 21:47, 25 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

User:7&6=thirteen I don't know anything about this topic, so someone else might've used my school's IP. IceChris77 (talk) 22:41, 25 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for correcting my wrongful supposition. 7&6=thirteen (☎) 00:41, 26 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment 2600:1700:7BB0:950:303C:2403:1A6C:944 The book you detailed is not written by the subject. The book is full of articles written by other physicians and he is only the editor. @MaxiColeman40: WP:NPROF is the most stringent bio policy that Wikipedia has and as it is so exacting you can almost tell at a glance whether a person satisfies the standard, unlike WP:GNG which for the most part is subjective. I would suggest the next time you write an article, leave it up at WP:AFC and allow it to be reviewed, corrected and corrections/suggestions made instead of prematurely moving it into main-space where it didn't belong and wasn't ready and wasn't notable. scope_creep^Talk 21:43, 25 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Comment @Lubbad85: Regarding your comments about tendentious editing. I would suggest you strike, apologise and move on. It was a poor choice of words, since there was no evidence for it. scope_creep^Talk 17:09, 26 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. fails WP:NPROF.E.M.Gregory (talk) 01:00, 30 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I think does not meet the general notability criteria. -MA Javadi (talk) 15:15, 30 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. MBisanz ^talk 20:17, 30 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Ally Prisock[edit]

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

Footballer who fails WP:NFOOTY and WP:GNG BlameRuiner (talk) 08:21, 23 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 08:42, 23 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 08:43, 23 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 08:43, 23 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions.CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 09:29, 23 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - fails WP:GNG and WP:NFOOTBALL. Giant Snowman 09:44, 23 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

DO NOT DELETE Ms. Prisock is a National Championship winning soccer player who has represented the US at several youth levels of youth and signed and played as a professional soccer player with the Houston Dash after being drafted in the 2019 NWSL College Draft, a professional sports draft. Moreover, at the collegial level she broke several school records at USC and was awarded with multiple honors during her time there which that saw her get a profile piece in the Los Angeles Times. She also has profiles on ESPN, US Soccer, the National Women's Soccer League, the Houston Dash, Yahoo Sports and Soccerway websites. Surely this makes her equivalent to other rookies within the NWSL league, the top league of professional soccer in the United States, who already have pages on Wikipedia.
- Comment: She has no appearances for Dash apart from friendlies. ~~And NWSL isn't even on fully-pro leagues list~~ My bad, it is.--BlameRuiner (talk) 11:53, 23 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: The National Women's Soccer League (NWSL) is a fully professional football league on the list and considered the best women's league in the world. Prisock has yet to make an appearance in the league because she is a rookie and the regular season started just last week. She did appear as an unused substitute in that week's game. However, as she has a contract signed and was a highly recruited prospect it is unlikely that this will not change soon.
Draftify Seems like a case of WP:TOOSOON. Not sure that the LA Times article quite qualifies for WP:SIGCOV, and since the individual does not meet WP:NFOOTY at the moment, but may in the future, this seems like the best option. Also, @Cetteuqap: please start signing your posts. Jay eyem (talk) 22:55, 23 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Draftify Agreed this feels like a WP:TOOSOON.
Comment: here's another player from the same club with no caps, by the same editor: Devon Kerr. Is separate Afd needed? --BlameRuiner (talk) 05:21, 24 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@BlameRuiner: At this point, yes. SportingFlyer T·C 18:24, 25 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 07:40, 28 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. Because of the low level of participation, no prejudice to renominating this after a month or so. Randykitty (talk) 16:44, 30 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Orange County Ramblers[edit]

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

Page was deleted after merge to List of Continental Football League teams which avoided a PROD deletion. Subsequently restored later with no changes to content. Dubious sources include potential WP:COI issues. WP:POV issues also with the unsourced references to the film "Skidoo" as a "notorious flop". As some of the players may still be alive, we have potential WP:BLP issues with the movie reference. Otherwise, simply fails WP:GNG. Paul McDonald (talk) 18:53, 9 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of American football-related deletion discussions. Paul McDonald (talk) 18:54, 9 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. Icewhiz (talk) 19:36, 9 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. Icewhiz (talk) 19:36, 9 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Are other Continental Football League pages up for deletion, too? DetroitWheels74 (talk) 01:15, 10 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Two others semi-pro teams at this time, one was CFL: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Lehigh Valley Storm and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Indianapolis Capitols. Similar articles, but I believe they should be handled separately. I'm not a big fan of "bulk deletions" and there's no harm in taking time to address the articles and subjects individually. I'll be happy to withdrawal the nominations should proper sourcing or evidence be introduced that meets WP:GNG..--Paul McDonald (talk) 01:58, 10 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Also, I have no issues with the article Continental Football League--well done and nicely sourced.--Paul McDonald (talk) 02:00, 10 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. This team existed from 1967–69, so any potential sources that might be available here will very likely be offline. Do we know that a thorough WP:BEFORE search has been conducted here (including searching offline sources)? Ejgreen77 (talk) 03:59, 10 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
- My online search produced only passing mentions in a few articles and the article was previously deleted.--Paul McDonald (talk) 12:28, 10 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep several hits on newspapers.com, including [23] this which suggests the Ramblers were covered significantly in local press at the time. The OCR isn't great though so there are probably more mentions. I'll source the Skidoo flop bit, it came right up in the New Yorker in an online search. SportingFlyer T·C 01:53, 14 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
- I can't get past the firewall for that reference... can you find a way to add it to the article? If you've read it I'm willing to WP:AGF and call it good.--Paul McDonald (talk) 22:41, 16 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  - If you click on the (OCR) link and search for "Ramblers," you'll see there's a mention get covered in a pull-out we don't have access to on newspapers.com. A newspapers.com web search brings up several other mentions from a variety of different local papers. Nothing super, but I'm almost certain there's something out there to satisfy WP:NEXIST. SportingFlyer T·C 00:22, 17 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 04:08, 16 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep subject is WP:GNG. in addition I add WP:NOTCLEANUP Lubbad85 (☎) 19:51, 16 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
- Please provide details to your position for better understanding. How is it cleanup? What sources meet GNG?--Paul McDonald (talk) 22:41, 16 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 08:20, 23 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. Randykitty (talk) 16:38, 30 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Raoul Bellanova[edit]

