< 8 February 10 February >
Guide to deletion

Purge server cache

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 Earth shelter. Ad Orientem (talk) 01:15, 17 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Earth house[edit]

Earth house (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Content now mostly merged into Earth shelter, at least those parts of the article which were suitable for the encyclopedia. Other alternative would be to merge more content to the Peter Vetsch article, or reduce this to an article which entirely focusses on his take on earth sheltering, and have it as a sub article of earth sheltering, in which case I will leave that for a future editor. Matthew Ferguson (talk) 23:56, 9 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Architecture-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 13:35, 11 February 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. bd2412 T 00:58, 17 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Pulling a Hamilton[edit]

Pulling a Hamilton (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

As per WP:DICDEF, Not sure if it is included in the Urban dictionary, as both current references point to the non-RS blogspot, but that is irrelavent. Onel5969 TT me 23:46, 9 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Language-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 13:24, 11 February 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 defaulting to keep and w/o prejudice to a future renomination. Ad Orientem (talk) 01:16, 17 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Champions (Paid in Full song)[edit]

Champions (Paid in Full song) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Does not meet WP:NSONG. User continues to rely on a website cited as unreliable. Any verifiable content can be incorporated into the Paid in Full (soundtrack), which nothing more than an introduction and a tracklisting. Ascribe4 (talk) 20:44, 19 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. Bakazaka (talk) 20:54, 19 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 20:56, 19 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Randykitty (talk) 21:15, 26 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 06:38, 2 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, DannyS712 (talk) 22:49, 9 February 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 The Way You Make Me Feel#Music video per WP:ATD. Ad Orientem (talk) 01:18, 17 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Tatiana Thumbtzen[edit]

Tatiana Thumbtzen (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Only significant role was in one music video, all other roles are very minor. The notability seems to be inherited from Michael Jackson. Also, the article is suspected to be the subject of undeclared paid editing. Atlantic306 (talk) 20:05, 2 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Ruyaba (talk) 23:42, 2 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Dance-related deletion discussions. Ruyaba (talk) 23:42, 2 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. Ruyaba (talk) 23:42, 2 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Ruyaba (talk) 23:42, 2 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, DannyS712 (talk) 22:49, 9 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. I don't understand why the Undisclosed Paid tag was added. There is nothing on the Talk Page and the article was created over a decade ago? Any "blocked editors" that I can see on the history were removing material. I can't see where the reason for applying the tag came from? Britishfinance (talk) 19:22, 16 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • A ghostwritten autobiography is not an independent reliable source and the Michael Jackson book sources are inherited notability from Michael Jackson and support her inclusion in the Michael Jackson article but not in a standalone article in my view, thanks Atlantic306 (talk) 21:25, 16 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. She is given a long interview in Spike Lee's Bad 25 (film) 2012 film,[ she also gets a half-chapter in Joe Jackson's book about Michael which has material about her that does not appear in this article. Being the subject of a biography is also part of being notable, particularly when the main author also has their own WP article. I am not saying the case is a slam-dunk either way, but there are editors who have saved WP articles on AfD with far less material. Britishfinance (talk) 21:36, 16 February 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. Although the incident itself generated a certain amount of press solely due to being an incident involving a member of the royal family, there is a solid consensus that the event itself is too trivial to merit a separate article on this incident. I will move the content to a subpage of Talk:Prince Philip, Duke of Edinburgh, so that information is available to be merged into Prince Philip, Duke of Edinburgh as needed to present the historically significant information. bd2412 T 01:07, 17 February 2019 (UTC)

2019 Prince Philip Road Accident and Licence Surrender[edit]

2019 Prince Philip Road Accident and Licence Surrender (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

This article has an additional section added entitled 'Surrender of driver licence' to the previous article 2019 Prince Philip road accident - see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/2019 Prince Philip road accident. This probably removes it from WP:G4 consideration so a fresh AFD is needed. This is a procedural nomination on which I am not expressing view at this stage. Just Chilling (talk) 22:16, 9 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Something is not notable simply because you say it is. All the coverage of this incident and it's aftermath is routine news reporting. Holotony (talk) 06:19, 10 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
it was not only in newspapers but on foreign TV in January AND February. The article is not there to make fun of the guy. Squeaky Rubber Duck (talk) 19:14, 11 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Being on TV news reports in many different countries, and even in two consecutive months, doesn't stop those being news reports, rather than the secondary sources on which we should base Wikipedia articles. And who said anything about making fun of the guy? Phil Bridger (talk) 19:56, 11 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
No, there was a long lasting effect, surrendering his licence to avoid prosecution. Squeaky Rubber Duck (talk) 19:14, 11 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
That effect is only long lasting for Philip himself (if he lives for a long time), rather than for anyone else. Phil Bridger (talk) 19:59, 11 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
The result was delete, rather than no consensus (if it were the latter, then the article would not have been deleted). Of the 3 keeps you mentioned, 1 of them was from the creator (a given), and another subsequently suggested a merge might be more appropriate. If following wikipedia policy, G4 covers this and it should be speedily deleted. Bungle (talk • contribs) 09:46, 10 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • If we buy into the "it's in the news so we must have an article on it" idea then surely the fact that this is being reported today (I heard it on BBC Radio 4 news earlier) means that this event has become even more notable? Phil Bridger (talk) 17:29, 14 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Yes, if we do, that's fair comment. I don't buy into that. Martinevans123 (talk) 17:31, 14 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • That "no-one can predict its long-term significance" is precisely why we should not have an article yet. The way things are supposed to work is that first a topic should become notable, and only then should we have an article about it. Phil Bridger (talk) 22:40, 10 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Long-term significance already happened, he surrendered his licence and not right away but 2 weeks later AFTER getting a replacement Land Rover. Squeaky Rubber Duck (talk) 19:18, 11 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Two weeks long-term? Don't be so silly. Phil Bridger (talk) 19:47, 11 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Like Health of Donald Trump, a notable joke article about everything but his health? Squeaky Rubber Duck (talk) 19:38, 11 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
extraordinary? Not just a "fender bender" but the Land Rover was on its side, other car passenger had broken bones, and the Duke of Edinburgh surrendered his licence. Squeaky Rubber Duck (talk) 19:18, 11 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Many accidents that cause broken bones and the surrender or loss of a driving licence happen every day, so not extraordinary at all. This has only been in the news because Philip is a public figure, so a mention is warranted in his article. Phil Bridger (talk) 20:05, 11 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • I think Diana's collision may have had a slightly bigger impact on the world. Martinevans123 (talk) 19:14, 11 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • True, because people died. However, death is not a requirement in Wikipedia.
WP:NOTNEWS is cited but this article passes the NOTNEWS criteria:
WP:NOTNEWS means (and I quote below)

For example, routine news reporting of announcements, sports, or celebrities is not a sufficient basis for inclusion in the encyclopedia.

