< 1 March	3 March >

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 Absolute magnitude. (non-admin closure) Tymon.r Do you have any questions? 23:46, 9 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Intrinsic brightness[edit]

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

Very similar to Luminosity. No real added information in this article. Sam-2727 (talk)

Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2019 March 2. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 23:43, 2 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I agree, this article should be deleted. It is a confusing term that is supposed to mean the same thing as absolute magnitude (or luminosity), but is simply a more confusing way to express these concepts. The article itself is very badly written and this will only lead to more confusion. There is no need for this article to exist. It could possibly be replaced with a redirect to absolute magnitude. Aldebarium (talk) 00:00, 3 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The topic is notable by this title. For example, see Foundations of Astronomy. Deletion is therefore not appropriate. Andrew D. (talk) 00:18, 3 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

It's true that the term is used sometimes but in my view it's really poor practice for a textbook to use this term instead of "luminosity". If the article is kept, it should be completely rewritten for clarity and amended to explain the difference between brightness and luminosity. Aldebarium (talk) 00:25, 3 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
In that case it would make sense to place a ((Duplication)) template at the top of this article. Praemonitus (talk) 23:00, 4 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Astronomy-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 00:54, 3 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to either absolute magnitude or luminosity, with a slight preference for the former. This is a rarely used alternative term, and no-one profits from it having its own badly written stub. - Oh look, an Andrew D. "I found a mention on Google, so we need to keep it" !vote... --Elmidae (talk · contribs) 21:31, 5 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to absolute magnitude (luminosity would be fine, too). This page gets about 10-11 hits per day, so might be a plausible search term. Directing readers to the more common term for the concept is a worthy use of a redirect and I think it is justified here. --((u|Mark viking)) {Talk} 22:21, 5 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to absolute magnitude. It has been shown above that this term is largely just a lesser-used term for the same concept. There is no reason for a separate article to exist. 169.232.162.112 (talk) 17:19, 6 March 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) 00:02, 10 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Kaytanhousuja[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

Survived PROD and AfD in 2006 but still unsourced. Mccapra (talk) 22:39, 2 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 22:40, 2 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Finland-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 22:41, 2 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 22:41, 2 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete no coverage found. Apparently this was a Mikseri.net music sharing service humor band, no notability. --Pudeo (talk) 20:45, 3 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete- no coverage, not notable. --SalmanZ (talk) 21:58, 7 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, fails WP:BAND. Tymon.r Do you have any questions? 02:31, 9 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete No real coverage. scope_creep^Talk 02:59, 9 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Despite a very distinctive name, no single WP:RS on them? Total fail of WP:GNG. Britishfinance (talk) 15:18, 9 March 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 that sourcing requirements are met (non-admin closure) Nosebagbear (talk) 22:02, 9 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

One Theater Square[edit]

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

Not notable under WP:NBUILD. This is nothing more than a luxury apartment building. The sources provided are exclusively local. Borderline WP:PROMO Rusf10 (talk) 21:52, 2 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of New Jersey-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 22:17, 2 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Architecture-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 22:18, 2 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Keep. Uh, what about all the references included in the article, including 2 New York Times articles? How do they not obviously satisfy wp:GNG? --Doncram (talk) 07:07, 3 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

See also Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Teachers Village, Newark: same deletion nominator, similar apparent will to waste others' time. --Doncram (talk) 07:23, 3 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

New York Times = local coverage. New York Times does not = automatic notability. Also, you made another WP:PERSONALATTACK--Rusf10 (talk) 14:38, 3 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