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

Youth footballer with no senior appearances, fails WP:NFOOTY. Media coverage is routine, passing GNG is doubtful. At the very least should be draftified. BlameRuiner (talk) 08:02, 23 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Giant Snowman 08:26, 23 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - fails WP:GNG and WP:NFOOTBALL. Giant Snowman 08:29, 23 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 08:45, 23 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 08:45, 23 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Italy-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 08:45, 23 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Draft I say move this too draft space, I maybe going WP:CRYSTAL on this, but normally youth players who play that much international youth football normally get a pro game around this age. Govvy (talk) 10:12, 23 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Passes WP:GNG, and doesn't take a big crystal ball to see that 1 million Euro transfer,[24] being paid 700-900 thousand Euro per annum,[25] is going to meet NFOOTY. In terms of GNG - there are all sorts of profiles of him when he was in the market for leaving Milan, e.g.: [26][27][28]. There's gossipy stuff like: [29]. Youth stuff - [30][31]. There stuff related to the international U19/X Italian teams. A prospect/signing of this caliber (major club, international U19 in major football nation, already signed to a not insignificant pro-contract) - has more coverage that some of the 2nd/3rd leaguers were currently keep by NFOOTY.Icewhiz (talk) 12:37, 24 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Draft I'm there with Icewhiz, but he doesn't pass WP:NFOOTY yet, and if he disappeared today wouldn't quite be notable. (That of course assumes the disappearance itself wouldn't be notable, but that's not the point!) SportingFlyer T·C 18:23, 25 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Draftify – I'm on the fence about whether this and this are WP:SIGCOV to meet GNG. This "gossipy" one isn't really about the player, and the other stuff like this is too short/routine to be significant in my eyes. One more good-length profile would make me a keep !voter, but until then, draftify. Leviv ich 01:43, 26 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. Fenix down (talk) 14:48, 30 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Jordan–Syria football rivalry[edit]

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

Are there any references to the disagreements between these two countries applying specifically to football? it wouldn't surprise me, but there do not seem to be any in the article. I can't really do a adequate BEFORE on this, but I bring it herem for discussion, because perhaps someone else can. DGG ( talk ) 07:47, 23 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Jordan-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 07:54, 23 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Syria-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 07:54, 23 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 07:55, 23 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 07:55, 23 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions.CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 07:56, 23 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete -Read the reports of matches - none mention a specific, long-lasting rivalry. The closest they get is discussing the match as having a "derby feel". Couldn't find any sources discussing this in my WP:BEFORE. FOARP (talk) 08:06, 23 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no evidence of a notable rivalry. Giant Snowman 08:15, 23 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Though it could be put in the Keep file, it does not quite have the sources, and I can't find any that could potentially save it, and there are too many blanks in the goalscorers column, despite at least one side scoring, if any new sources come up to help strengthen its validity, it may just save it. Cheesy McGee 13:18, 28 April (UTC)

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. Drmies (talk) 02:18, 29 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

20,150,122 (number)[edit]

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

Non-notable number Ymblanter (talk) 07:10, 23 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. No indication of notability. (Being the index of a non-notable date doesn't help.) No speedy condition applies. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 09:41, 23 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete not notable. Looking at the orignal version of this shows it was not created in good faith. Thincat (talk) 10:16, 23 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, I did not notice this before. I now revision-deleted this edit.--Ymblanter (talk) 10:34, 23 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Definitely doesn't meet WP:NUMBER. Probably the best AfD discussion yet. - Funky Snack (Talk) 12:40, 23 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Oversight is never a good sign, and there's nothing notable about the number. John M Wolfson (talk) 19:45, 23 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - No obvious notability of this particular number... Spyder212 (talk) 22:58, 23 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
If this was created as a personal attack then surely it can be speedily deleted under WP:G10? The content that remains obviously serves no purpose. Phil Bridger (talk) 09:04, 24 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. Whether or not it's a personal attack, it's a personal anecdote (probably doxxing, if nothing else), so it has no relevance to the question of whether the number article should exist. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 05:08, 27 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Not notable. Also it doesn't indicate any kind of special case regarding the number. Sincerely, Masum Reza^☎ 08:33, 27 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete (this can probably be closed early), although an admirable number (the same can probably be said about 20,150,121 and 20,150,123:)), nothing about it makes it wikinotable. Coolabahapple (talk) 03:46, 28 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) 16:33, 30 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Chandio[edit]

