< 6 April	8 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 keep. At least at this time - the lasting impact may be reevaluated at a later time. Sandstein 07:03, 15 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

2019 Campbellfield factory fire[edit]

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

Per WP:NOTNEWS, run-of-the-mill fire that is of no long-lasting importance other than to the local community. There are probably tens of such fires a week around the world. Step hen 23:14, 7 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

No opinion. I am new to Wikipedia and this is my first article. If it's deemed inappropriate, please remove it. I created the page because there is also a page for the 2018 West Footscray warehouse fire (a similar fire occurring less than a year ago in the same city). Today's fire is larger than that one and has been mentioned in international news. 84percent (talk) 23:47, 7 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep (at this time). As WP:LASTING says "It may take weeks or months to determine whether or not an event has a lasting effect. This does not, however, mean recent events with unproven lasting effect are automatically non-notable." This is a very recent event and, while it was perhaps premature to create an article so soon, I think our policy makes clear it is not automatically non-notable until events are fully played out. I imagine there will be investigations and an inquiry etc. I'd keep it for now. Kerry (talk) 02:42, 8 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep. Industrial fires and explosions in major cities sometimes have lasting impact. See for example the Toronto propane explosion, which initially caused only one death. For the Campbellfield factory fire, there were two serious injuries. 2607:FEA8:1DE0:7B4:EDD6:545C:DDBA:D02 (talk) 04:34, 8 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 05:10, 8 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Passes WP:NEVENT, WP:EVENTCRIT, WP:LASTING, WP:GEOSCOPE,etc.--PATH SLOPU 05:40, 8 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep at this time. This is a major incident that has not yet run its course. Aoziwe (talk) 08:13, 8 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as per Path slopu's comments. Hughesdarren (talk) 10:20, 8 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep It's clear from the sources already in the article that this incident will receive ongoing coverage, with a coroner's investigation and continuing questions about illegal storage of dangerous chemicals. RebeccaGreen (talk) 13:20, 8 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Draftify: With the investigation regarding illegal stored chemicals this article may in the future extend beyond WP:NOTNEWS, however it is too early to assume that it will become encylopedic in the future therefore WP:NOTNEWS currently applies. SSSB (talk) 16:26, 9 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Draftify, agree that this has been created WP:TOOSOON and contrary to other editors, believe this does not meet WP:NEVENT as it has not (yet?) "lasting major consequences or affects a major geographical scope, or receives significant non-routine coverage that persists over a period of time." (sorry, but some editors above appear to be crystalballing), if this changes then the article can then be moved back into mainspace. Coolabahapple (talk) 04:10, 10 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I have made some updates to the article, as the fire was extinguished yesterday, and investigations by the police, fire investigators, WorkSafe and the coroner have now started. RebeccaGreen (talk) 11:18, 10 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: I agree with PATH's comments. - Ret.Prof (talk) 14:26, 14 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep -- plenty of WP:RS to make it notable. Although there might be tons of fires like this, we have enough space for those articles, and this one has some interesting facets. Alternatively it could be merged with the town it happened in. --David Tornheim (talk) 22:33, 14 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: I agree with statements above, additionally the article has many sources and is of interest. Lightning321 (talk) 04:11, 15 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. PriceDL (talk) 22:50, 14 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Withdrawn by nominator w/o opposition, given the recent AFD. -- Patar knight - ^chat/_{contributions} 00:44, 8 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Russian interference in the 2016 Brexit referendum[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

WP:SYNTHESIS at large. Many of the sources do not even mention Russia at all. RaviC (talk) 22:32, 7 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Withdrawn by nominator - didn't notice previous AfD. --RaviC (talk) 22:39, 7 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 22:51, 7 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 22:52, 7 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 22:52, 7 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Russia-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 22:52, 7 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy keep. Nomination withdrawn. (non-admin closure) The World's Signature (talk) 01:38, 8 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Status Labs[edit]

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

The company appears to be mostly notable for Wiki-PR editing of Wikipedia, so, after digging into it more, I think it should be redirected there. The World's Signature (talk) 21:17, 7 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Received a fair bit of press for doing a number of unsavory things. I am sure the company would like to see this article deleted to help them with hiding their history. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 21:21, 7 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. Ceethekreator (talk) 22:10, 7 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Ceethekreator (talk) 22:10, 7 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Texas-related deletion discussions. Ceethekreator (talk) 22:10, 7 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment It looks like the nominator tried to add various promotional bits to make the company look better, was reverted, and is now nominating the article for deletion, so technically it's a speedy keep under WP:SKCRIT#2d. But since we're here, The World's Signature, do you have any undisclosed connection to Status Labs? Bakazaka (talk) 23:38, 7 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Bakazaka, I guess I should have explained myself more. I don't have any direct connection to Status Labs apart from the fact that I live in Austin and found the company interesting based on that. It was not my intent to promote them when I did my initial edits, merely wanted to bring the page up to what other Wiki pages for companies look like. The reason I decided to nomniate the page for deletion is because there was a notability tag added to the article by a more experienced user after my edits. If the page is going to be a short paragraph, seems to me it'd be more appropriate to have it as a section on Wiki-PR editing of Wikipedia rather than its own page.The World's Signature (talk) 00:42, 8 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your reply. So, to clarify, you're proposing a merge? There is no Status Labs content at your proposed target currently. Bakazaka (talk) 00:45, 8 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, precisely. Create a section labeled Status Labs there and move the existing content over.The World's Signature (talk) 01:08, 8 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

In that case you should withdraw this AfD nomination, and follow WP:MERGEPROP instructions instead. Bakazaka (talk) 01:14, 8 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Ah! Thanks for pointing me in the right direction.The World's Signature (talk) 01:32, 8 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Withdrawn by nominator. The reason for deletion was to merge it elsewhere. Will follow WP:MERGEPROP instead of deletion.The World's Signature (talk) 01:36, 8 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. — JJMC89 (T·C) 21:37, 14 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Doug Hall (painter)[edit]

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

Struggling to see how he passes WP:GNG no in-depth coverage anywhere that I can see. Happy to be proved wrong though. Theroadislong (talk) 21:07, 7 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Artists-related deletion discussions. PriceDL (talk) 21:36, 7 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Missouri-related deletion discussions. PriceDL (talk) 21:36, 7 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete there are a few local sources like this. Overall I think he's a regular local painter with local notability. It's not enough for us, I think.ThatMontrealIP (talk) 23:11, 7 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - I was thinking of nominating this article yesterday, since I also can't find anything except local coverage of him. WP:NARTIST doesn't seem to be met, either. The only ref in the article, almost since it was first created, was not even about this Doug Hall. --bonadea contributions talk 07:39, 8 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, does not meet WP:NARTIST, great looking art that unfortunately has not been picked up by any wikinotable/significant galleries. Coolabahapple (talk) 03:40, 10 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. — JJMC89 (T·C) 20:51, 14 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Digital webber[edit]