THIS IS NOT ROUTINE

Unless news coverage of an individual goes beyond the context of a single event, our coverage of that individual should be limited to the article about that event, in proportion to their importance to the overall topic.

THIS IS MORE THAN A SINGLE EVENT. IT WAS ABOUT THE LACK OF APOLOGY, CONTINUED UNSAFE DRIVING, WORLDWIDE DEBATE ABOUT THE ELDERLY, BELATED APOLOGY, SURRENDER OF LICENSE

A diary.

THIS IS NOT A DIARY.

So while citing "WP:NOTNEWS" sounds like a nice reason, this article complies with not being news just the same as Asiana Airlines Flight 214 is a news article. Squeaky Rubber Duck (talk) 19:27, 11 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment. Well, you know that accident actually involved 307 people, three of whom died. (One of those was run over by a rescue vehicle after she had died, although it wasn't a Land Rover Freelander or a Kia Carens). Martinevans123 (talk) 19:51, 11 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment @Squeaky Rubber Duck: Your intentions towards wanting to retain the article appear in good faith, however I am concerned that you have been blind-sided by your own belief for what is noteworthy inclusion as a long-lasting wikipedia article. I would even go as far as to say (although I can't validate this view), that you seem more keen to have an article you can put your name to and claim credit for than to consider the reality of its noteworthiness. Yes, it made news; yes, people talked about it and yes, it was not Philip's finest hour.. yes, it is news. However, it's not the event in particular that made the news, but the individual whom was the primary subject matter. I have previously said that if we had law changes in this country that could be directly attributed to this event and a discussion in parliament surrounding specifically this event, with proven long-lasting effects with sustained news coverage, then it would have to be considered differently. This AfD is only 2 days in and yet there is already an overwhelming majority who have the foresight to judge this with clear understanding on wikipedia's policy surrounding news vs not-news. I perceive your recent contributions towards this AfD as a forlorn attempt to make something greater than what it is to support your own position. I'd encourage you to invest your time and efforts into an article that will not be in vein. Bungle (talk • contribs) 20:59, 11 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • The probability of the Queen abdicating before she dies is definitely not zero, so you are arguing against yourself. When an current active WP editor has written a well referenced WP article that does not involve clear WP:PROMO or WP:COI (or other offensive aspect), I like to pay them some respect for their efforts, and where I can offer them even a small bone, I do. Britishfinance (talk) 14:55, 16 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • On second thoughts, you are right. The probability of a change to the law, because of this, is almost certainly zero. Martinevans123 (talk) 15:07, 16 February 2019 (UTC) yes, I looked for a small bone on eBay too, but found only bits of plastic.[reply]

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia%3AArticles_for_deletion%2F2019_Prince_Philip_Road_Accident_and_Licence_Surrender&type=revision&diff=883577654&oldid=883570615 Squeaky Rubber Duck (talk) 18:52, 16 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

No, this really was "one trivial event." The only reason it received so much media coverage was because of the identity of one of the drivers. Martinevans123 (talk) 19:08, 16 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
If we're going to get into special notices to administration (with or without capital letters) I would point out that the editor who tried to close this before seven days were up was canvassed by the article creator, made the closure as that editor's sixteenth edit and was involved. Phil Bridger (talk) 19:22, 16 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Oh dear. Alarm bells start to ring, I fear. Martinevans123 (talk) 19:45, 16 February 2019 (UTC) ....and I don't mean on the 1950s Black Mariah c/o the Old Bill, either ....[reply]
I think it's clear where this is headed; it has 1 less keep vote than the last one (courtesy of Martinevans123), of which 1 (or half) is still also the article creator and there was no dispute on the previous AfD outcome. Despite my suggestion some days prior, Squeaky Rubber Duck continues to push this "dead duck" of an AfD. I suggest maybe salting both articles and requesting any future attempt should be approved, perhaps via WP:AfC (although yet another title could well be used to circumvent that). Bungle (talk • contribs) 20:55, 16 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Yes, in cases like this, with an older driver, it is not official CPS policy to not pursue a conviction when a license is surrendered, but it is just more convenient, as it achieves much the same end result and costs the tax-payer nothing. Emma Fairweather may have been covered for injury under the Kia driver's insurance, even in a "no fault found" situation. But I suspect we will never know. Martinevans123 (talk) 23:44, 16 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

References

  1. ^ https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/397430/FOIR4341_How_many_people_hold_licences_in_the_UK.pdf
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 Oracle Applications#Oracle E-Business Suite. (non-admin closure) Ahecht (TALK
PAGE) 16:39, 16 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Oracle Property Manager[edit]

Oracle Property Manager (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Fails WP:NPRODUCT and WP:NSOFT due to lack of significant coverage in independent, reliable sources. De-prodded without rationale. SITH (talk) 21:23, 9 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. Bakazaka (talk) 22:28, 9 February 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. Ad Orientem (talk) 01:19, 17 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Annalisse Mayer[edit]

Annalisse Mayer (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

De-prodded without rationale. Original nomination was Appears to fail WP:NAUTHOR due to lack of major reviews or other significant coverage in independent, reliable sources. SITH (talk) 21:23, 9 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. Bakazaka (talk) 22:29, 9 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Bakazaka (talk) 22:29, 9 February 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. Ad Orientem (talk) 01:19, 17 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Loran (cassette)[edit]

Loran (cassette) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

De-prodded (courtesy ping Necrothesp). Original nomination rationale was: Reads like a personal reflection on a non-notable product brand. SITH (talk) 21:20, 9 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. Sheldybett (talk) 14:58, 11 February 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. Ad Orientem (talk) 01:20, 17 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

India Nette[edit]