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

Subject does not appear to meet relevant notability guidelines and lacks non-trivial coverage from reliable publications. Steps were taken to locate said sources WP:BEFORE this nomination, but were not successful. Pertinent maintenance templates have been ignored for going on 6 years now. Please do not hesitate to contact me should appropriate sources be located during the course of this discussion. Regards, Yamaguchi先生 (talk) 20:39, 15 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 21:25, 15 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Iran-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 21:25, 15 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I just added 2 new newspaper references to the unreferenced article from Dawn (newspaper) of Pakistan. Was that all that was needed? I am asking a simple and sincere question because I am somewhat confused as to what is expected here. By clicking on the other tribal names in the already installed Baloch tribes template at the subject article, one can see that many of them are somewhat neglected articles. Ngrewal1 (talk) 01:08, 22 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. We need resources that provide significant and trustworthy coverage of the tribe itself. Newspapers primarily exist to sell themselves by telling people things regarding what they want to hear about (while avoiding errors of the sort that will lead to legal difficulties), so they hire journalists who learn to write quickly on topics of public interest. They don't generally hire specialists in certain disciplines, either to write or to review others' writing. Consequently, we really need a different kind of source, ideally an anthropological or ethnographic book from a university press. Nyttend (talk) 03:11, 23 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, B dash (talk) 06:36, 23 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Nyttend that seems an unusually harsh verdict on the “Dawn” which is a long established newspaper of record in Pakistan. Yes, ideally we would have a scholarly source but I don’t think that’s a minimum standard we apply to all such articles. There’s another press ref here and here. There’s also a scholarly ref here, here and here. Mccapra (talk) 21:52, 23 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

No, newspapers are not generally reliable sources. They virtually never cite their sources, they self-publish, and they're almost never written or reviewed by trustworthy authors. Moreover, none of these sources are useful either. Who are Isha Books or Om Gupta? Anyone with money can produce an encyclopedia: we need sources with reputations for reliability. Taylor and Francis, conversely, is reliable, but we also need sources that cover the topic significantly, rather than making passing references in a couple of places as these books do. Nyttend (talk) 05:08, 24 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

sorry Nyttend, but you are being ridiculous, of course newspapers can be used as reliable sources, see Wikipedia:Reliable sources#News organizations. Coolabahapple (talk) 03:28, 28 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment well one of the sources I suggested is based on a PhD thesis, or do you not consider that reliable either? Given the nature of the topic and the number of tribes in Pakistan, I wouldn’t expect much in-depth coverage unless we happened to come across an anthropologist who has selected them for particular study. Mccapra (talk) 05:21, 24 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I couldn't find any anthropological studies but I did find studies concerned with genetics and health. Phil Bridger (talk) 09:24, 24 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Comment For right now, what is the official Wikipedia policy about the use of 'reliable newspapers sources'? Does it say for Wikipedia editors NOT to use newspaper sources at this moment? After these lengthy philosophical debates, Wikipedia policy-making staff should FIRST clearly state whether newspaper sources can be used. Right now, Dawn newspaper of Pakistan is considered a 'usable' source, which I have used in my editing. Ngrewal1 (talk) 15:27, 24 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

don't worry Ngrewal1, this is Nyttend's personal opinion, there are numerous newspapers that can be used, including Dawn, ie. from WP:NEWSORG - "News reporting from well-established news outlets is generally considered to be reliable for statements of fact (though even the most reputable reporting sometimes contains errors)." Of course, it does depend on what the source is to be used for, wp:newsorg goes on to discuss this. Coolabahapple (talk) 03:30, 28 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I've spent all my professional life studying, and advancing the body of human knowledge, in history; is it any wonder why I'm getting rather annoyed when you're telling me that you know better than scholars how to evaluate sources? Go speak to members of my committee and see how they react when you tell them that newspapers are reliable secondary sources for anything, especially reliable secondary sources for articles in the journal that one has edited. Or better yet, find me any prominent professional academics who hold such a position, and in the mean time read WP:FRINGE. Nyttend (talk) 03:39, 28 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

hi Nyttend, i am not saying "i know better than scholars how to evaluate sources", i just pointed out that, for wikipedia, newspapers can be used as sources (see Wikipedia:News sources - "The purpose of this page is to provide a list of links that can be used to research current events and news stories. It provides links to reliable sources for Wikipedia articles by way of connections to websites in various parts of the world.", and WP:NEWSORG as above), i am not telling your or your colleagues what to use for sources for the journal that you contribute to, or any other academic for that matter, as for WP:FRINGE - "the term fringe theory is used in a very broad sense to describe an idea that departs significantly from the prevailing views or mainstream views in its particular field.", as the "particular field" we are talking about here is wikipedia, that allows newspapers as sources, not academia, it doesn't apply. Coolabahapple (talk) 15:14, 29 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. For historical reasons. It can be further developed. Great tribe. Germcrow (talk) 12:33, 26 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Ethnic groups-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 01:37, 28 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, meets WP:GNG from sources given above and in the article. Coolabahapple (talk) 02:20, 28 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) 16:30, 30 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Pressman Advertising Limited[edit]

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

No indication of significant coverage in independent, reliable sources. Relies almost entirely of self-published and affiliated sources with no evidence of passing CORPDEPTH. SITH (talk) 22:01, 15 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

So, you did not notice the refs 5 to 10 that look possible independent reliable sources that I've just restored a few minutes ago but they need fixing. Im not voting until I've checked them out but this is a public company so it may be notable Atlantic306 (talk) 22:12, 15 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 23:53, 15 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 23:54, 15 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 23:54, 15 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Atlantic306, yes, I did. See below a source analysis.