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

Non notable firm. Fails WP:GNG, WP:NCORP. Rsrikanth05 (talk) 20:31, 7 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Per WP:NCORP and WP:PROMO Insignficant coverage in reliable 3rd party sources. Comatmebro (talk) 20:42, 7 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. Ceethekreator (talk) 22:13, 7 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Ceethekreator (talk) 22:13, 7 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Ceethekreator (talk) 22:13, 7 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. Ceethekreator (talk) 22:14, 7 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Two year old, 50 employee generic company with nothing special or encyclopedic about it? Andy Dingley (talk) 22:20, 7 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Nothing notable about a digital agency, which establishment and growth are similar to many other digital agencies. robertsky (talk) 00:02, 8 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - seems to be a non-notable company that fails WP:NCORP due to a lack of in-depth, truly independent coverage. Also noting that this article was likely created in violation of WP:NOTADVERTISING, as the article creator was able to furnish authentic images of the inside of this company's offices.--SamHolt6 (talk) 02:10, 8 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - I concur - Mdaniels5757 (talk) 02:34, 8 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - fails NCORP. -KH-1 (talk) 03:03, 8 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - fails NCORP, is PROMOtional, looks like a part of a promotional campaign for West Bengal.Jacona (talk) 11:34, 8 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Fails WP:NCORP. Also, being that it was created with lowercase name suggests it may have been deleted previously and the creator is attempting to avoid it being noticed. An admin should consider if salting its creation is appropriate. --CNMall41 (talk) 21:19, 8 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

There's nothing at Digital Webber to support that. Andy Dingley (talk) 21:44, 8 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Fails WP:NCORP. This looks like it has been created by a paid editor. Pkbwcgs (talk) 19:25, 14 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy keep. Nomination withdrawn. (non-admin closure) Endymion.12 (talk) 12:59, 9 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Tony Brown (journalist)[edit]

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

Fails WP:GNG. NYT reference is trivial, and I couldn't find any decent sources establishing notability. Appears to be a minor conspiracy theorist. Endymion.12 (talk) 19:01, 7 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Journalism-related deletion discussions. Ceethekreator (talk) 20:29, 7 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of West Virginia-related deletion discussions. Ceethekreator (talk) 20:29, 7 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep – The New York Times piece is quite in-depth to be called trivial. As stated in the article in ~~1985~~ 1982; “…Dapper, bespectacled and 48 years old, Tony Brown is the only black producer of a nationally televised serious black program, Tony Brown's Journal.” Believe this passes our Notability guidelines. ShoesssS ^Talk 20:43, 7 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Shoessss: Where is that quote taken from? It's not from the NYT article cited. Endymion.12 (talk) 21:04, 7 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The quote is from The New York Times, but from a different article than the one cited in the article. (Here is a link to it.) MarkZusab (talk) 21:25, 7 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I am sorry I said 1985 it is actually 1982 [1] Sorry for the confusion. ShoesssS ^Talk 11:41, 8 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep as an obvious pass of WP:GNG and probably WP:AUTHOR as well. "I couldn't find any decent sources" is a statement about the nominator's capabilities, not the article subject's notability. Possible sources include Thomas, Keith L. (8 January 1989). "'Racism is green': Tony Brown: a talk show host who's not all talk". Chicago Tribune. p. J26., and Hasemyer, David (15 November 1995). "PBS' Tony Brown touts wisdom of racial accord". The San Diego Union-Tribune. p. B3., and the 1600-word profile Simmonds, Yussuf J. (7 January 2010). "Tony Brown". Los Angeles Sentinel. p. A12., and the 1800-word profile Higgins, Chester A, Sr. (6 November 1996). "Tony Brown had a vision". Michigan Chronicle. p. 7A.((cite news)): CS1 maint: multiple names: authors list (link), or a front page Christian Science Monitor story (Marquand, Robert (23 August 1988). "Tony Brown: tough on whites and blacks". The Christian Science Monitor. p. A1.). I'll stop there, but please note that I formatted these with the cite template in case anyone wants to actually improve the article using the numerous available sources. Bakazaka (talk) 22:33, 7 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep - Urban League's distinguished service award, JET 100 most influential Black Americans of 1977, dean of the school of communications at Howard University in the early 1970s, co-organizer of a MLK march in Detroit in 1963, Host of the at the time longest running black affairs show on television, the list goes on and on. Smmurphy^(Talk) 18:13, 8 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep notable journalist, has own notable show, one of his books was notable.E.M.Gregory (talk) 10:34, 9 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note So I have clearly made a mistake by only performing a cursory google search before nominating this article. Would someone perhaps like to use the references listed above to actually improve the article? Unfortunately I have neither the time nor the interest to do so. Endymion.12 (talk) 12:39, 9 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy keep. Nomination withdrawn. (non-admin closure) Endymion.12 (talk) 12:56, 9 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Tony Brown's Journal[edit]

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

Appears to fail notability requirements. Endymion.12 (talk) 19:08, 7 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Journalism-related deletion discussions. Ceethekreator (talk) 20:31, 7 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. Ceethekreator (talk) 20:31, 7 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Ceethekreator (talk) 20:31, 7 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep – The New York Times piece is quite in-depth to be called trivial. As stated in the article in 1985; “…Dapper, bespectacled and 48 years old, Tony Brown is the only black producer of a nationally televised serious black program, Tony Brown's Journal.” Believe this passes our Notability guidelines. ShoesssS ^Talk 20:44, 7 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as obvious WP:GNG pass. WP:BEFORE should include Google Books searches, which would find, for example, extensive coverage of this specific program starting on page 117 of Black Power TV by Devorah Heitner (Duke University Press, 2013, [2]), also an archived 2-page article (followed by an ad for the program!) from Jet (February 15, 1979) [3]. Elsewhere there is Cottman, Michael H. (19 February 1989). "Do Unto Yourself: 'Tony Brown's Journal' preaches self-determination". Newsday. p. 81. I stopped looking after seeing numerous hits in newspaper databases covering the period. It's an older notability claim, but it checks out. Article could use some improvement, but it has the sources available, so deletion solves absolutely nothing here. Bakazaka (talk) 22:16, 7 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The very definition of notable. scope_creep^Talk 10:29, 8 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep - as with the AfD for Brown, this subjects encyclopedic nature speaks for itself. Being the at the time longest running black affairs show on TV and carried throughout the US on PBS seems more than sufficient to establish that the subject is encyclopedic. Smmurphy^(Talk) 18:16, 8 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep sources support notability, and host is patently notable.E.M.Gregory (talk) 10:35, 9 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note So I have clearly made a mistake by only performing a cursory google search before nominating this article. Would someone perhaps like to use the references listed above to actually improve the article? Unfortunately I have neither the time nor the interest to do so. Endymion.12 (talk) 12:39, 9 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