NYT is headquartered in Manhattan, which is 2,000,000 to 3,000,000 people away from Newark. NYT may be delivered in Newark, I am not sure, but it is also delivered to cities nationwide and delivered online. It is a bit ridiculous to treat NYT coverage in this case as if it is a local and non-reliable source. And there are many other reliable sources, which you do not comment on, may I assume you did not check any sources cited in the article? You need to understand GNG by now. It does appear to be an obvious waste of other peoples' time, to me. --Doncram (talk) 01:47, 4 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Over 8 million people live in New York City and 285,000 live in Newark. What the hell does that have to do with anything? Newark is roughly five miles away from New York. How much more local can you get? And yes, you can get the New York Times delivered in Newark. The other sources are also local such as the Star Ledger (that one is based in Newark), the NY Daily News, and a local television station. There's also a few press releases thrown in (they can be ignored for our purposes) WP:GNG alone does not establish notability, rather it just creates a presumption of notability. How does this building meet WP:NBUILD?--Rusf10 (talk) 02:10, 4 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Article is clearly supported by local, state-wide, regional, and national sources, which clearly speak to the historic, social, economic, or architectural importance.Djflem (talk) 09:13, 4 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Shame that the nominator has clearly decided to not see or ignore Wikipedia:NEXIST and the The Real Deal (magazine), GlobeSt.com, Building Design+Construction, The Philadelphia Inquirer references and apparently ignore the fact the building has had Wikipedia:SUSTAINED coverage in the NY Times, which besides being a international newspaper is a New York metropolitan area regional newspaper and the Star-Ledger, which is a statewide newspaper. Djflem (talk) 14:40, 4 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

KEEP Completed in 2018, it is the first newly-constructed high-rise apartment building to built in the city of Newark in more than fifty (50) years, which is significant, symbolic, notable and historic and representative of the re-investment in a city that has been known for urban-decline, and is undergoing a often-touted, but only recently fulfilled renaissance. Statewide, regional, and national sources support thisDjflem (talk) 07:21, 3 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Keep.The building is notable in the city and has a history. The article needs to bring some more specific characteristics of the building.Alex-h (talk) 13:11, 6 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep – Per a source review, meets GNG and squeaks by WP:AUD. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 13:30, 9 March 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) Jovanmilic97 (talk) 22:35, 9 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Teachers Village, Newark[edit]

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

First of all, this is not a neighborhood. It is a real estate development. As per WP:NBUILD, buildings have a high bar to clear to establish notability. Being a relatively new development, it has no historical significance and I don't see it being covered anywhere except local sources. Rusf10 (talk) 21:49, 2 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of New Jersey-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 21:51, 2 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 00:56, 3 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Architecture-related deletion discussions. Djflem (talk) 21:28, 4 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

KEEP Teachers Village is an unincorporated community, or neghborhood, arising from a previously run-down part of the district south of Market Street. The unique community of schools and teachers and is a significant, notable, historic contribution to the much-touted renaissance of Downtown Newark, a city that has struggled with under-investment & negative perception for years. Its core is a group of iconic buildings designed by world-renowned architect Richard Meier, a Newark native. The initial redevelopment has triggered other projects in the surrounding neighborhood. All of this is supported local, state-wide, regional, and national sources.-Djflem (talk) 07:13, 3 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Again, this is not a neighborhood, its a development. Also does not matter who the architect is, per WP:NGEO "Geographical features must be notable on their own merits. They cannot inherit the notability of organizations, people, or events."--Rusf10 (talk) 14:37, 3 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Despite the the misconstrued assertions this community is the heart of the neighborhood and the buildings in it by the Pritzker-winning American architect Richard Meier are notable in the real world as well as Wikipeia as seen in List of works by Richard Meier and Category:Richard Meier buildings. For further enlightenment see Mies van der Rohe Residential District and Radburn, New Jersey, just two of the myriad of examples in which historic, social, economic, or architectural factors are significant, as is the case here, and as is supported by the sources/references. Djflem (talk) 12:43, 4 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Keep. How on earth does this not meet wp:GNG. What is the deletion nominator thinking? Is this willful wasting of Wikipedia editors' time? See also Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/One Theater Square. --Doncram (talk) 07:21, 3 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Doncram:How about providing an actual reason to keep, rather than making a WP:PERSONALATTACK?--Rusf10 (talk) 14:37, 3 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Rusf10, the reason to keep is it obviously meets wp:GNG. You should understand GNG by now. --Doncram (talk) 01:42, 4 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