Source	Independent?	Reliable?	Significant coverage?	Count source toward GNG?
Source assessment table:
1	? Archived version of what appears to be a company magazine, hosted on company's website.	~ For basic info, potentially.	By virtue of being self-published.	? Unknown
2	? Hosted on company's website, source material doesn't appear affiliated.	? Unfamiliar with publication.	WP:NOTSTATS	✘ No
3	? Ditto.	? Ditto.	Ditto.	✘ No
4	? Ditto.	? Ditto.	Ditto.	✘ No
5	Google Searches reveal that the exact same piece was published in other publications, suggesting this is a press release.	~ For basic info, potentially.	By virtue of being a press release.	✘ No
6	? 404	? 404	? 404	? Unknown
7	? 404	? 404	? 404	? Unknown
8	? 404	? 404	? 404	? Unknown
9	? 404	? 404	? 404	? Unknown
10	Press release.	~ For basic info, potentially.	By virtue of being a press release.	✘ No
This table may not be a final or consensus view; it may summarize developing consensus, or reflect assessments of a single editor. Created using ((source assess table)).

Note that the URLs of the sources which either redirect to their homepage or display a 404 error all contain key words from existing sources like number 10 which suggest they were also press releases.

Many thanks, SITH (talk) 11:45, 16 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Agree with your assessment of references 1-5 and 10, will try to fix refs 6-9 later today for assessment, thanks Atlantic306 (talk) 14:58, 16 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Refs 6 and 7 work now, but couldn't fix 8 and 9. No 6 is probably the best one but there doesn't seem to be enough coverage in rs unless someone finds more, thanks Atlantic306 (talk) 19:21, 16 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, B dash (talk) 06:36, 23 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) 16:28, 30 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Brian McKechnie (producer)[edit]

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

WP:BLP of a single-market local television journalist, "referenced" as usual solely to his self-published website and his staff profile on the website of his own employer rather than any evidence of reliable source coverage about him. Nothing here is an automatic notability freebie just because he exists; he would have to clear WP:GNG on the sourceability, but there's no evidence that he does so. Bearcat (talk) 06:12, 23 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 06:23, 23 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 06:23, 23 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 07:37, 23 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete one-market film critics witout wide syndication of publication in a top publication are almost never notable.John Pack Lambert (talk) 18:50, 27 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Is not notable to have his own Wiki Article. Shemtovca (talk) 17:38, 28 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. -- Scott Burley (talk) 08:12, 30 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Marutheeram Thedi[edit]

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

Fails GNG & WP:NFILM. Uses only WP:SPS, and google does not yield enough sourcing of this future show. -- Amanda (aka DQ) 05:52, 23 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 05:53, 23 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 05:53, 23 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 07:39, 23 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Fails WP:GNG and no notable secondary sources. Pretty obvious WP:NPROMO violation as well. Skirts⁸⁹ 10:17, 23 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Current sourcing doesn't demonstrate notability, and I can't find anything better. There isn't much content in the article, so if the show does become notable in future it wouldn't be a major hassle to rewrite from scratch. GirthSummit _(blether) 10:20, 23 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Does not meet general notability criteria, poorly sourced at the moment. Spyder212 (talk) 22:57, 23 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. Fenix down (talk) 06:56, 30 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Cristian Gorgerino[edit]

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

Article about footballer who made 1 appearance in the fully-pro Argentine Primera. There is a well-established consensus that making a single appearance in a fully-pro league is not sufficient to pass WP:NFOOTBALL when the article comprehensively fails WP:GNG (see e.g., Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Phakamani Mngadi). Gorgerino dropped down to the regionalized Argentine semi-pro leagues and after suffering a knee injury in March 2018, has yet to play again at even the semi-pro level. Online Argentine media coverage is entirely routine - transfer announcements, a two-sentence note on his knee injury and a brief note about his debut with Belgrano a few years ago. Jogurney (talk) 05:25, 23 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 05:43, 23 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Argentina-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 05:43, 23 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 05:43, 23 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions.CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 05:44, 23 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Scraping by NFOOTY and failing GNG. There's a bit of coverage of his debut. There is a little bit of coverage on his subsequent transfer (or per this interview - [32] - not quite a transfer (the club denied he was on the roster though he trained with them)). Nothing since. Icewhiz (talk) 08:10, 23 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom; there is consensus that barely meting NFOOTBALL is insufficient when GNG is not met. Giant Snowman 08:14, 23 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Does not meet general notability criteria, poorly sourced, not quite meeting notability criteria per WP:NSOCCER. Spyder212 (talk) 22:56, 23 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. -- Scott Burley (talk) 21:36, 28 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Pixel Gun 3D: Battle Royale[edit]