India Nette (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Fails WP:NSPORTS phttps://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Notability_(sports)#Figure_skating]. Sportsfan 1234 (talk) 19:27, 9 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. Grahame (talk) 01:47, 11 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 08:10, 11 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 08:13, 11 February 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 General authority. Ad Orientem (talk) 01:21, 17 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

L. Aldin Porter[edit]

L. Aldin Porter (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Per WP:BEFORE source searches, this subject fails WP:BASIC notability standards to qualify for an article. Said searches are providing no significant coverage in independent, reliable sources, and very little coverage in said sources at all. Those found consists of fleeting passing mentions, name checks and quotations, the latter of which are primary in nature. Additionally, the article is entirely dependent upon primary sources and one unreliable source, none of which establish notability. North America1000 03:48, 26 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. North America1000 03:48, 26 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. North America1000 03:49, 26 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. North America1000 03:49, 26 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Jovanmilic97 (talk) 12:54, 2 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Atlantic306 (talk) 18:46, 9 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
He is not mentioned in General authority, but he is mentioned (as a list entry) in List of general authorities of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints#Emeritus, so if redirect is the outcome I would recommend that article/section as the preferred target. Bakazaka (talk) 05:03, 10 February 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. Ad Orientem (talk) 01:21, 17 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Earl C. Tingey[edit]

Earl C. Tingey (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

After WP:BEFORE source searches, finding no significant coverage in independent, reliable sources to qualify for an article per WP:BASIC notability standards. Independent sources are only providing passing mentions and name checks, along with quotations, the latter of which are primary in nature. Searches for book reviews have provided no evidence that WP:AUTHOR is met. Furthermore the article is entirely reliant upon primary sources, and one unreliable source, none of which confer notability per Wikipedia's standards. North America1000 03:36, 26 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. North America1000 03:36, 26 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Utah-related deletion discussions. North America1000 03:36, 26 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. North America1000 03:37, 26 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Jovanmilic97 (talk) 12:54, 2 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Atlantic306 (talk) 18:45, 9 February 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. Ad Orientem (talk) 01:22, 17 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Dan Gamache[edit]

Dan Gamache (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Contested PROD almost two years ago, but I failed to follow up with AfD at the time. Non-notable minor league player. Refs 4, 7, and 8 do not contribute to WP:GNG as they are not in depth coverage. Every minor leaguer gets a stats site on B Ref and Baseball Cube. Also note this is not the same person as the shoe guy with the same name. Look at the photo to be sure. – Muboshgu (talk) 18:17, 9 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. – Muboshgu (talk) 18:17, 9 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Baseball-related deletion discussions. – Muboshgu (talk) 18:17, 9 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Rhode Island-related deletion discussions. – Muboshgu (talk) 18:19, 9 February 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. Ad Orientem (talk) 01:23, 17 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Juicy Pink Box[edit]

Juicy Pink Box (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Seems to lack notability. Madness Darkness 15:48, 9 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sexuality and gender-related deletion discussions. IntoThinAir (talk) 16:52, 9 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. Bakazaka (talk) 19:07, 9 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Bakazaka (talk) 19:07, 9 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. Bakazaka (talk) 19:07, 9 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been added to the WikiProject Pornography list of deletions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:33, 10 February 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 defaulting to keep and w/o prejudice to a future renomination. Ad Orientem (talk) 01:23, 17 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

MediaMan[edit]

AfDs for this article:
MediaMan (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Non notable software that simply fails WP:GNG for lack of significant coverage from secondary reliable sources. WP:BEFORE does not bring me much except download links and blogs or forums, with books being about Mediaman Infotech. The references included in the article are the one in the AfD which are:

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. IntoThinAir (talk) 14:10, 26 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
MarkZusab (talk) 17:54, 26 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
MarkZusab WP:GNG requires significant coverage. For the Neowin one, I said it in my nom above, the review itself is PR per the link placement and the end and (at that time) did not have an editorial control at least (because of the author's name in the article, making it blog like). CNET one, eh. Is it really a WP:SIGCOV? I dont see much about the software itself here and is written by Download.com staff. Techadvisor and Techworld are the same one, but it is a solid one to use, thanks for finding it. Lifehacker reference is not a WP:SIGCOV, only the first two sentences are about the software itself, also a blog making it unreliable. And the second Softpedia reference is the download page from which content already exists in the first one anyways. Even with Softpedia and Techraptor reference, I feel it is too borderline for me to consider withdrawing the nom. If someone finds something else, I will immediately do that. Jovanmilic97 (talk) 18:04, 26 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 03:01, 2 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 14:27, 9 February 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. Ad Orientem (talk) 01:24, 17 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Jamey Blaze[edit]

Jamey Blaze (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Don't think that this musician meets WP:NMUSIC or WP:GNG Britishfinance (talk) 17:22, 26 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Qualitist (talk) 19:01, 26 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. Qualitist (talk) 19:01, 26 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. Qualitist (talk) 19:01, 26 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 03:01, 2 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 14:27, 9 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was merge to Shantikunj. There appears to be a general consensus against retention. However consensus ends there. In such cases it is my usual practice to go with the best available alternative offered in the discussion per WP:ATD. Ad Orientem (talk) 01:31, 17 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Bhagawati Devi Sharma[edit]

Bhagawati Devi Sharma (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Fails WP:GNG, I can't find any reliable sources quoting her as a notable person, and based on the article,it might not be right to classify her as a "social reformer". Those who think this article shouldn't exist should also have a look at the articles edited by User:Anusut, seems to be a case of COI Daiyusha (talk) 13:30, 26 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@RebeccaGreen I am from India, and based on my experience here, i can say most if not all "reliable" "Indian" sources will always be in English, such is the importance English is given here, Only "local" news agencies will be in Hindi because Hindi is not the native language of about 50% of Indians. There are national-level hindi news agencies as well, but they(on their own) certainly don't qualify as "Reliable". And based on that opinion, I ignored any Hindi sites that come up as a search result. Either way, I know Hindi and if anyone who doesn't know it want help regarding translation of a hindi source, i'm happy to help. Daiyusha (talk) 16:05, 26 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 15:08, 26 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Hinduism-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 15:08, 26 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. North America1000 09:54, 1 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 03:00, 2 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Thsmi002 (talk) 03:56, 6 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 14:26, 9 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
PS. it looks from p. 274 fn 15 of Daniel Philip Heifetz, 'From Gurudev to Doctor-Sahib: Religion, Science, and Charisma in the All World Gayatri Pariwar', Method & Theory in the Study of Religion, 30.3 (2018), 252-78 doi:10.1163/15700682-12341433 that his PhD thesis discussed the subject of this article in more detail and that he'll be publishing on her in future. Alarichall (talk) 19:06, 12 February 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 Dareysteel. North America1000 13:03, 16 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Boom Boom (Dareysteel song)[edit]