You should understand it by now too. GNG only creates a presumption of notability, it says ""Presumed" means that significant coverage in reliable sources creates an assumption, not a guarantee, that a subject merits its own article" Here we have only local sources (that doesn't help) and we can look towards the applicable guideline WP:NBUILD which it does not appear to meet since it does not have historic, social, economic, or architectural importance.--Rusf10 (talk) 01:56, 4 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Article is clearly supported by local, state-wide, regional, and national sources, which clearly speak to the historic, social, economic, or architectural importance. Djflem (talk) 09:06, 4 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Keep. Concur with Djflem on this well-referenced article, as well as with Doncram in often having to question the motives of some apparently deletionist nominators. - JGabbard (talk) 23:38, 3 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Per the article's significant coverage in many reliable independent sources. Crouch, Swale (talk) 20:08, 7 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Poor nomination. scope_creep^Talk 03:05, 9 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. There's a poorly defined line between a development and a neighborhood. According to my standards, even a housing project can be notable, which it appears to be so in this case. Bearian (talk) 20:17, 9 March 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 to keep but rename Fenix down (talk) 08:52, 9 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Oman women's national football team[edit]

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

According to the article, the team doesn't exist and never has. Information on women's football in Oman is scarce on the Internet (in English at least) and in the article, so I don't think it can be kept as Women's football in Oman either. WikiArticleEditor (talk) 21:29, 2 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2019 March 2. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 21:46, 2 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 21:52, 2 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Asia-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 21:52, 2 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 21:53, 2 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 21:53, 2 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions.CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 21:57, 2 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep and rename per comments at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Brunei women's national football team. Giant Snowman 10:16, 4 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Do you think it's OK to leave the article as it is and just rename it? I don't think so. WikiArticleEditor (talk) 15:17, 4 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

keep, cleanup and rename per prior AfDs last year. We have too many this kind of AfDs, but outcome is almost renaming and there is some valuable content Hhkohh (talk) 16:13, 5 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

What AfDs do you mean, please? WikiArticleEditor (talk) 04:01, 6 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

WikiArticleEditor, see Wikipedia:WikiProject Deletion sorting/Football/archive, you can find it! Hhkohh (talk) 15:15, 7 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep but rename to Women's football in Oman. As per my comments on the Brunei AfD and the precedent from the Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Saudi Arabia women's national football team AfD ~~last year~~ in 2012, there has been significant coverage of the lack of official team as well as of the women's sport in general, but the current title is inaccurate and confusing. Smartyllama (talk) 15:10, 7 March 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 Far North Queensland. (non-admin closure) Jovanmilic97 (talk) 22:35, 9 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Tropical North Queensland[edit]

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

Usage of the term Tropical North Queensland is extremely variable. Article provides only some examples of usage, no evidence of a definition. Shillings1005 (talk) 21:39, 2 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 22:00, 2 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 22:02, 2 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Merge what can be merged into Far North Queensland and then redirect. The term is not clear. --Bduke (talk) 00:05, 3 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Merge and redirect to Far North Queensland. FNQ (talk) 01:11, 3 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Comment, there are plenty of occurrences where the term/name "Tropical North Queensland" is used ie. ".. as it moved into waters and began tracking west over tropical North Queensland waters.", "..with 17 operators from Tropical North Queensland to ..", "Bare supermarket shelves produce buy local push in Tropical North Queensland", it seems to be primarily used as a tourism term: "Tropical North Queensland", Tourism Tropical North Queensland website, "Tropical North Queensland", "Tropical North Queensland", as it appears to encompass the same area as Far North Queensland, agree with above that this could be a redirect with a merge of info into the FNQ article. Coolabahapple (talk) 02:52, 3 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Merge any unique content and redirect to Far North Queensland, which is in common use in my experience. - Unoc (talk) 10:17, 3 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Merge and redirect to Far North Queensland with a section in that article explaining the term, Tropical North Queensland, and its use. Not sufficiently notable in its own right to have its own article giving a full history of the various definitions and use the term. Aoziwe (talk) 23:37, 3 March 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) 00:04, 10 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The Moderate Party (Ireland)[edit]

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

No indication that this political organisation meets WP:ORGDEPTH or related criteria.