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

Only one of the provided references is independent of the subject— that reference calls this app "one of the most popular apps in the Android ecosystem", which seems odd since a Google News search turns up no actual discussion of the subject (though many trivial mentions). I suspect this means the subject is not sufficiently notable to warrant a Wikipedia article. A loose necktie (talk) 01:56, 9 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Video games-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 06:04, 9 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy redirect: All sources from own wikia, does not prove notability. I wrote a new one though, so I guess we can redirect to mine. Please help out! Oshawott 12 ==()== Talk to me! 07:52, 9 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. Huh, never realized how little coverage this game actually has. The game has over 50 million downloads from Google Play alone however, so please bear that in mind. Mosaicberry (talk) 13:13, 9 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy redirect to Pixel Gun 3D per CoolSkittle, didn't see that. Mosaicberry (talk) 12:29, 10 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy redirect to Pixel Gun 3D, which is an article of much better quality created by Oshawott 12. CoolSkittle (talk) 01:44, 10 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

...Is it...? It’s barely a paragraph, and has 6 sources that I’ve never heard of, that look like they are of dubious quality... Sergecross73 msg me 16:52, 12 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Could we move any of the information from the Pixel Gun 3D: Battle Royale page to the new Pixel Gun 3D page before it gets deleted? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Smith John Mr. (talk • contribs) 19:55, 10 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment @A loose necktie, Oshawott 12, Mosaicberry, and CoolSkittle: There's some bad procedural-ness going on here. The article has originally been deleted under the name Pixel Gun 3D 3 times as G1, G11, and G11. (I'm not counting a R2 due to a draft move). Smith John created it under a new name, which is probably innocent enough. Moving a separate draft to Pixel Gun 3D while an AFD on the topic is already underway is probably premature and a bit out of procedure. AFD should be evaluating the topics suitably for an article. Votes for speedy redirect should be clarified as Keeps so its clear you're indicating you believe the topic passes WP:GNG. -- ferret (talk) 11:44, 11 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I wasn’t aware that that this article was created, so the draft was moved to Pixel Gun 3D. However, my article was made to be the passing one. I’m confused as though what happens if we change to keep, though. Will my article be moved here, or will that article redirect to mine? The topic passes WP:GNG, but this article’s sources doesn’t work. I did try to nominate this for speedy delete, but this deletion discussion was already in place. Oshawott 12 ==()== Talk to me! 11:52, 11 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

You literally voted on this AFD, then moved your Draft to mainspace....... You were fully aware. Vote "Keep, but redirect", if you want, but what needs evaluated is whether "Pixel Gun 3D" is a notable topic, not whether one article is better than the other. -- ferret (talk) 11:56, 11 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

Delete - I’m not seeing the third party reliable source coverage necessary to meet the WP:GNG. Actively against the redirect suggested above as well - that should be deleted as well, as that also hasn’t been established as notable. (It’s the same thing under a different name.) Sergecross73 msg me 22:00, 16 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Oshawott 12 ==()== Talk to me! 15:15, 21 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete both this and Pixel Gun 3D since they are about the same subject. I just don't see how this video game meets WP:GNG in any case. My WP:BEFORE brought me this [33] but that by itself is not enough (and the source is just listed as situational per WP:VG/RS). There is a big reaching over here to make this game notable, but it is not. Speedy redirect !votes should be discounted as they do not discuss the notability of the subject, just like Ferret has said. Analyzing the references from Pixel Gun 3D:
- 1) A information about the number of downloads, but not a secondary source.
- 2) A rehash of a press release, and comes from an unreliable website (no staff even listed).
- 3) A single paragraph included which is: "To get started you can customize your character with a few Minecraft skins to choose from. Next you will pick which game mode you want to play. The options include Survival, Deathmatch, and Co-op. Each mode can have up to 10 people competing against one another online. Like any good shoot-em-up game there are a variety of maps and weapons to choose from. You can even create your own “server” for a game." I don't see editorial policy for this page, but the staff is listed. Either way, not WP:SIGCOV.
- 4) Seems like an unreliable page as well. No staff listed, and the depth of the (short) coverage is as same as 3).
- 5) WP:PRIMARY interview with the developer of the game. Does not count towards WP:GNG.
- 6) Translating it through Google, it has 1 paragraph that says nothing about the game except "it is a charming game"/"test it and reply down in the comments if you like it or not", while rehashing features from the press release after. Jovanmilic97 (talk) 08:48, 22 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note to closing admin - this probably looks more complicated than it is. We’ve got two delete !votes due to the lack of reliable sources. And two people who want to redirect the subject...to itself. Essentially a “keep and rename”. But there’s no valid keep argument presented, nor any arguments presented that it meets the WP:GNG. Sergecross73 msg me 14:39, 25 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete due to a lack of notability mostly explained by others above; very little information can be found about this subject by searching. Redirecting is also a poor option for the same reasons. Geolodus (talk) 18:47, 27 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - this article just doesn't seem to pass WP:GNG. Videogameplayer99 (talk) 07:19, 28 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. -- Scott Burley (talk) 08:09, 30 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Glendale United Methodist Church[edit]