User:Endymion.12, Perhaps you already know this, but while it is good that many article are improved after being brought to AfD, it is not required that an article be improved in order to be kept. Also, when Nom is persuaded that sources do exist to establish notability, Nom is permitted to say that and withdraw from the discussion, permitting the page to be kept as long as there are no votes to delete. It is a sort of courtesy to do so. This happens a lot because to err is human.E.M.Gregory (talk) 12:48, 9 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

User:E.M.Gregory I am aware—it was a suggestion to improve the article using the references available here. I will withdraw my nomination now. Endymion.12 (talk) 12:53, 9 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. — JJMC89 (T·C) 20:51, 14 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Braxton Olita[edit]

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

Fails WP:MUSICIAN and WP:GNG. Clarityfiend (talk) 19:03, 7 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Ceethekreator (talk) 20:32, 7 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. Ceethekreator (talk) 20:32, 7 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Hawaii-related deletion discussions. Ceethekreator (talk) 20:32, 7 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete does not meet any of our notability guidelines for musicians.John Pack Lambert (talk) 02:12, 12 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. After being listed here at AFD for a month, there's no clear consensus that this article needs to be deleted. Some discussion has risen about redirecting it, that's something that can be taken up on the talk page. (non-admin closure) Dusti ^{*Let's talk!*} 05:28, 14 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Friend Me[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

Unaired show, it is unclear why it meets WP:GNG. It was a redirect for quite some time, and probably should have stayed a redirect. Ymblanter (talk) 09:58, 17 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. Icewhiz (talk) 14:03, 17 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. Icewhiz (talk) 14:03, 17 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep unclear why it was a redirect; previous AFD closed as keep. As stated then, article has numerous wp:rs and as wp:ntemp, given that nothing has changed since then and now, no reason the article should now be deleted. Coverage more than demonstrates its notability. Dcfc1988 (talk) 20:57, 22 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Well, since the last nomination it became clear that the project has been abandoned.--Ymblanter (talk) 21:14, 22 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

That's not true. The series was cancelled in July and the AFD was raised in October. Dcfc1988 (talk) 11:44, 23 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 01:27, 24 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Restore redirect Alan Kirschenbaum Nothing new has come out, though I do think the show details should be expanded within the Kirschenbaum article due to its circumstances. Nate • (chatter) 09:04, 25 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete see above comment Lubbad85 (talk) 01:44, 27 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 07:28, 31 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per sources. TheEditster (talk) 12:41, 31 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Vanamonde (Talk) 17:56, 7 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. Sandstein 07:04, 15 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Raguluthunna Bharatham[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

As per WP:BEFORE searches, this is a non-notable film that does not meet WP:NFP or WP:NFO. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 10:34, 24 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 10:35, 24 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 10:35, 24 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per WP:NFO criteria 3 "the film has received a major award for excellence in some aspect of filmmaking" ie Nandi Award for Best Story Writer which is verifiable for example here. Also, per User:Winged_Blades_of_Godric in the 2nd nomination: it is a commercial movie with famous actors, and you can see it is not forgotten because it is mentioned in this 2016 article about the director and in this 2018 article about the lyricist. Thanks and regards, Biwom (talk) 13:23, 30 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, So said The Great Wiki Lord. (talk) 12:26, 31 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Satisfies WP:NFILM, WP:NFP, WP:GNG.--PATH SLOPU 09:20, 6 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nomination. The Keep suggestions seem to be based on an arbitrary interpretation of the pertinent guideline, i.e. that "NFILM has technically boiled down to allotting an article for every film that has got 2 or more reviews across reliable sources". However, there is no basis for such an interpretation. (Even if the guideline were not followed, we should either change accordingly its wording, or point out the deviiations from it.) Wikipedia is not the international movie database and it is not a listing of indiscriminately collected information either. The article's subject fails WP:NFILM. -The Gnome (talk) 10:30, 7 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Vanamonde (Talk) 17:54, 7 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. Sandstein 18:03, 14 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Yoshihiko Kikuchi[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

Non-notable subject that does not meet WP:BASIC. Coverage found in searches for independent, reliable sources is limited to name checks and very short passing mentions, none of which qualify notability.

Sources were presented in the previous AfD discussion, but only one, which I can't access, appears to be possibly usable to qualify notability. However, multiple independent sources that provide significant coverage are required, not just one. Below is a synopsis of the sources.

Source	Analysis
Armand Mauss, All Abraham's Children: Changing Mormon Conceptions of Race and Lineage, 2010, University of Illinois Press	Not significant coverage: consists of one sentence about the subject.
Newell G. Bringhurst, Darron Smith, co-editors Black and Mormon, 2005, University of Illinois Press.	Not significant coverage: a 2-sentence mention
~~Reid L. Neilson, Taking the Gospel to the Japanese, 1901-2001, 2010, Brigham Young University Press~~	Primary source: According to WorldCat (here), this is not published by the University of Utah Press as stated in the previous AfD discussion. Rather, it is published by Brigham Young University Press, which is the university press of Brigham Young University. Brigham Young University is wholly owned by The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints. Primary sources such as these do not qualify notability.
[4]	Not WP:SIGCOV: Per the snippet view, comes across as likely only having fleeting passing mentions
[5]	Not significant coverage: a passing mention
Encyclopedia of Latter-Day Saint History	I consider this to be a primary source, because it is published by the Deseret Book Company, which is a wholly-owned subsidiary of Deseret Management Corporation, which is wholly owned by the LDS Church.
Numano, Jiro. “Hasty Baptisms in Japan: The Early 1980s in the LDS Church.” Journal of Mormon History, vol. 36, no. 4, 2010, pp. 18–40. JSTOR, JSTOR, [www.jstor.org/stable/23291122].	I cannot access this source to assess the depth of coverage