The subject here seems to be a small (one man?) political party whose launch was covered only in some smaller/regional newspapers. The subject organisation has not been the topic of any coverage whatsoever in national Irish papers (like the Irish Times or other papers of record). The organisation has fielded no candidates in any elections, and is not listed on the latest (Feb 2019) register of political parties in Ireland.

The article seems, at best, a case of WP:TOOSOON and WP:NOTNEWS. Guliolopez (talk) 21:36, 2 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Ireland-related deletion discussions. Guliolopez (talk) 21:37, 2 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. Guliolopez (talk) 21:37, 2 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Only one semi-solid national RS reference [1] but nothing in the real main Irish media (Irish Times, Irish Independent, Sunday Business Post). No evidence this is even registered as an official Irish political party. Happy to "Draftify" for the moment and see if this develops over the next few weeks/months and we get proper WP:GNG to merit full WP article. Britishfinance (talk) 01:22, 3 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. This basically one man and a website. Spleodrach (talk) 15:59, 3 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - Party for Animal Welfare (Ireland) should also be sent to AFD. Spleodrach (talk) 16:02, 3 March 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) 00:04, 10 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Dennis P. McCann[edit]

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

There are insufficient WP:RS to establish WP:ARTIST. The talk page has record of significant history of WP:COI. I was unable to verify the claim of inclusion in the permanent collection of the Krannert (http://collection.kam.illinois.edu/). The Izmir biennial is a Vanity Gallery and therefor cannot establish notability, and if anything undercuts it; see this page for evidence http://www.shopart.com/galleryseba/bienal1.html Theredproject (talk) 21:36, 2 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Artists-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 22:03, 2 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Illinois-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 22:04, 2 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 01:19, 3 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - I can find nothing substantial on this artist and do not think he meets WP:GNG or WP:NARTIST. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 10:54, 4 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I see nothing to show he's a notable artist and he lacks the significant independent coverage to meet the GNG.Sandals1 (talk) 22:28, 5 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete fails WP:GNG and WP:ARTIST.-TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 02:52, 6 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Per nom. Britishfinance (talk) 15:15, 9 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - per WP:CREATIVE. We tend not to keep artists whose work is not held by major museums or art galleries. There's no evidence of his art being in any major international art show, either. Bearian (talk) 20:19, 9 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Per nom and above. Tymon.r Do you have any questions? 23:16, 9 March 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) 00:05, 10 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

David Race[edit]