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

Non-notable church that does not meet WP:GNG or WP:ORGDEPTH, as per WP:BEFORE source searches. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 04:13, 23 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 04:13, 23 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 04:13, 23 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Tennessee-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 04:13, 23 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Clearly a run-of-the-mill church. St Anselm (talk) 04:21, 23 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Does not meet general notability criteria. Spyder212 (talk) 22:53, 23 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Created by Glendaleumc (talk · contribs), this kind of AfD is really a huge waste of time for everyone. I wish there was a way to deal with these listings more expeditiously. Graywalls (talk) 00:58, 26 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. -- Scott Burley (talk) 08:08, 30 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Vikki Tobak[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

Deleted in September 2017. Not seeing enough to suggest the subject is now sufficiently notable. Edwardx (talk) 19:06, 16 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. ...William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 19:29, 16 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. ...William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 19:29, 16 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Kazakhstan-related deletion discussions. ...William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 19:29, 16 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Michigan-related deletion discussions. ...William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 19:29, 16 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nomination. Mccapra (talk) 22:42, 16 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per WP:AUTHOR #3 or #4. Any of the article's useful references need reformatting, but the book "Contact High" has been profiled by a number of reliable sources and standalone exhibitions have been centered around it. Some examples: LA Times CNN Washington Post Kennedy Center New York Times WICN public radio Photo District News — Preceding unsigned comment added by LovelyLillith (talk • contribs) 00:55, 19 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 03:58, 23 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per WP:AUTHOR. Publication of Contact High earned the subject notability she didn't have in 2017. —Rutebega (talk) 18:13, 24 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep passes WP:AUTHOR.E.M.Gregory (talk) 01:18, 30 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) Crystallizedcarbon (talk) 06:15, 30 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Bronco McLoughlin[edit]

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

Fails WP:ACTOR and WP:GNG. Article has been a poorly-sourced stub for nearly twelve years with any significant coverage coming after his death. Sure, he was in the waterfall sequence in The Mission and taught Harrison Ford how to use a bullwhip, but such trivia isn't enough to sustain an article. sixtynine ^{• whaddya want? •} 02:46, 16 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete The only sources I can find on him other than this article, IMDb, and the Hollywood Stuntmen Hall of Fame (where he's just a name on a list) are obituaries on him (RIP, by the way). -John M Wolfson (talk) 03:46, 16 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 04:54, 16 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Animal-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 04:55, 16 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 04:55, 16 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Ireland-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 04:55, 16 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 04:57, 16 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep. On WP:GNG, while the primary coverage found in more recent (online) news sources all largely relate to coverage of the subject's death, I have found at least a handful of coverage in older (offline/archived) news sources. Including this piece in a (granted less than 'paper of record') news source from 1999. Which seems to suggest that the subject had his own (one-off?) national broadcast TV special. Or this piece in a (granted 'glossy magazine' rather than 'scholarly journal') print piece from 2013. Given that many of the subject's activities were in the 1960s and 1970s, and hence predate the internet, it is perhaps unsurprising that these are not "Google-able". And there could well be more coverage in older print pieces. (FWIW, as the subject's name is pretty distinctive, I did a quick search in the Irish news archives, and they returned about a dozen mentions in digitised news articles dating from 1972 to 1995). On WP:NACTOR, while GNG and SIGCOV would likely need to be considered also, there would seem to be sufficient evidence that the subject has had "significant roles in multiple notable films" and relatively " prolific [..] contributions to a field of entertainment". While we're perhaps not swimming in sources to the extent that is "cut and dried", I would personally (if only just slightly) lean towards a cautious 'keep'.... Guliolopez (talk) 22:58, 16 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as per the additional reliable sources identified above so that the coverage is not all post- death, although an obituary in The Guardian national newspaper is certainly a sign of notability, thanks Atlantic306 (talk) 15:44, 21 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 03:49, 23 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

keep per Gulio. I dont think subject passes NACTOR, but he definitely passes GNG for his time period. —usernamekiran(talk) 05:35, 23 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Passes WP:NACTOR, WP:GNG, WP:BASIC and WP:ANYBIO. Andrew D. (talk) 12:28, 23 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included by Andrew Davidson in the Article Rescue Squadron's list of content for rescue consideration. --Tryptofish (talk) 15:44, 23 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Not too familiar with the special guidelines, but clearly has sigcov for GNG. When someone is in the "Hall of Fame" for his profession and receives lengthy obits in major newspapers, this is a strong signal they are notable. -- GreenC 13:04, 23 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep - Not the actor with the most media coverage, but does seem to have sufficient reliable sources available to meet the general notability criteria and to some extent WP:NACTOR. Spyder212 (talk) 22:52, 23 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per GreenC. He's no Yakima Canutt, but he did get plenty of media coverage. Clarityfiend (talk) 23:35, 23 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Passes WP:NACTOR, and WP:ANYBIO Widely recognized contribution in his field. Lubbad85 (☎) 17:15, 24 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep thanks to sourcing during this discussion. E.M.Gregory (talk) 01:17, 30 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Guliolopez. Dream Focus 01:39, 30 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 and redirect to The Christian O'Connell Breakfast Show. Randykitty (talk) 16:26, 30 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Jack Post (radio presenter)[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