– North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 10:20, 24 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I disagree with North America on the two books by notable authors that he dismisses as "brief" because, read in context, these are about Kikuchi's role in the Church during the long, slow period when it moved away from its tradition of sorting humans into a hierarchy of races. One of the dismissed "snippets" is also meaningful in this context. Primarily, however, I find this table to be a false and inappropriate attempt to mislead editors about the available sources because of its dismissal of a long scholarly article about Kikuchi on the grounds that Nom cannot access it, and dismissal of a scholarly book that contains SIGCOV of Kikuchi.E.M.Gregory (talk) 10:49, 10 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 10:21, 24 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 10:21, 24 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Japan-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 10:21, 24 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Hawaii-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 10:21, 24 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The attempt to classify scholarly, univerisity press sources as "primary sources" is just unacceptable. BYU Studies approaches issues from a clearly scholarly perspective and the attempt to disqualify it is outrageous. There are either two or three sources, depending on the view of the Encyclopedia of Latter-day Saint history, that provide indepth coverage. That is clearly enough to pass the general notability guidelines and justify an article. Ownership cannot be used as ground to cast out university press publications.John Pack Lambert (talk) 01:13, 27 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, So said The Great Wiki Lord. (talk) 12:27, 31 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Weak delete If this topic were notable, some reliable sources could be found that cover the the unsourced biographical information we currently include. An entire long section of our article includes a single citation that is being used to support the claim that he was born in "Horoizumi District", except that it doesn't say that: it just says "Horoizumi", and at the time of Kikuchi's birth Erimo, Hokkaido was apparently known as Horoizumi Town. I doubt the author of our dubious source knew the difference. The rest of the section is dubious hagiography that, if this discussion does not end in the page being deleted or redirected, should be immediately blanked pending an independent reliable source. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 12:23, 4 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The article currently claims his father was killed by a submarine and he attended university in Tokyo, but the earliest version said it was a bombing raid and the university was in Hokkaido. Is this another Bill Schnoebelen situation where a religious leader's autobiography he tells his followers has changed over the years? Neither version cited a written source, so I can't imagine why it would have been changed... Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 12:37, 4 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Murky, incorrect family and childhood backgrounds are not all that rare. In such cases, it is best to phrase it carefully, "according to Kikuchi, his father was..." This makes it clear that we are reporting Kikuchi's memory or understand ing of the past. It would be different if a major newspaper had checked the war record. Most of us believe what we are told, even though many family stories are exaggerated, fabricated, mis-remembered, or deliberately edited to conceal certain details. Ignorant geographical details added by an American writing up a story about Japan, or an unvalidated family story about how Dad died don't really matter for notability. And notability is the question at issue here. The sources about his role in the Church are reliable. If the childhood background is not accurate, it can and should be fixed. But this does not affect the question of notability.E.M.Gregory (talk) 21:21, 8 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

User:Northamerica1000, please tell me you're not calling a book by BYU Press "primary" because it's a Mormon press and the subject is Mormon. If so, you completely misunderstand what a primary source is. Drmies (talk) 02:01, 7 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Upon further research and consideration, it is an acceptable source. Struck this in the box above. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 03:04, 7 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

It's basically irrelevant to the question of this subject's notability, though: the source was introduced in the previous AFD as "discussing or quoting" this subject in three places; quotes from the subject himself are near-useless for GNG, and the layout of the page numbers implies EMG just went to the index and looked for Kikuchi's name, without checking whether it was a quotation or a discussion that was on each of the pages in question, and I seriously doubt that each of pages 352, 353, 354 and 358 included a separate short "discussinon" of Kikuchi. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 04:52, 7 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Nb. I still feel that the subject does not meet notability guidelines. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 06:18, 7 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Vanamonde (Talk) 17:54, 7 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per reasons and sources I provided in November 2018 when Nom last brought this individual to AfD. Note that the book published the Brigham University Press that was one of the sources I brought was disparaged by Nom on the grounds that the Press is not INDEPENDENT of the church. The quesiton was brought to the RS noticeboard, where editors judged that a reputable university press is independent of the government or church that sponsors the university, eliminating one of Nom's arguments for deletion. imho, it was tendentious to drag this one back to AfD.E.M.Gregory (talk) 14:09, 8 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note that the scholarly article in JSTOR that Nom cannot access is about Kikuchi's administration of LDS in Japan, I added it to the page last November, and I think my edit was a fair summary of the contents, except that with regard to notability I want to emphasize that the article is a scholarly analysis of Kikuchi's approach to recruiting converts and the problems that his approach caused. This is the very definition of WP:SIGCOV.E.M.Gregory (talk) 14:35, 8 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Taking the Gospel to the Japanese, 1901–2001, by Reid Larkin Nielsen, Brigham Young University Press, 2006. Chapter 14, The Church in Japan Comes of Age, 1968–1980, by Terry G. Nelson discusses Kikuchi. It is less than 20 pages. I suggest that editors should feel an obligation to actually read such a source before undertaking to disparage it. The index - which is available online - shows that he is cited 7 times in that chapter. As far as I can tell, the chapters are not available online. Perhaps one of you gentlemen would be willing to walk to a library and give us your description/assessment of the source. In general, however, a chapter in a university press book is an indication of notability. And he was, after all, a major figure in LDS in Japan in 1968-1980, according to the JSTOR article and other sources.E.M.Gregory (talk) 21:01, 8 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@E.M.Gregory: So how do you feel about the unsourced biographical content? Can we blank it pending some reliable sources? Your !vote is for "keep", but the content of your comment doesn't actually appear to disagree with my "weak delete" on the substance of the matter and the question of whether the content of the present article is worth keeping. Also, please note that not everyone lives within walking distance of a library that stocks a lot of English-language literature about Mormons that isn't itself published by the Mormon Church or affiliated groups. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 07:24, 9 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

This is irrelevant to the quesiton at AfD, but I agree that we can. Sourced to a dead link of an interview he gave, and not a particularly likely story (the U.S. Navy was not targeting fisherman in Japanese waters 2 weeks before V-J Day.)E.M.Gregory (talk) 10:35, 10 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. The arguments to keep are essentially, "meets WP:FOOTY", but there's convincing arguments here that he doesn't. In addition, FOOTY is just a hint. Real sources are what matters, and nobody has come up with any. -- RoySmith (talk) 14:20, 15 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Eric Loyd[edit]

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

Our article says he played 4 ~~WP:NFOOTY~~ games in 2008 in the third-tier semi professional, non-WP:FPL USL Second Division. ~~Other than that,~~ Apparently hasn't played in any WP:FPLs and does not meet NFOOTY. Search results return no significant coverage to meet WP:GNG. Leviv ich 17:25, 7 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Update: I have updated the nomination to reflect that this article no longer meets WP:NFOOTY because USL Second Division has been removed from WP:FPL per the note below. Leviv ich 18:20, 10 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Leviv ich 17:25, 7 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. Leviv ich 17:25, 7 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Leviv ich 17:25, 7 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Florida-related deletion discussions. Leviv ich 17:25, 7 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Michigan-related deletion discussions. Leviv ich 17:25, 7 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of North Carolina-related deletion discussions. Leviv ich 17:25, 7 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Leviv ich 17:33, 7 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The article clearly passes the criteria of notability as stated in the Football/Fully professional leagues list. Shotgun pete 8:10, 7 April 2019 (UTC)
Keep – clearly meets WP:NFOOTY. 21.colinthompson (talk) 22:29, 7 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. nom consulted me prior to nomination. Merits of NFOOTY here are somewhat dubious as while USL div2 was nominally professional, many players were semi-professionals (holding additional jobs). Regardless, NFOOTY merely creates a presumption of notability - a presumption that sources should exist. In this particular case - as evident in a very simple google search - there is no SIGCOV. As the presumption of GNG is being challenged here, !votes who assert NFOOTY without providing supporting sources (which should be quite easy to locate - English speaking country, most sources online in this time period) - should be disregarded. Icewhiz (talk) 06:03, 8 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - meets WP:NFOOTBALL by some way; needs improving, not deleting. Giant Snowman 07:44, 8 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete the league in question does not really pass any reasonable fully professional test.John Pack Lambert (talk) 03:55, 10 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: per consensus in Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Football/Fully professional leagues#Status of US minor leagues (concurrent to this AfD) - USL Second Division was struck from the WP:FPL essay, as it was not fully-professional. This should affect !voting based on play in USL D2. Icewhiz (talk) 07:24, 10 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was soft delete. WP:REFUND applies. — JJMC89 (T·C) 20:49, 14 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Dark Walker[edit]