Boom Boom (Dareysteel song) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

The song fails WP:GNG and WP:NSONG. It did not chart on any country's official music chart and was not discussed in reliable sources.  Versace1608  Wanna Talk? 17:04, 2 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions.  Versace1608  Wanna Talk? 17:05, 2 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Nigeria-related deletion discussions.  Versace1608  Wanna Talk? 17:05, 2 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Spain-related deletion discussions.  Versace1608  Wanna Talk? 17:05, 2 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 14:09, 9 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. Consensus is for the article to be retained. North America1000 13:11, 16 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

City View Center[edit]

City View Center (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Fails WP:NBUILD. This article is about a "Mall" in Ohio that was closed down, there is no point of significance for the article to exist. I couldn't find any reliable sources for it to establish notability. Daiyusha (talk) 18:12, 2 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Architecture-related deletion discussions. Qualitist (talk) 19:55, 2 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Ohio-related deletion discussions. Qualitist (talk) 19:56, 2 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Shopping malls-related deletion discussions. North America1000 06:17, 3 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 14:04, 9 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

*Keep Sources in the article make the subject meet WP:GNG89ezagonoszkommunistanacionalista64 (talk) 16:17, 12 February 2019 (UTC) — 89ezagonoszkommunistanacionalista64 (talk • contribs) is a confirmed sock puppet of 123Aristotle (talk • contribs). [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. Ad Orientem (talk) 01:31, 17 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Mandarin's Minions[edit]

Mandarin's Minions (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

As far as I can tell, this isn't even a real team, just people who worked for the Mandarin at certain times. Appears to be WP:FANCRUFT. Namenamenamenamename (talk) 23:30, 2 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. Ruyaba (talk) 23:34, 2 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Ruyaba (talk) 23:34, 2 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 14:03, 9 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Comics and animation-related deletion discussions. Bakazaka (talk) 19:08, 9 February 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. Ad Orientem (talk) 01:32, 17 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Star of the West (Bahá'í magazine)[edit]

Star of the West (Bahá'í magazine) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Article on an in-house Bahá'í faith magazine which cites no reliable independent sources. A search finds directories, press releases, namechecks and nothing more. Guy (Help!) 23:41, 2 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of News media-related deletion discussions. Ruyaba (talk) 23:45, 2 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Ruyaba (talk) 23:45, 2 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. Ruyaba (talk) 23:45, 2 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Religion-related deletion discussions. Bakazaka (talk) 18:31, 3 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 14:02, 9 February 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 delete. WP:A7. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 13:39, 9 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

JBJ's Bakery[edit]

JBJ's Bakery (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Deprodded without improvement or rationale. Local bakery which searches did not turn up anywhere near enough in-depth coverage from independent sources to meet either WP:GNG or WP:CORPDEPTH. Onel5969 TT me 11:51, 9 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. AllyD (talk) 13:20, 9 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. AllyD (talk) 13:20, 9 February 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. North America1000 13:20, 16 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Muirs[edit]

Muirs (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Highly promotional, appears to fail WP:MUSICBIO. SITH (talk) 11:41, 9 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Bakazaka (talk) 19:12, 9 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of New Zealand-related deletion discussions. Bakazaka (talk) 19:12, 9 February 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) Ahecht (TALK
PAGE) 16:43, 16 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Matt Manning[edit]

Matt Manning (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Fails WP:GNG, WP:NBASEBALL John from Idegon (talk) 11:35, 9 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

MJL, John from Idegon: I put some work into the article. Would you like to reconsider? – Muboshgu (talk) 18:01, 9 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. – Muboshgu (talk) 18:18, 9 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. – Muboshgu (talk) 18:18, 9 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Baseball-related deletion discussions. – Muboshgu (talk) 18:18, 9 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I'm well aware of crystal ball, thanks. It was just an added point. Sourcing is the main reason why it should be kept.-- Yankees10 20:17, 9 February 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. North America1000 13:29, 16 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Catrin Pritchard[edit]

Catrin Pritchard (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

This article is lacking in significant sources, with someone having a close connection of the subject, and it fails WP:NACADEMIC. Sheldybett (talk) 09:03, 9 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. Bakazaka (talk) 19:13, 9 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Bakazaka (talk) 19:13, 9 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. Bakazaka (talk) 19:13, 9 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. Bakazaka (talk) 19:13, 9 February 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. Discussion that has occurred here regarding the article's title can continue on its talk page, if desired. North America1000 13:34, 16 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Simon Dutton (drug lord)[edit]

Simon Dutton (drug lord) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

This man doesn't seem to meet notability standards. He doesn't seem to be a cocaine dealer of note. A Google search shows there a many more famous "Simon Duttons than him. Removing key search words related to those actors and sportsmen and then adding "cocaine" brought back less than 500 results, almost all related to his arrest. Esprit15d • talk • contribs 23:02, 25 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ad Orientem (talk) 00:39, 2 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Bakazaka (talk) 02:07, 2 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Crime-related deletion discussions. Bakazaka (talk) 02:07, 2 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. Bakazaka (talk) 02:07, 2 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 08:45, 9 February 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. It took a while, but it appears we have a rough consensus to delete. Ad Orientem (talk) 01:34, 17 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

East Central Minnesota[edit]