Per my original nom which was overrun by spas No evidence he is notable outside of his role in The Christian O'Connell Breakfast Show and as the redirect was contested, no choice but to afd + delete and redirect. I'llalso note that not a single keep!vote last time was by a user with any experience or edits outside of articles related to the subject.Praxidicae (talk) 19:49, 16 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Radio-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 20:01, 16 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 20:01, 16 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Ditto last time. Only change from last time is two SPA IP article edits with unreferenced BLP and possible hoax material. There is some "media personality" reporting but it is all very routine as far as I can see. Subject does not seem to have done anything notable / creative yet. The one, minor award is not enough to get over the GNG line. Aoziwe (talk) 23:23, 16 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Sorry about last time, if it got a bit heated, I think people may have gotten a bit heated just due to frustrations. But I do believe that Jack Post's page deserves to stay. With all due respect though, I dont see why this article should be deleted as it is only adding to Wikipedia, and is causing no harm. While his "fame" started while working on the Hamish and Andy show, in the recent couple of years, his presence has grown in Victorian and Australian Radio and will only continue to grow. The Hamish and Andy show's success is arguably unmatched when it comes to radio success, and with Jack being a producer and in later years, effectively the third host of the show, his involvement in the radio show plays a big part in the show's success. Both Hamish and Andy have said before that much of the show's success in recent years, is all thanks to Jack, and it can be determined that Jack Post was a crucial factor to the show's great success. Jack has also been involved in many other things of the Hamish and Andy show, making regular appearances in the Comedy duo's Logie winning TV series 'Gap Year'. After the Hamish and Andy radio show came to an end in 2017, Jack's presence in Australian radio and comedy has grown and is growing. With his work as a Co-host on the Christian O'Connell show, and his work as Co-host on the Hamish and Andy Podcast, his presence in Australian comedy and radio is what I believe worthy of a Wikipedia article. He has a verified account on Instagram, and with the popularity of the programs he currently works on increasing, His popularity is only going to increase, and I believe, he will be a notable figure in Australian Radio in the next couple of years. Again with all due respect, the comedic band 'Cool Boys and the Frontman' (which is a band made up by Hamish Blake, Andy Lee and Jack post) has a Wikipedia article, with the band being formed as a comedic band for the radio show. Whilst the Band did do many significant things, it was a joke band created by the three, and has significantly less air time than Jack Post. I dont want to point fingers at other articles, but I dont see why this Joke Band created by the three is able to have a Wikipedia article with the band not being active for since 2017, while one of its members, who has a much bigger and growing presence, is not seen as notable enough for a Wikipedia article. While all the things I just said, are reasons as to why I think he should be worthy of a Wikipedia article, there are other Wikipedia articles that exist, in which I believe have significantly less notability, and I believe that if those smaller pages exist, I dont see why Jack post, a rising figure in Australian Radio, is not seen as notable enough for a Wikipedia article.

Overall, I'm sorry if this is a bit too long or if it gets a bit heated, but I believe that Jack Post is notable enough for a Wikipedia article, and I am just a bit frustrated at the issues that the article has faced over his notability, when there is evidence that he is a big enough figure in Australian radio. I hope you can understand where I am coming from, and we can all come to a consensus on the debate.--NickBarker123444431 (talk) 10:42, 17 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment NickBarker123444431 We all have our subjective views on what should be kept or not kept. I freely admit I too. There is no absolute objectivity in this. It is by concensus. If I may, however, make an observation on at least one key point you made above, ie, and I believe, he will be a notable figure in Australian Radio in the next couple of years. This I can agree with. He is not yet notable. Regards. Aoziwe (talk) 11:11, 17 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep. There are a few issues here. Firstly, I never like it when I see the message "This article may have been created or edited in return for undisclosed payments" at the top of an article. Secondly, I am both for and against keeping this article. Yes, he's part of a big show in Australia, but ... does he meet the notability requirements? I don't think so. Regarding your comment above, I think when (or indeed, if) he becomes big in Australia, which I'm sure he will, at that point can the article be re-created. Thirdly, I don't think the sources provided meet the WP:RS requirements. If more third party sources can be provided, I think there's a strong possibility the article could remain. UK Wiki User (talk) 22:48, 17 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 03:44, 23 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom without prejudice towards recreation if/once he becomes actually notable. John M Wolfson (talk) 04:07, 23 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Currently fails WP:NOTABILITY. No scope fro article to remain at present unless more RS are added. - Funky Snack (Talk) 13:18, 24 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Meets WP:GNG specifically WP:ANYBIO "The person has received a well-known and significant award or honor, or has been nominated for such an award several times. 2004 Antenna Awards Best Male Presenter Lubbad85 (☎) 21:25, 29 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. I could have sworn that only the Superliga was listed at WP:FPL, but apparently not. Sir Sputnik (talk) 03:57, 23 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Tedi Cara[edit]

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

Contested PROD. Concern was Article about a footballer who fails WP:GNG and who has not played in a fully pro league. PROD was contested on the grounds that he is a professional footballer playing with a professional club. He has, however, not played in a fully professional league, as required by WP:NFOOTBALL. Sir Sputnik (talk) 03:01, 23 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. Sir Sputnik (talk) 03:01, 23 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Sir Sputnik (talk) 03:01, 23 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Albania-related deletion discussions. Sir Sputnik (talk) 03:01, 23 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment – I can't find any WP:SIGCOV, but SW has him at 40 games in the Albanian 1st Division, which is WP:FPL-listed, but sourced only to the rulebook, which requires players to be "professional". Not sure that establishes that the Albanian 1st is fully professional. So, doesn't seem to meet WP:GNG, and I'm not sure about WP:NFOOTY either, if there isn't sufficient sourcing to justify the FPL listing. Leviv ich 03:42, 23 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. -- Scott Burley (talk) 08:02, 30 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