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

This is an article about a DJ and comedian who's main claim to fame seems to be a stint as one of Howard Stern's interns in 1987. The article as is has two sources: 1) improv.com, which is a broken link. A search of their website for 'David Race' didn't turn up anything, and even if it did the bios there submitted by the comedians, so I doubt it is an independent source. 2) The second source is a book titled 'Howard Stern, A to Z: A Totally Unauthorized Guide', where he gets a short paragraph that lists a few sketches he was involved in on the Stern show. The book only identifies him as 'David the Intern' so I'm not 100% sure this is even the same David - Stern went through a lot of interns over the years, including a few other Daves. No real biographical content that we could use to write an article. I've searched and haven't found any better sources, so I think this article doesn't meet the general notability guideline or Wikipedia:Notability_(people)'s section on entertainers and should be deleted. MrOllie (talk) 21:21, 2 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Radio-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 21:28, 2 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 21:28, 2 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 21:28, 2 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I see that you have now nominated the page in question for deletion. I believe this is an incorrect assessment. I am relatively inexperienced at the Wikipedia editing process, so I am not certain how to respond within the Afd comments? It does seem that you are correct that the link to the comedy clubs website is now dead, and that the new version of their site has streamlined the list of included comics. So it appears to be that you are correct that the person in question is not currently on their website. However, I am very familiar with the persons work and know for certain that they are considered a regular at that club for about 10 years running. In fact the person is performing there in just a few weeks. So it is true that the person frequently performs at the stated club. Further, the podcasts referenced were both widely distributed through Libsyn, and outward by Apple and Google. It is fully verifiable that the current podcast has featured the guests that are referenced on the page, as the podcast is searchable in the public domain. The current podcast has also already appeared in the top movers and top 200 section of the major podcast platforms, in recent months. I can get you proof of that if you have a way for me to send that to you. The persons career as a prominent radio disc jockey is also at various places in the public domain. The person is a member of the private alumni association of one of the main radio stations mentioned. The other of the main stations mentioned at one time had a non Wikipedia page (and may still), that listed former personalities from the stations history, and the person in question was listed on it. I can get access to aircheck records of the person in question as the main disc jockey on at least 1 of the main radio stations discussed, if you have a way for me to provide those to you. The person in question has been in the public eye, through the various entertainment industry roles and jobs he has held, continuously since 1987. It would not be logical to remove such a page, as this is an actually prominent person, and the work referenced is verifiable. — Preceding unsigned comment added by BordenLene (talk • contribs) 21:52, 2 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete being an intern for Stern does not make one notable, and there are no other credible claims. The comedy club act listing would not add towards notability in any case.John Pack Lambert (talk) 22:23, 2 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Itemized additional verification of each claim made on the Wikipedia page, starts below:

This link verifies that David or Dave the Intern (on the Howard Stern show) was in fact "David Race". http://www.marksfriggin.com/news93/mastertape93.htm This link is verification from the likely most authoritative Howard Stern information website. At this link, scroll most of the way down the page to Thursday June 24, 1993. Once at that date, look under the heading "Intern Updates with Dave and Andy the Interns" at 6:50am. The 3rd sentence clearly states that the "Dave" is "David Race"... Also additionally, in reply to the assertion that there are no other credible claims: This person is the host of a very popular podcast, that is clearly verifiable in the public domain, and has verifiable had the recent celebrity guests appear on the program, as described. — Preceding unsigned comment added by BordenLene (talk • contribs) 22:31, 2 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

These links verify that David Race regularly appears alongside other notable comedians at the Hollywood Improv alongside other notable persons: https://improv.com/hollywood/event/bill+devlin%27s+comedy+%26+cocktails/8562845/

https://www.ticketweb.com/event/comedy-cocktails-with-david-spade-jackie-kashian-wayne-federman-bill-devlin-more-david-spade-jackie-kashian-wayne-federman-brad-williams-matt-iseman-jared-freid-david-race-bill-devlin-hollywood-improv-the-main-room-tickets/7788925 — Preceding unsigned comment added by BordenLene (talk • contribs) 22:38, 2 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

This link verifies that David Race (then going by on air name "Dave Race") was in fact a disc jockey at WMMR starting in 1996: This link takes you to the wayback machine cached screenshot of WMMR's official website in late 1996. Once there, click on the word "Weekenders". It will leap to the photos of the WMMR weekend disc jockeys at that time. It clearly shows "Dave Race" as one of the on air disc jockeys at the time, as stated on the Wikipedia page under review... https://web.archive.org/web/19961115053404/http://www.wmmr.com/ — Preceding unsigned comment added by BordenLene (talk • contribs) 22:47, 2 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