East Central Minnesota (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

This region, as defined in the article, seems to be an invention by prominently mentioned "development consortium" GPS:45:93. Other than their brochure, only one of the cited sources even mentions "East Central Minnesota", and it's unclear whether they mean the same region. I couldn't find significant references to those five counties as "East Central Minnesota" outside Wikipedia and its mirrors. The local library organization and labour council use the term "East Central Minnesota", but they don't mean these five counties (and they don't agree with each other, either), so there's no indication that this is a well-defined region. The content of the article is mostly a bunch of lists and statistics that may be correct, but grouping them in this way is original research. Huon (talk) 21:25, 25 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. Bakazaka (talk) 22:40, 25 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Minnesota-related deletion discussions. Bakazaka (talk) 22:40, 25 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - This region is specifically defined in many places, most notably by the State of Minnesota here. Places in proximity to the region or adjacent to the region are at times loosely and incorrectly referred to as in East Central Minnesota, but locals know which five counties are in actuality in the region.--John2690-john2690 (talk) 03:42, 26 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@John2690-john2690: So the East-Central Regional Library, East Central Minnesota Area Labor Council, East Central Energy, and the Minnesota Department of Natural Resources are all non-locals who don't know what they're talking about? Sure about that? Huon (talk) 19:50, 26 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
East Central Minnesota Economic Development Region is not a "populated place" which is what WP:GEOLAND refers to, it is an area - are you suggesting that all the other areas on that page are automatically notable, e.g. Workforce Service Area 03, Mankato-North Mankato Micro-Statistical Area? --Pontificalibus 09:06, 28 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Workforce service area 3 is not an apples-to-apples comparison. Mankato-North Mankato Micro-Statistical Area already has a page Mankato – North Mankato metropolitan area although entitled incorrectly. All of Minnesota's micropolitan statistical areas have their own Wiki pages. East Central Minnesota is more than an economic development region; it is a notable place name, important to Minnesotans and non-Minnesotans alike.--John2690-john2690 (talk) 15:58, 28 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
No, the Mankato-North Mankato Metropolitan Area (not micropolitan, no, they are a federally designated MPO now see https://mnmapo.org/) is different then a multi-county region of a state. We aren't talking about Southern Minnesota or South-Central Minnesota. Neither of those have pages and are far more culturally defined. By comparison Region Nine Development Commission does not have a separate page. That is an apples to oranges comparison and your point is factually inaccurate. Outside of maybe the economic development staff and some regional planners the term does not have relevance in a common, verifiable way that is appropriate for a seperate Wikipedia page. Randomeditor1000 (talk) 20:48, 1 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Please see Minnesota Department of Natural Resources, East Central Energy Coop, East Central Economic Development, Habitat.org. It goes on forever, but East Central Minnesota is not an "invention". Also see Texas Hill Country, Southern California, Mississippi Delta, and on and on. Do not merge. — Maile (talk) 15:14, 26 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Those three regions all have multiple sources dicussing the characterstics of the relevent region in detail. However, the sources you've provided don't represent signficant coverage in reliable sources. The first also assigns 13 counties to the region, only two of which are present in the list of 5 counties in our article. WP:GEOLAND states "subdivisions...informal regions of a state..should be included in the more general article" if they fail WP:GNG.--Pontificalibus 15:36, 26 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@Maile66: - do any two of those organizations use the same definition of "East Central Minnesota"? I don't think so. Are there reliable sources that consistently define what "East Central Minnesota" is and that discuss it? I haven't seen any. Just becase the combinations of words "East Central Minnesota" (or "east central Minnesota") sees use, it's not necessarily a valid topic for an encyclopedia article. Removing all WP:SYN content would amount to blanking the page. Huon (talk) 19:50, 26 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Weak merge with Geography of Minnesota. I haven't run into anything significant describing this region that wasn't related to a watershed or flooding. Consider also merging Central Minnesota, which also suffers from a lack of content.--Molandfreak (talk, contribs, email) 16:37, 26 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

All trivial passing mentions, like "central southern England" which is used by e.g. weather forecasters but doesn't warrant an article because there is no in-depth coverage in multiple independent sources.--Pontificalibus 07:40, 28 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@John2690-john2690: Standard protocol on Wikipedia is that you should only give one bold "keep" vote. It's improper to reply to another user in a deletion discussion with a bold "keep" if you have already stated your opinion, because it is otherwise difficult to distinguish and may appear as additional support.--Molandfreak (talk, contribs, email) 16:56, 28 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Userfy. Do not keep this in the Main article space. It currently fails WP:GNG. WP:USERFYIT until significant coverage occurs. Pontificalibus finds that sources ... don't represent significant coverage in reliable sources. Unable to locate better sources, I agree with Pontificalibus. I encountered the same as Molandfreak, finding (nothing) significant describing this region and I support Huon's finding that removing all WP:SYN content would amount to blanking the page. -- Paleorthid (talk) 21:25, 26 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, DannyS712 (talk) 00:07, 2 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 08:44, 9 February 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) Ahecht (TALK
PAGE) 16:44, 16 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Shehab Mohamed[edit]

Shehab Mohamed (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Fails WP:GNG. Does not meet WP:NFOOTY since he never played an international game and the league that he plays in isn't listed on WP:FPL. Only sources I managed to scour are automatically generated player profiles. GN-z11 ☎ ★ 08:38, 9 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Bakazaka (talk) 08:43, 9 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. Bakazaka (talk) 08:43, 9 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Egypt-related deletion discussions. Bakazaka (talk) 08:43, 9 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Hmm, didn't notice this. GN-z11 ☎ ★ 09:52, 9 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. GiantSnowman 11:24, 11 February 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. Ad Orientem (talk) 01:35, 17 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Dynamic Images[edit]

AfDs for this article:
Dynamic Images (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Third nomination. Unable to find multiple reliable independent sources. Mccapra (talk) 08:19, 9 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletion discussions. Bakazaka (talk) 08:43, 9 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Bakazaka (talk) 08:43, 9 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. Bakazaka (talk) 08:43, 9 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Advertising-related deletion discussions. AllyD (talk) 13:16, 9 February 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. Ad Orientem (talk) 01:36, 17 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Staburags (newspaper)[edit]

Staburags (newspaper) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Fails WP:NEWSNOTE. Completely unsourced stub that wasn't edited once since its creation by a blocked user in 2010. See also this entry that was created by the same blocked user and nominated for the exact same reason. GN-z11 ☎ ★ 07:59, 9 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of News media-related deletion discussions. Bakazaka (talk) 08:42, 9 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Latvia-related deletion discussions. Bakazaka (talk) 08:42, 9 February 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. Ad Orientem (talk) 01:36, 17 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Ramachandra Mohapatra[edit]