6G telecommunication networks[edit]

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

User:C933103 wants this article deleted. i don't know why, i'm adding this article here because he added a PROD, but the PROD tag was removed once, which permanently kills it. ~~Personally i don't care whether the article is deleted or not, because i condiser that it is still too soon, i consider that this article should be recreated in about 1-2 years from now.~~ Pancho507 (talk) 00:31, 23 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Pancho507: To clarify: the PROD tag was added back by someone else other than me after removal. C933103 (talk) 00:37, 23 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, as I don't believe Wikipedia has to do the job of forecasting the future. Dannyniu (talk) 01:47, 23 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. Kpg jhp jm 02:30, 23 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

delete as mortal sin against WP:CRYSTAL. Mangoe (talk) 13:01, 23 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. I added some references, including one that suggests 6G will never exist. If President Trump tweets about something, it sort of becomes notable, even if he is completely wrong about it. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 14:16, 23 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
- The article was not nominated for deletion on the ground of not sufficient notability. Also notability are not grandfathered.C933103 (talk) 14:33, 23 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  - The same thing was said about 5G back in 2013, take a look [34] We can be pretty sure we will have 6, and perhaps 7G in the future.— Preceding unsigned comment added by [[User:(({1))}|(({1))}]] ([[User talk:(({1))}#top|talk]] • [[Special:Contributions/(({1))}|contribs]])
    - In the future is a bad argument when we are talking about now. And the only reason we're actually getting 5G was because LTE failed to long term evolution into pur needs. C933103 (talk) 19:59, 25 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Crystalball. ∯WBG^converse 17:44, 23 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as a crystal ball exercise. Carrite (talk) 18:58, 23 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - WP:NOTFUTURE. Spyder212 (talk) 22:48, 23 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:NOTCRYSTAL; and, Eastmain...I hope that's a joke. ——SerialNumber54129 07:53, 24 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, i changed my mind, i think this article should not be recreated until 6G research and development actually starts or becomes relevant, because, right now, the only ones talking about it are the Chinese and the Finnish (i.e., Huawei and Nokia, for sure). Pancho507 (talk) 16:01, 24 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Weak delete Needs proper rewrite and repost. Germcrow (talk) 12:30, 26 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. With the launch of 5G, people will naturally begin to discuss what comes next, and they already have.[35] Rreagan007 (talk) 06:20, 27 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete 6G is like a fantasy. With the launch of 5G, the Internet speed will increase dramatically. I doubt that we will look up for 6g. Also it is a violation of WP:CRYSTALBALL. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Masumrezarock100 (talk • contribs) 08:29, 27 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. Fenix down (talk) 06:57, 30 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Sigma FC[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

Club which doesn't meet either WP:FOOTYN or WP:CORPDEPTH. Was deleted four years ago, and the only thing which has really changed since that AfD was that their coach was chosen to coach an actually notable club. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 00:31, 23 April 2019 (UTC) Onel5969 ^{TT me} 00:31, 23 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. Kpg jhp jm 02:28, 23 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. Kpg jhp jm 02:28, 23 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Ontario-related deletion discussions. Kpg jhp jm 02:28, 23 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions.CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 05:49, 23 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to League1 Ontario as possible search term. Giant Snowman 08:15, 23 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Although it does not meet the WP:FOOTYN essay guidelines, it does meet WP:GNG. Since the last AfD, there have been multiple non-trivial mentions in news articles from independent, reliable sources which have been added to the article. As a note, the topic "does not need to be the main topic of the source material" to be useful as a source. I don't see any benefit in deleting this article as-is, but I would encourage it to be expanded further. BLAIXX 13:57, 23 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect The mentions are WP:ROUTINE sports coverage. Fails FOOTYN, etc. Walter Görlitz (talk) 00:39, 24 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I disagree, the below two examples are medium- to long-form news reporting which far exceeds "routine" sports coverage.

Also FOOTYN only states that "teams that have played in the national cup generally meet GNG" so I don't think that essay is enough to justify an article deletion (or redirection). BLAIXX 13:07, 24 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep – outside of BLPs, my guiding principles are WP:42 and WP:PAGEDECIDE, the most-relevant question for me being, "Is there enough RS to write a decent stand-alone about this?" In this case, I think yes. It just barely passes GNG, not with WP:THREE but with two: this article in the Toronto Star, and this two-part series in Red Nation (magazine): Part 1, Part 2. With those two sources, there's enough material to write an article. In addition, I found 13 pages of Google News results with routine coverage (game, transfer, and signing reports). All in all, it's enough to convince me that a stand alone article is warranted. Leviv ich 15:27, 25 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Notability is clearly established from the refs. Passes WP:GNG Germcrow (talk) 12:28, 26 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The article does contain independent sources just needs additional content. Shotgun pete (talk) 6:09, 27 April 2019 (UTC)

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.