This link verifies that the Monstrosity podcast is a known program in the public domain, with the actual celebrity guests the page claims appeared: This link to Stitcher, one of the largest podcast distributors, clearly shows the Monstrosity podcast has had the various celebrities claimed on the David Race Wikipedia page, on the podcast as guests... https://www.stitcher.com/podcast/david-race/monstrosity-with-david-race — Preceding unsigned comment added by BordenLene (talk • contribs) 22:51, 2 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

This link verifies David Race is of enough notoriety to have been the subject a national radio interview, conducted by celebrity Jason Hawes, in 2018: This is a link to a recent national radio interview done with David Race on the Westwood One radio network: http://beyondrealityradio.com/david-race-discusses-his-blend-of-comedy-the-paranormal-then-john-kuykendall-talks-about-his-research-into-bigfoot/?fbclid=IwAR0aaV4Iq9zYRFJHQiuBsupZUFVM-o41zABhgIj4m9Eh6zwzQ2rY6MvncCs — Preceding unsigned comment added by BordenLene (talk • contribs) 22:59, 2 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Important - Is the resolution of this perhaps as follows? After you review all of the verification content I have added to this discussion, maybe there is a way that an editor better skilled than me, can incorporate some or all of the verification content I have added (in this discussion), into the Wikipedia page itself? Maybe this can stop the AFD and also allow for the removal of the templates saying the page is missing verification elements? It seems that this would be a correct outcome, as the content I have added above, does prove the claims on the page to be accurate. — Preceding unsigned comment added by BordenLene (talk • contribs)

Comment improv.com, ticketweb, WMMR and Stitcher aren't independent. Beyond Reality radio is a syndicated radio show that accepts the claims of psychics and UFO conspiracy theorists at face value, so I would think they don't have much of a reputation for fact checking. We need independent, reliable sources. - MrOllie (talk) 11:30, 3 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Per WP:GNG, the subject has received no significant coverage in reliable sources (emphasis mine). JoJo Anthrax (talk) 03:03, 4 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. There is nothing here. Drmies (talk) 03:05, 4 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. He's clearly been successful (and I exhumed the Improv reference using the Wayback Machine and added the Holywood Improv), but I don't find independent coverage. Yngvadottir (talk) 14:00, 4 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

MrOllie and other editors - What has been started here is a feeding frenzy. It's not an actual addressing of reality. The facts of the matter are: The Improv is one of the most important comedy clubs in the United States. Their site has featured this person many times over the years, and until some type of redesign of the site, did include him in their listing of comedians. A comedian cannot simply put themselves on their site, or their promotional content on other websites such as ticketweb. The Improv is independent of this person, and therefore their posting of this person in their promotional content (as has been proven), as part of their live comedy line ups, is independent verification that the claims are true. Likewise ticketweb and many other sites that list this person as appearing in celebrity filled comedy shows, have no association with this person, and therefore are independent verification that this person is of notoriety.

Likewise, WMMR is a radio station,in one of the ten largest cities in America. It has now been shown that this person was an on air personality, being heard by hundreds of thousands of people, on WMMR, as claimed. Thus that too has been verified, by the independent and separate from this individual WMMR website. Similar online substantiation from the WBAB and other radio stations mentioned on the page would have been available as proof of those radio stations having employed this person. But there was no internet at the time of his employment at those radio stations, so no screenshots or similar could be located.

Stitcher, Apple (iTunes), Google Play, and all the other podcast distributors, are independent of this person. All of them show that this person does have a podcast currently being distributed on all of those platforms, that features all of the celebrity guests on the program, that are claimed to have appeared in this persons page. Those celebrity guests do not appear on the average persons podcast. They appear on this persons podcast, because this person is also a person of re-known, that they believe it is worth appearing on his program.

The fact that the subject matter of this persons program is paranormal topics, and as a result he has been asked to appear on other paranormal shows, does not make this a non valid person to have been included on Wikipedia. The reality is that this person is of enough fame and notoriety to have been asked to appear as a guest on a Westwood One national radio program, regardless of what any editors views are of the topic. The fact that this person was requested to appear, is further proof of this persons notoriety, and is an independent method for determining that.