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

Lacked RS since creation in April 2007. Fails WP:NFILM and WP:GNG. Just Chilling (talk) 16:29, 7 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 17:06, 7 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 17:06, 7 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Sandstein 18:00, 14 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

First Ladies and Gentlemen of Pakistan[edit]

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

This is a list of spouses of heads of state and heads of government of Pakistan. The title "first lady" or "first gentleman" is not formal, and has no legal recognition. On the face of it, this list looks like a directory (see WP:NOTDIRECTORY) compiled in an indiscriminate manner (as it collates spouses of both heads of state and heads of government). It also fails the criteria listed in WP:LISTN because the group as a whole (either while considering only the spouses of the heads of state, or while including spouses of heads of government) has not received sufficient coverage to pass the muster at WP:GNG. — Nearly Headless Nick {c} 12:06, 7 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. MarginalCost (talk) 14:21, 7 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists of people-related deletion discussions. MarginalCost (talk) 14:21, 7 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. MarginalCost (talk) 14:21, 7 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Although individuals within this list may and do qualify for their own WP articles, this list does not seem to fulfill any significant purpose (or even interest?). Definitely does not pass WP:GNG. Skirts⁸⁹ 15:15, 7 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Sandstein 18:00, 14 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Oshawott, Dewott, and Samurott[edit]

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

Not really notable enough to have an article. No significant impact on the real world as far as I'm aware. Fails WP:SUSTAINED. InvalidOS talk 11:27, 7 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Video games-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 17:11, 7 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 17:11, 7 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:POKEMON. There’s just no need to spin-out a stand-alone article here. Much of the article is overly-wordy fluff too - very little of substance is actually said. The reception section in particular looks like someone just did a Google search of every inconsequential passing mention of the subject from game reviews. Sergecross73 msg me 19:34, 7 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Sergecross73. THE NEW ImmortalWizard(chat) 18:01, 8 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I don't have anything to say. This breaks my heart. Oshawott 12 ==()== Talk to me! 02:05, 9 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Sergecross73. Aoba47 (talk) 17:35, 9 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Videogameplayer99 (talk) 19:06, 13 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep This article does meet the notability guidelines. Yes, it has its issues, it can be improved! GavinDavis02 (talk) 20:23, 13 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

How? This was your fourth all-time edit, so I’m interested in seeing how exactly you feel you know better than everyone else here... Sergecross73 msg me 21:15, 13 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I thoroughly read through the notability guidelines to come to that conclusion GavinDavis02 (talk) 00:31, 14 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Explain how it specifically meets the notability requirements then. You haven’t stated anything to indicate you understand how it does. Sergecross73 msg me 01:05, 14 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

There are a couple of third-party sources listed in the references already, and it didn't take long at all to find several more GavinDavis02 (talk) 01:47, 14 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Please list off the reliable third party sources that you feel provide significant coverage. Please provide them here for evaluation. Sergecross73 msg me 02:57, 14 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) Dusti ^{*Let's talk!*} 05:31, 14 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Production of Avengers: Infinity War and Avengers: Endgame[edit]

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

I think this is FORK of both Avengers: Infinity War and Avengers: Endgame and seems fancruft. This has too many information that is not required and could easily be compressed and merged in the respective pages. If anything, I suggest creating a new one like Production of the Avengers films or Production of MCU films, which honestly would be better off. The existence of this kind of pages promotes too many unnecessary content. All the Avengers films have the same level of production value I believe. A good example is Production of the James Bond films. THE NEW ImmortalWizard(chat) 10:53, 7 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. THE NEW ImmortalWizard(chat) 10:57, 7 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Keep @ImmortalWizard: You should have discussed this first on the talk page. Noone is saying that these two films do not have the same level of production as other Avengers films. The point of this article is that these two films in particular were produced together and thus share much of the same information. So instead of repeating the same information, we placed it in a central location. See Production of Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows as another example.—TriiipleThreat (talk) 12:54, 7 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
- Thanks for letting me know about the other example. If I had known that earlier, I would have went for MULTIAFD. Even if they were produced together, I don't see any point of FORKing in a stand alone with so many unnecessary info. THE NEW ImmortalWizard(chat) 15:32, 7 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per TriiipleThreat. Mosaicberry (talk) 13:28, 7 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Triiiple's points, and to elaborate a little the point of this article is that a lot of the content in it would be unnecessarily duplicated if we split it between the two film articles since content from this article applies to both films, which is why this article was created to begin with. - adamstom97 (talk) 08:09, 8 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as a valid split from two clearly notable articles, page size matters as per WP:NOTPAPER and this article is a sensible creation Atlantic306 (talk) 23:03, 8 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per TriiipleThreat. Zuko Halliwell (talk) 03:29, 9 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep It’s not uncommon for back-to-back films to have articles on production. See: Principal photography of The Lord of the Rings film series as well as the above-mentioned Deathly Hallows article. Toa Nidhiki05 18:41, 9 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per TriiipleThreat's points, and because important information concerning Infinity War's and Endgame's joint production would be lost. ARZ100 (talk) 21:01, 10 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Considering the merit of the similar nature of the productions, I'll have to agree with keeping. Garlicolive (talk) 02:47, 12 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy keep per TriiipleThreat. Calling this fancruft is completely inaccurate. Sock (~~tock~~ talk) 14:08, 12 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Withdraw. (non-admin closure) Dusti ^{*Let's talk!*} 08:29, 14 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

James Gillingham[edit]