Ramachandra Mohapatra (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

This article is about an individual who does not meet notability. The article has no sources whatsoever. There is no clear claim of notability. The lead states he was a freedom fighter but with no explanation. Based on Sailo Jharapada, it appears to be for India's independence. However, there is no detail as to what he did nor could I find any sources that covered this individual's participation. There is also a statement that he individual participated in stage drama and became a director. Again, there are no details, nor could I find any sources. There is also his role in village politics that is mentioned. Again, I can find no coverage about this at all. Whpq (talk) 20:09, 2 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Ruyaba (talk) 23:40, 2 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Ruyaba (talk) 23:40, 2 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 06:14, 4 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 06:14, 4 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'm pretty sure that they are about the same individual - the time and place agree and the person of this name described in those sources could be described by some as a "freedom fighter", but in the cause of Odisha nationalism rather than Indian independence as guessed by the nominator. However that's all rather irrelevant unless we can find sources that are better than those passing mentions. Phil Bridger (talk) 16:16, 8 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Needs more discussion
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Jupitus Smart 07:38, 9 February 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. North America1000 13:39, 16 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

P. E. Thomas[edit]

P. E. Thomas (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Non notable person. Most of the refs are press releases about the company. A half decent article about the person's spiritual experiences exists though I don't believe that alone imparts any notability. Created and edited by single use editors who only edit associated pages. Jupitus Smart 07:32, 9 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. Jupitus Smart 07:33, 9 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Jupitus Smart 07:33, 9 February 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. North America1000 14:21, 16 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Merchem[edit]

Merchem (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Non notable company. Most of the refs seems to be press releases. Seems to have been created and mainly edited on by single purpose editors. The company does have a good ref here in this quirky news article [24] though I don't believe that is not enough to impart any lasting notability Jupitus Smart 07:29, 9 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. Jupitus Smart 07:29, 9 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Jupitus Smart 07:29, 9 February 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. Ad Orientem (talk) 01:37, 17 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Grove Limited[edit]

Grove Limited (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Non notable IT company. The only references seem to be press releases about some software launched by the company Jupitus Smart 07:15, 9 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. Jupitus Smart 07:16, 9 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Jupitus Smart 07:16, 9 February 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. Ad Orientem (talk) 01:38, 17 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Anis Alamgir[edit]

AfDs for this article:
Anis Alamgir (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Do not pass the criteria of WP:JOURNALIST. Suspicious notability per WP guideline. Re-created after previous dissuccion of deletion. ~Moheen (keep talking) 10:31, 25 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bangladesh-related deletion discussions. Moheen (talk) 10:28, 25 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of News media-related deletion discussions. Moheen (talk) 10:28, 25 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. Moheen (talk) 10:28, 25 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. Moheen (talk) 02:54, 11 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. Moheen (talk) 10:28, 25 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Jovanmilic97 (talk) 14:23, 1 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Bangladeshi journalist sued for 'defamatory' Facebook post BBC Monitoring South Asia; London [London]31 Jan 2018....newspaper The Daily Star on 31 January Journalist Anis hitAlamgir was sued......Anis hitAlamgir, a part-time teacher at Dhaka University, made another post on his...
  • Bangladesh police harass journalists during curfew - paper BBC Monitoring Media; London [London]24 Aug 2007: 1....home during the curfew. Anis Alamgir, news chief of Bashakhi TV,......released, according to the police. Anis Alamgir, head of news at......television channel Boishakhi's head of news hitAnis hitAlamgir, Bangladesh Today...
  • DIU introduces 'Unconditional Appreciation Awards' The New Nation; Dhaka [Dhaka]04 Sep 2015. ...hitAnis hitAlamgir and Former Pro- Vice Chancellor of Jahangirnagar University Prof...
  • World journalists body IFJ warns Bangladesh over attacks on media BBC Monitoring Media; London [London]24 Aug 2007: 1. ...over the past two days were hitAnis hitAlamgir, head of the news department at...E.M.Gregory (talk) 23:36, 6 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Seems like minor coverage to me. — MarkH21 (talk) 03:09, 7 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ad Orientem (talk) 04:57, 9 February 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. Ad Orientem (talk) 01:39, 17 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Mariam Mirza[edit]

AfDs for this article:
Mariam Mirza (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Subject does not appear to meet relevant notability guidelines and lacks non-trivial coverage from independent reliable sources. Steps were taken to locate sources WP:BEFORE this nomination, but were not successful.

Page was undeleted recently on a request (Wikipedia:Requests_for_undeletion#Mariam_Mirza) by a sock of User:Pakistanpedia. Saqib (talk) 14:31, 1 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Unproven allegation
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions.  samee  converse  16:06, 1 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions.  samee  converse  16:06, 1 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions.  samee  converse  16:06, 1 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: I am not impressed by the level of WP:PAG cited in the discussion.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ad Orientem (talk) 04:57, 9 February 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. Ad Orientem (talk) 01:43, 17 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Venus Airlines[edit]

Venus Airlines (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Fails WP:NCORP. No third party coverage of the airline. Had need verification tag since 2013 with little changes. Tyw7 (🗣️ Talk) — If (reply) then (ping me) 00:58, 25 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]


Defunct airlines AFDs:


Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. Tyw7 (🗣️ Talk) — If (reply) then (ping me) 01:00, 25 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Tyw7 (🗣️ Talk) — If (reply) then (ping me) 01:00, 25 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. Tyw7 (🗣️ Talk) — If (reply) then (ping me) 01:00, 25 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Aviation-related deletion discussions. Tyw7 (🗣️ Talk) — If (reply) then (ping me) 01:00, 25 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Greece-related deletion discussions. Tyw7 (🗣️ Talk) — If (reply) then (ping me) 01:00, 25 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been mentioned at Wikipedia:WikiProject Airlines --Tyw7 (🗣️ Talk) — If (reply) then (ping me) 20:41, 26 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Not a reason to delete it just needs some work doing to it, it has flown services using an aircraft as big as the Boeing 757 so is noteworthy for inclusion. MilborneOne (talk) 16:57, 25 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Well not all operational companies are worthy of inclusion. There are tons of charter airline companies but not all of them are on Wikipedia. --Tyw7 (🗣️ Talk) — If (reply) then (ping me) 17:00, 25 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I would suggest that very few that have operated aircraft the size of the Boeing 737 or 757 are missing, if there is we need create some new articles. MilborneOne (talk) 17:04, 25 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Not clear why you think an airline that operated 200-seat airliners is not somehow of note. MilborneOne (talk) 16:46, 27 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Six years is not really a long time in wiki terms, unless somebody brought it to the attention of the project it is unlikely to be noticed. They are 1978 articles in Category:Articles needing additional references from April 2013 among the 360,000 articles tagged. Hardly a go to place. Tagged articles go back to 2006 so the six years is not really significant or relevant. If you find such articles it would be better to go to the relevant project and ask "hey this article needs some refs, anybody help" and give them a chance to improve it rather than AfD straight away. MilborneOne (talk) 23:09, 26 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
That comes under WP:BEFORE an AFD is started, sections "C" and "D". - Ahunt (talk) 12:53, 27 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Ahunt, well I had checked Google news and all the other sources listed in the "find source" section but nothing came up.
Also, it had been tagged with needs improvement since 2013, so there's plenty of time for the article to be improved. --Tyw7 (🗣️ Talk) — If (reply) then (ping me) 13:12, 27 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Jovanmilic97 (talk) 17:07, 1 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, DannyS712 (talk) 04:48, 9 February 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. Ad Orientem (talk) 01:46, 17 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

European Scientific Cooperative on Phytotherapy[edit]

European Scientific Cooperative on Phytotherapy (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Non-notable organization, as well as a highly promotional article tone CatcherStorm talk 19:02, 1 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Health and fitness-related deletion discussions. Bakazaka (talk) 19:36, 1 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. Bakazaka (talk) 19:36, 1 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. Bakazaka (talk) 19:36, 1 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Europe-related deletion discussions. Bakazaka (talk) 19:36, 1 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, I am convinced that this article complies with the principles and aims of Wikipedia. ESCOP is an internationally acknowledged scientific association of European experts in phytotherapy. ESCOP publishes books that are used as references by pharmacists, medical doctors. Phytomedicine, one highly ranked scientific journal is published in affiliation with ESCOP. ESCOP regularly takes part in the public consultation of the European Medicines Agency. This article is supported by several third-party references. Moreover, it is the translation of an already existing German page. Csupord (talk) 20:15, 1 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

  1. I saw "zirconia is metal free and is biocompatible" in the old version at https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Root_analogue_dental_implant&oldid=880308366
  2. Then, I gave my independent thought. I said "Conventional titanium is biocompatible too, thus I find this sentence to be boasting".
  3. Someone else chopped off the entire "Advantages" section, and I agree to do so. We shouldn't "force" someone else to read non-neutral content. Tony85poon (talk) 00:16, 5 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ad Orientem (talk) 04:47, 9 February 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. Ad Orientem (talk) 00:43, 17 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Genie in a String Bikini[edit]

Genie in a String Bikini (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

The film does not appear to have enough coverage from notable, reliable sources to satisfy the conditions for Wikipedia:Notability. Aoba47 (talk) 20:14, 1 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. Aoba47 (talk) 20:14, 1 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sexuality and gender-related deletion discussions. Aoba47 (talk) 20:14, 1 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ad Orientem (talk) 04:46, 9 February 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. Ad Orientem (talk) 01:49, 17 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Kayisha Payne[edit]

Kayisha Payne (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Doesn't seem to pass the Google test.  I dream of horses (My talk page) (My edits) @ 20:21, 25 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions.  I dream of horses (My talk page) (My edits) @ 20:21, 25 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions.  I dream of horses (My talk page) (My edits) @ 20:21, 25 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions.  I dream of horses (My talk page) (My edits) @ 20:21, 25 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. Thsmi002 (talk) 23:20, 25 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • All the 100 people mentioned over there are wiki-notable? ∯WBGconverse 18:27, 4 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Randykitty (talk) 20:34, 1 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • I am not averse to a draftification, per Rebecaa's ideas.∯WBGconverse 18:27, 4 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ad Orientem (talk) 04:45, 9 February 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 defaulting to keep and w/o prejudice to a future renomination. Ad Orientem (talk) 01:50, 17 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

OpenTimestamps[edit]