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

I'm not seeing the notability for this person. He didn't invent prosthetic limbs, he was a manufacturer of them. Doing a Google search there's flyby mentions of him because he happened to have made that prosthetic limb, or it was a picture he took. I'm just not seeing how this passes WP:GNG. Dusti ^{*Let's talk!*} 09:58, 7 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Withdraw - A big thanks to Phil and AuthorAuthor - I've learned something new today. Dusti ^{*Let's talk!*} 22:15, 7 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 10:10, 7 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

delete,I think this Article croosed WP:NOTADVERTISING and it's Not notable in itself, so delete the Article.Forest90 (talk) 13:08, 7 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. MarginalCost (talk) 14:24, 7 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Disability-related deletion discussions. MarginalCost (talk) 14:24, 7 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Clearly passes the general notability guideline by having significant coverage in independent reliable sources, including a 126-page book wholly about the subject. There's no need for someone to be the inventor of a concept to achieve notability. And I don't see how a search for web sites is relevant to the notability of someone who was active in the 19th century. Maybe some of our younger editors don't realise this, but the world-wide web wasn't around then. Phil Bridger (talk) 20:58, 7 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - A simple Google search turned up reliable sources with significant coverage. I expanded the article using some of those sources. A 2017 BBC documentary includes the subject, and, as pointed out by Phil Bridger, a 2001 book was written solely about the subject. Easily passes WP:GNG and WP:BIO. -AuthorAuthor (talk) 21:17, 7 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete not a notable figure. I couldn't even tell why the article was written. Perhaps instead of him having his own article, add to an existing article about prosthetics?Disaposi (talk) 15:52, 12 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Even if only searching online, there's plenty to be found, including the existence of a book about him, academic papers about his work ([6]), the fact that his creations are exhibited in several museums in multiple countries ([7], [8], [9]), and the BBC coverage ([10], [11]), as well as other coverage available online ([12], [13]). --Michig (talk) 07:57, 14 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect to Transport in Białystok. Sandstein 18:00, 14 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Zarząd Białostockiej Komunikacji Miejskiej[edit]

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

Does not meet WP:CORPDEPTH. Contested prod. SITH (talk) 12:34, 31 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Icewhiz (talk) 12:49, 31 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. Icewhiz (talk) 12:49, 31 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Poland-related deletion discussions. Icewhiz (talk) 12:49, 31 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to Transport in Białystok. A sentence or two can be merged, then the rest can be deleted per OP. WP:NOTYELLOWPAGES. Most local transport authorities outside major towns are not notable. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 10:35, 1 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 09:56, 7 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to Transport in Białystok per Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus. Mosaicberry (talk) 13:28, 7 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Sandstein 17:59, 14 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Soroush Dabbagh[edit]

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

Doesn't meet WP:NSCHOLAR, his highest citation count is 1, total citations is 23, and doesn't appear to meet the position criteria either. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 12:17, 24 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. CASSIOPEIA^(talk) 13:06, 24 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Philosophy-related deletion discussions. CASSIOPEIA^(talk) 13:06, 24 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Iran-related deletion discussions. CASSIOPEIA^(talk) 13:06, 24 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. CASSIOPEIA^(talk) 13:06, 24 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Citations are not good indicators for people working on humanities (particularly philosophy). He is best known for his works and views in Persian. Particularly his views on Hijab have been criticized: 1, 2, 3, 4 and 5. He is also known for his debates on BBC. Ali Pirhayati (talk) 08:06, 26 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. Citations are not good indicators for people working on humanities (particularly philosophy): False so long as you compare like with like. Xxanthippe (talk) 08:43, 27 March 2019 (UTC).[reply]
I was paraphrasing WP:Academic: "For scholars in humanities the existing citation indices and GoogleScholar often provide inadequate and incomplete information." Ali Pirhayati (talk) 09:13, 27 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 09:03, 31 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 09:25, 7 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Published much but cited little. Xxanthippe (talk) 10:01, 7 April 2019 (UTC).[reply]
delete Doesn't meet the GNG. Lots of publications is not enough to show notability.Sandals1 (talk) 15:01, 12 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Sandstein 17:57, 14 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Aditi Budhathoki[edit]

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

With her single lead role, she doesn't appear to meet WP:NACTOR. Inside Edge 2 doesn't appear to have come out yet (production wrapped in Nov 2018), but in any case there's nothing that indicates she's in a lead role in it. The rest of the references are celeb cruft or casting announcements, and that's hardly enough to substantiate notability. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 16:42, 23 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

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

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

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

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

Draft move to draftspace for AFC consideration after that tv series is released when her notability can be reassessed, as only halfway there at present for WP:NACTOR, thanks Atlantic306 (talk) 21:39, 26 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 03:17, 31 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 08:32, 7 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Draft or Delete can confirm that the subject is likely to become notable in the future. But, it's the classic case of WP:TOOSOON. Also, as a WP:BLP, it ought to be more careful on its content. The birthday mentioned, at least, seems to be contradicted by some other sources, credibility of any of them being hard to establish. Usedtobecool (talk) 09:53, 13 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Reviewing the comments and policy based opinions, it's clear that the consensus at this time is keep. (non-admin closure) Dusti ^{*Let's talk!*} 05:47, 14 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Lil Keed[edit]

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

Subject is an upcoming American rapper. Sources are not IRS. He started his music career in 2018 and has not achieve any prominent in music industry. Fails to meet WP:MUSICBIO CASSIOPEIA^(talk) 06:42, 7 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. CASSIOPEIA^(talk) 06:43, 7 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. CASSIOPEIA^(talk) 06:43, 7 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Georgia (U.S. state)-related deletion discussions. CASSIOPEIA^(talk) 06:43, 7 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

*Comment -I oppose because Lil Keed's brother Lil Gotit has his own page, and Keed has just as many views as Gotit. Thus Keed also collaborated with well known Musical artists and is gaining views, so I oppose deletion. This is User:Proudpakistani11 73.74.141.157 (talk) 18:55, 7 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

*Comment - Notability is WP:NOTINHERITED - his brother has a page does not automatically gives the right for Keed to have his page in Wikipedia. Collaborating with well-know artists does not statisfy the notability requirements either. CASSIOPEIA^(talk) 11:46, 8 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep – Meets WP:GNG. Coverage in reliable sources including Complex, TheFader, XXL, HotNewHipHop, Elevator Magazine and Pitchfork. StaticVapor message me! 23:03, 7 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

*Comment - None of the sources provided are either independent or reliable

(1) Complex - is not a reliable site, no series reputation editorial site for fact-checking and accuracy like Rolling Stones. The sites in various affiliate marketing programs, getting paid commission on purchases made through the site links.

(2 & 3 & 5)TheFader, XXL and Elevator Magazine - are an interview articles which make the source not indepedent as the info obtained is from the subject himself.

(4) HotNewHipHop is a musician subscription site and a "promotional powerhouse" - not such the source is not reliable.

(6) Pitchfork - the editor of the article is a contributor who is a university student who would like to pursue a journalism career in future - she is not a legit journalist and the source/article is not reliable.

CASSIOPEIA^(talk) 11:46, 8 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment You are factually incorrect in your analysis of these sources. All qualify as reliable sources and they cover him or his music. StaticVapor message me! 19:58, 8 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - Something is wrong with that analysis of sources by CASSIOPEIA. First, it is full of typos in a fashion uncharacteristic for that editor. More importantly: Complex, Fader, Pitchfork, and XXL are all listed as reliable sources at Wikipedia:WikiProject Albums/Sources, so they can be assumed to know what they're doing with artist articles as well. And saying that a young beginning journalist is not "legit" smacks of elitism, especially when that person works at a reliable publication with proper editing and management. ---DOOMSDAYER520 (Talk|Contribs) 16:53, 9 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

For the record, HotNewHipHop was just discussed at WT:ALBUMS, with clear consensus that it is a reliable source. StaticVapor message me! 19:04, 10 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

*Comment - to be merit a page in Wikipedia, significant coverage (multiple sources) with independent, reliable sources to support the content claimed is needed. Note, it the sources is reliable, it also has to be independent.— Preceding unsigned comment added by CASSIOPEIA (talk • contribs)

Enough coverage exists in reliable sources to merit an article. WP:GNG. StaticVapor message me! 20:45, 12 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Keep - See my comment above on reliable sources, in which this rapper has a few introductory articles. Those media mentions are indeed brief and some are reliant on interviews in which the rapper merely talks about himself, but the coverage shows some minor notice in the hip hop community, perhaps enough for a stub here. If the article is kept, promotional language needs to be removed, and I would not argue with anyone voting to delete under the WP:TOOSOON standard. But previous delete arguments based on suitability of sources are not convincing. ---DOOMSDAYER520 (Talk|Contribs) 17:05, 9 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - Notability is the guidelines. For a artist to have minor media coverage and the sources are either not reliable or not independent - that fails the notability guidelines. It is WP:TOOSOON.— Preceding unsigned comment added by CASSIOPEIA (talk • contribs)
Delete when an article says someone is upcoming that means right now they are not yet notable.John Pack Lambert (talk) 04:03, 10 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep: per DOOMSDAYER520 and a Google search provides reliable sources to support notability, passes WP:MUSICBIO#5 through this. The subject is also signed to a notable record label. Ceethekreator (talk) 20:11, 11 April 2019 (UTC)][reply]
KeepSigned to a famous lable, is almost upcoming and is famous enough, this is 73.74.141.157.
Comment Pls see WP:MUSICBIO#5 which lead to Major labels and YSL Records has only about 10 artist, it is not considered a major record labble - Subject is WP:TOOSOON.— Preceding unsigned comment added by CASSIOPEIA (talk • contribs)

@CASSIOPEIA: Please stop WP:Bludgeoning the discussion, we already know your opinion. Also remember to sign your posts. StaticVapor message me! 20:45, 12 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep has coverage in multiple reliable sources as per Doomsdayer so passes criteria #1 of WP:NMUSIC and has also released on a notable record label so should be included Atlantic306 (talk) 22:15, 12 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Sandstein 17:55, 14 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Jorge Vargas González[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

I can't understand why this page was kept at a previous AFD. The subject's main claim to fame is being mayor of a 13,000 person town. The nav box shows an serious effort to build out content around everyone that has been a mayor of this little village. There is even Mayors of Pichilemu which seems to have been deleted and recreated. Legacypac (talk) 01:57, 7 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 04:47, 7 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Chile-related deletion discussions. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 04:48, 7 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. A town of 13,000 population is not a "little village". Someone may fail WP:NPOL but pass WP:GNG, which seems to be the case here. Review the article's references and consider whether the person passes WP:GNG. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 04:53, 7 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I've seen building complexes in China with morr people. Legacypac (talk) 05:14, 7 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Quibbling over whether a population of 13,000 makes a place a "little village" or not is entirely orthogonal to the point, which is that a population of 13,000 is not enough to hand all of the place's mayors an automatic inclusion freebie just for existing as mayors. Yes, maybe a mayor of a place this size could manage to pass WP:NPOL #2 on depth of press coverage, but it's far from clear that that's true here: this is entirely too dependent on primary sources (birth and marriage certificates from the civil registry office) and routine election coverage and glancing namechecks of his existence in coverage that isn't about him — and while there are a few sources that are actually reliable and independent and strongly enough about him to count for something, there aren't enough of those once you discount all the weaksauce stuff. Every mayor of everywhere can always show three or four or five media hits, so the way to make a smaller town's mayor notable is not just to show three or four or five media hits — it's to show a depth and range and volume of coverage that marks him out as a special case of significantly greater notability than most other mayors of places this size. But the volume of reliable and substantive coverage in genuinely GNG-worthy sources shown here is not accomplishing that: it's just matching "what every mayor can always show", not lifting him into the realm of the special. Bearcat (talk) 13:14, 8 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete local politicians get local coverage. We need more to show notability.John Pack Lambert (talk) 04:00, 10 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Sandstein 17:55, 14 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

José Martínez (football manager)[edit]

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

Contested PROD. Concern was Article about a football manager who does not WP:GNG or WP:NFOOTBALL. PROD was contested on the grounds that This figure has coached at the first tier level in Denmark, Sweden, and Spain. Given that in these coaching positions he was either an analyst or assistant manager, this does not satisfy WP:NFOOTY, and there is no indication that he has received sufficient coverage to meet WP:GNG. Sir Sputnik (talk) 23:00, 31 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. Sir Sputnik (talk) 23:00, 31 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Sir Sputnik (talk) 23:00, 31 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. Ceethekreator (talk) 23:17, 31 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sweden-related deletion discussions. Ceethekreator (talk) 23:17, 31 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete – WP:NFOOTY says "manager" so it doesn't seem that being an assistant manager, even for an WP:FPL league, would count. I can't find any coverage of him other than this, and that reads like a routine profile-of-the-new-guy interview. No NFooty + one borderline example of SIGCOV for WP:GNG = delete for me. Leviv ich 23:50, 31 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - WP:NFOOTY says "manager" which does qualify him, as other sports such as basketball allow pages such as [14] to remain, even though he has no top-tier or professional, head coaching or playing experience. The WP:NFOOTY definition needs to be clarified before this case is ruled on. To address SIGCOV he has articles such as the one above, and the following are other examples from just his transfer to Malmö FF alone: [15], [16], [17], [18], [19], [20], [21], [22], [23], [24]. User Talk:Trevanbaxter 23:50, 31 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Looking through those, they all appear to be routine non-significant coverage, plus some unrealiable sources and dead links. The basketball article is an WP:OSE argument. Leviv ich 17:51, 13 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Giant Snowman 10:19, 1 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - fails WP:GNG (no significant coverage, just routine job appointment stuff) and WP:NFOOTBALL (he has not man aged or played in a fully-pro league; being an assistant is not enough). Giant Snowman 10:21, 1 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Drmies (talk) 01:37, 7 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete – as per above, fails GNG and NFOOTY. 21.colinthompson (talk) 23:02, 7 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. Michig (talk) 07:32, 14 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