OpenTimestamps (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Non-notable software. The non-primary sources in the article are three mentions in this paper (search only "opent" or it won't find all mentions), a student paper, and Bitcoin Magazine. Џ 15:41, 25 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I attach some other non-primary sources:
I consider OpenTimestamps is notable for a Wikipedia article. It provides a robust decentralized timestamping format, and it is already used by many notary services and companies.
--FrankAndProust (talk) 18:49, 25 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I specify here the arXiv document presented by the OP to better recognize the title and further facilitate ongoing debate if necessary.
The Bitcoin Magazine article introduced by the OP is also published on NASDAQ:
--FrankAndProust (talk) 15:12, 26 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. Bakazaka (talk) 20:25, 25 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. Bakazaka (talk) 20:25, 25 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
The first three sources are student papers (Italian one says "Tesi di Laurea di/Thesis of") which probably don't qualify as reliable sources. The fourth mentions it five times, but only along with other similar services.
  1. Page 5 "Services, such as OriginStamp 4 , Chainpoint 5 , and OpenTimestamps 6 , generate trusted timestamps in Bitcoin for digital documents. Even though timestamping steps might vary from one service to another, they follow a common procedure:"
  2. Page 6 "Other services, such as Chainpoint, Tangible.io 7, Proof of Existence 8, and OpenTimestamps, are based on the same concept of using Bitcoin to timestamp digital documents. Some differences between these tools include:"
  3. Next three on page 7 "Services like OriginStamp, ChainPoint, and OpenTimestamps support issuing either one Bitcoin transaction per submitted hash or one transaction per aggregated hash."
  4. "Chainpoint and OpenTimestamps uses a Merkle Tree [24] to generate one aggregated hash (i.e., root hash)."
  5. "Chainpoint and OpenTimestamps require installing client software in order to use the timestamping service" Џ 12:24, 26 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
We could delve on other papers, but at least the document "Providing Reliable Log Delivery And Integrity of Logs", from Tallinn University of Technology, is a Master Thesis and it has been supervised by a PhD working as a Senior Research Fellow. --FrankAndProust (talk) 16:14, 26 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Randykitty (talk) 20:52, 1 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Reproducing an article verbatim does not invalidate the fact that it has been published by NASDAQ. Many reliable news organizations also publish verbatim reports by agencies worldwide. Those reports are usually reviewed to a certain extent before being published by the new media brand.--FrankAndProust (talk) 14:12, 2 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
NASDAQ is not a news source, let alone a WP:RS - it's the blog of an exchange. NASDAQ blog reposts of crypto blogs are generally treated as crypto blogs. This strongly suggests you don't in fact have good sources - David Gerard (talk) 16:20, 2 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
NASDAQ is nothing less than the second largest stock exchange in the world, which is owned by Nasdaq Inc, a multinational financial services corporation. I wouldn't dismiss their publication as a common blog.
I post a new document published by Springer Science+Business Media. It is a poster paper written by Peter Todd, the original developer of OpenTimestamps, and by Harry Halpin, a Senior Research Scientist at Massachusetts Institute of Technology:
NASDAQ states on the bottom of the republished Bitcoin Magazine article: "The views and opinions expressed herein are the views and opinions of the author and do not necessarily reflect those of Nasdaq, Inc." That paper with Peter Todd as a co-author doesn't add to notability either since it's not independent Џ 00:13, 4 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
It can be considered independent within reason. AFAIK, the publisher (Springer) is not closely affiliated with OpenTimestamps, which is anyway an open-source project to manage decentralized proofs of existence. The fact that Springer, a firm with reputation for fact-checking and accuracy, agrees to publish this study on a book of revised selected papers, assists on the notability to the subject.--FrankAndProust (talk) 13:03, 4 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
FYI here is a recent reference from Nature: https://www.nature.com/articles/d41586-019-00447-9 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2605:8D80:606:AE44:2848:EC71:1414:271E (talk) 05:13, 5 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Here's one more which appears to be peer reviewed; the reviewers specifically asked for OpenTimestamps to be mentioned: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/m/pubmed/29167732/ — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2605:8D80:606:AE44:2848:EC71:1414:271E (talk) 06:37, 5 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ad Orientem (talk) 04:36, 9 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Coverage in a major blockchain-related news site: https://news.bitcoin.com/bitcoins-blockchain-timestamping-standards-face-off/ — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2605:8D80:605:3FE1:B1B3:FB2:6C7E:D1F6 (talk) 05:13, 9 February 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) DannyS712 (talk) 06:58, 16 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Distracted boyfriend meme[edit]

Distracted boyfriend meme (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Are we for real?

I am usually open to adding topics that were traditionally unencyclopedic to Wikipedia, but this? It's not Pepe the Frog or even Wojak, it's just your average fad that held for a few months and now is mostly gone...

Are we playing a substitute of KnowYourMeme now? And if this should pass the notability checklist then where are the limits? When does a meme become important enough to be featured as a standalone article on Wikipedia?

P.S. I am quite shocked noone has proposed deleting this page before, or even flaunted such action.. In fact, the talk page of the article is entirely blank... Openlydialectic (talk) 02:40, 9 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Popular culture-related deletion discussions. Bakazaka (talk) 03:43, 9 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. Bakazaka (talk) 03:43, 9 February 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. Ad Orientem (talk) 01:52, 17 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Lauren Béa[edit]

Lauren Béa (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Currently fails WP:MUSICBIO, not enough sources as of now to establish notability. WP:TOOSOON PlotHelpful (talk) 10:35, 1 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Bakazaka (talk) 19:27, 1 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Bakazaka (talk) 19:27, 1 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. Bakazaka (talk) 19:27, 1 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Tennessee-related deletion discussions. Bakazaka (talk) 19:27, 1 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Texas-related deletion discussions. Bakazaka (talk) 19:27, 1 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Thanks for the link. I see The Christian Beat was entered as a reliable source on 16 September 2015 without any evidence of having first—-or since—undergone a source review. (A word search in the reliable sources discussions confirm this.) I’m still sticking with my delete vote; while the site may contain reliable information, it also seems to be indiscriminate in what they publish, adhering to their mission (per their description: “… to point you to music…”) of promoting anything and everything Christian music related. Considering this particular reference essentially rephrases content from the subject's website, regardless of a third parties involvement to me it doesn’t come across as a significant example of notable coverage. ShelbyMarion (talk) 17:07, 16 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, DannyS712 (talk) 00:15, 9 February 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. bd2412 T 01:19, 17 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Von Briesen & Roper[edit]

Von Briesen & Roper (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Article version nominated for deletion

Fails to meet WP:GNG. Unable to find in-depth independent coverage in RS. WP is not a business directory. MB 18:41, 1 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Law-related deletion discussions. Bakazaka (talk) 19:34, 1 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Bakazaka (talk) 19:34, 1 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Wisconsin-related deletion discussions. Bakazaka (talk) 19:34, 1 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Wikipedia has few actual rules. However, the Wikimedia Foundation does have terms of service that prohibit undisclosed paid editing, which includes editing on behalf of an employer or client. Given the timing and specificity of your arrival and edits, I recommend that you review the WP:COI policy and take any appropriate action. Bakazaka (talk) 22:03, 1 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, DannyS712 (talk) 00:14, 9 February 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. North America1000 14:27, 16 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Medio Oriente[edit]

Medio Oriente (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

All the info in this article is completely bogus and was created by a user with this article as his/her only claim to fame. Medio Oriente refers to the Middle East in Spanish. BTW, the Puerto Rico barrio name that comes close to this "Oriente" and article already exists and doesn't need to be merged with this bogus info. Please delete Medio Oriente. Thanks. the eloquent peasant (talk) 00:10, 9 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Puerto Rico-related deletion discussions. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 01:47, 9 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. Bakazaka (talk) 02:06, 9 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
delete - I nominated this article for deletion. In the article section called "The facts" there are 4 sections listed which do exist but they do not exist in Medio Oriente - which I believe is fictitious name. See page 147 of the U.S. Census here. Typing medio in any U.S. Census document reveals no match. I think what the article has is a bad mix of fact with fiction. --the eloquent peasant (talk) 03:58, 9 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
The four sectors mentioned in the Medio Oriente are actually sectors of, and mentioned in Hato Rey Central. Per US Census docs, these sectors are in Hato Rey Central. (The sectors are: Las Monjas, Ciudad Nueva, Floral Park, and Quintana).--the eloquent peasant (talk) 04:25, 9 February 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.
More