David French (charity administrator)[edit]

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

Finding very little on this director of various charities and other organisations. The article's only link is to Debrett's. I found a Guardian reference but not really anything else. Tacyarg (talk) 01:34, 7 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. CASSIOPEIA^(talk) 06:46, 7 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah delete. Just not notable. Drmies (talk) 01:35, 7 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

- Have no memory of creating this Agree to delete Bashereyre (talk) 12:55, 7 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Sandstein 17:54, 14 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Martin Deeley[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

Think this dog trainer has not had enough coverage to be notable. There is a link to an interview in Orlando Magazine, and a write-up at International Association of Canine Professionals Hall of Fame, but not much else. Tacyarg (talk) 01:22, 7 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Animal-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 07:19, 7 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Florida-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 07:19, 7 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Weak delete. Seems to be highly regarded by other dog trainers, e.g. is mentioned a few times in Cesar Milan's book, but beyond being quoted a few times I didn't find much coverage. --Michig (talk) 07:19, 14 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Speedy keep. Wrong venue for discussing a content merge or formation for redirect. Afd cannot be used to discuss or force merges per WP:MERGEPROP (non-admin closure) scope_creep^Talk 11:18, 7 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

C18 (C standard revision)[edit]

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

"C17 (C standard revision)" should be the main page. "C18 (C standard revision)" should be redirected to the former. The reason is that all mainstream c compilers uses C17 instead of C18. [1] [2]

https://gcc.gnu.org/onlinedocs/gcc/Standards.html
https://clang.llvm.org/docs/CommandGuide/clang.html Yoonghm (talk) 01:15, 7 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Language-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 07:20, 7 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 07:21, 7 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Keep: Misuse of AfD as proper WP:BEFORE indicates a merge proposal is more appropriate. An article should not be taken to AfD to discuss a merge per WP:MERGEPROP. Thankyou.Djm-leighpark (talk) 10:07, 7 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Keep Wrong place for this type of conversation. I will close it. scope_creep^Talk 11:15, 7 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Sandstein 17:54, 14 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Sabeetha Wanniarachchi[edit]

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

Fails WP:ANYBIO, national winner of a non-notable beauty contest. Dan arndt (talk) 23:03, 30 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sri Lanka-related deletion discussions. Dan arndt (talk) 23:09, 30 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fashion-related deletion discussions. Dan arndt (talk) 23:09, 30 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Beauty pageants-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 06:30, 31 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 06:30, 31 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete a non-notabel beauty queen.John Pack Lambert (talk) 05:05, 2 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ad Orientem (talk) 01:09, 7 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete The beauty contests she has taken part in are not major, and I couldn't find any significant coverage in reliable sources about her. She does not satisfy the WP:GNG as a result. Zingarese talk · contribs 01:19, 7 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Speedy deleted as WP:A10. (non-admin closure) Ceethekreator (talk) 13:07, 7 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Slim Dunkin (musician)[edit]

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

Was not sure what to say about this. It appears the article for the person (Slim Dunkin) is already a redirect to 1017 Records. So I guess if this passes for notability the other one should be a article. But I'm not sure if he does, so delete. Wgolf (talk) 00:49, 7 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment-yeah I know I could of made a redirect from this page from there, but it seemed kind of pointless to do to me. (or do a speedy deletion for similar page if that counted) Wgolf (talk) 00:51, 7 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 07:21, 7 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Michigan-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 07:23, 7 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 07:23, 7 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 Young Dolph. Sandstein 17:54, 14 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Paper Route Campaign[edit]

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

Likely fails WP:NALBUM, unsourced. - I could not find any substantial coverage online of this mixtape, and could not find any evidence it has charted on a national level. Zingarese talk · contribs 00:42, 7 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 07:23, 7 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Illinois-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 07:44, 7 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Tennessee-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 07:44, 7 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 07:44, 7 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Young Dolph: Paper Route is a self-released 2008 "mixtape", whatever that meant at the time: It used to mean free. Whatever this thing is, it never charted and has no single that ever charted if the Young Dolph article is to be believed. (And according to the Young Dolph article, nothing else with him as the main performer charted until 2017 either.) --Closeapple (talk) 21:55, 9 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
redirect No significant coverage about this release and I see no reason it should have its own article.Sandals1 (talk) 14:46, 12 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect per above. --Michig (talk) 07:12, 14 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect to Jam Handy#Filmmaking. (non-admin closure) Dusti ^{*Let's talk!*} 05:48, 14 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Nicky Nome[edit]

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

De-prodded without rationale. Only improvement was removing dead links with YouTube links. No in-depth coverage to show notability. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 00:30, 7 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 07:45, 7 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 07:45, 7 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 07:46, 7 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Jam Handy#Filmmaking, where the topic is already covered. This character existed, but it does not require a standalone article, much less an unsourced/primary-sourced duplicate of existing content already covered in context in a more substantial article. Bakazaka (talk) 06:32, 8 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Jam Handy#Filmmaking per Bakazaka. Aoba47 (talk) 17:35, 9 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect per Bakazaka. I've tweaked the target to include the wikilinks to the commercial shorts, but those would probably also be better merged and covered there. ^~Hydronium^~Hydroxide^~(Talk)~ 08:17, 13 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Michig (talk) 07:09, 14 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Jordan Smallwood (American football)[edit]

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

Meets neither WP:NGRIDIRON or WP:NCOLLATH. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 00:26, 7 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - whereas I agree completely with One5969, that in and of itself is not a good reason to delete the article. However, the subject also fails WP:GNG, which is a reason to delete. John from Idegon (talk) 02:28, 7 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - Thanks, John from Idegon, and I'll be clearer in the future, for when I say an article fails one of the speciality notability criteria, I take it for granted (and I shouldn't) that folks understand that the specialty notability criteria only come into play after the subject has failed WP:GNG. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 03:13, 7 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 07:49, 7 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 07:49, 7 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Oklahoma-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 07:49, 7 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of American football-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 07:49, 7 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as Smallwood doesn't meet any notability guideline, including those listed by Onel5969and John from Idegon. WP:GRIDIRON states players are generally considered notable if they "Have appeared in at least one regular season or post season game in any one of the following professional leagues: the Arena Football League, the Canadian Football League, the National Football League, the fourth American Football League, the All-America Football Conference or the United States Football League, or any other top-level professional league." Practice squads don't do it. Jacona (talk) 12:00, 8 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete fails all notability guidelines on this website. (Especially WP:NGRIDIRON). He had just 3 touchdowns in college and hasn't made an NFL roster. James-the-Charizard (talk) 17:48, 10 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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