Linked is another recent article from a non affiliated website, that I have located. It describes this persons current podcast as a celebrity oriented program. This serves as further independent verification of this persons current notoriety, and that he is therefore logically the subject of a Wikipedia page: http://squatchable.com/article.asp?id=398

Wikipedia includes many pages about far less famous, less notable individuals than this person. This person is obviously accomplished enough to attract many fellow celebrities to appear on his program, and to be given performance dates on celebrity filled live stand up comedy shows. There is no reason for this page to be deleted. The correct and logical outcome of this might be for this page to include some of the links I have added to this talk, or for some other edits to be made. But removal is not logical, as this person is clearly notable, and I have shown through the links I've provided, that this persons claims on the page, are all valid. I re-state as I did earlier, that I am not an accomplished editor of Wikipedia. I am unsure how to include the links and content in this talk, to help the pages verification, as many be warranted. If any editor here agrees with me, that this might be the logical way to resolve this Afd, your help would be welcomed. Thank you. BordenLene (talk) 00:19, 5 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, Fails Wp:GNG, no significant coverage. Alex-h (talk) 14:09, 7 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above. By any measure, he fails notability: GNG, WP:CREATIVE, WP:ENT, WP:NACTOR, and WP:SIGCOV. I note that the argument for inclusion basically is WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS. Bearian (talk) 20:23, 9 March 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) Tymon.r Do you have any questions? 23:53, 9 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Animal rights and punk subculture[edit]

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

What's next? Animal rights and folk music? Basically this is an essay that in itself is true but the subject is already covered at Anarchism and animal rights. No need to expand it even further. Also, WP:PLOT comes to mind. Yintan 21:00, 2 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 00:46, 3 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Social science-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 00:57, 3 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Animal-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 00:57, 3 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - I don't see much overlap with the Anarchism and animal rights article. Animal rights has much more of an influence on punk than other kinds of music. Folk music doesn't have a vegan subgenre. The article is well supported, and doesn't seem like an agenda piece. --Nessie (talk) 01:31, 3 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Could merge both into a more complete article on Animal rights in subcultures. Both of the articles under discussion have heavy overlap. czar 04:04, 5 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. This is a well-sourced article and, though I haven't looked at all of the (numerous and predominantly scholarly) sources cited, it strongly suggests that the topic has been the subject of significant coverage in reliable sources. "What's next? Animal rights and folk music?" is a fallacious argument; see WP:OTHERSTUFFDOESNTEXIST. The claim that "the subject is already covered at Anarchism and animal rights" is demonstrably untrue: the body of that article doesn't even mention the word "punk". And none of the four points of WP:PLOT are even remotely applicable. – Arms & Hearts (talk) 21:59, 7 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as per Arms & Hearts. Leutha (talk) 23:47, 9 March 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) Jovanmilic97 (talk) 20:14, 9 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Tuck Tucker[edit]

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

Fails WP:GNG and WP:CREATIVE. His occupation(s) just doesn't attract much media attention. Clarityfiend (talk) 19:14, 2 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 19:38, 2 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 19:38, 2 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Virginia-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 19:38, 2 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 19:38, 2 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Comics and animation-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 19:39, 2 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 19:40, 2 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

~~Delete~~ struck and changed to Keep At first I thought an article in Animation magazine might be worth something, but it turns out it is merely an article the subject wrote. Other references are just scholastic press stuff, not reliable sources, or at least nothing significant. Simply having a career--and having a few articles written about it for the community where one teaches--does not equal encyclopedic notability. This wikipage reads like a fleshed out version of a linked-in profile. UPDATE: E.M.Gregory (talk) and MarkH21 (talk) comments below are spot on and made me rethink my initial delate. Directing a major motion picture release is a qualifier, plus new edits and references--although fairly run-of-the-mill coverage and not really about the subject--are probably enough per WP:CREATIVE. ShelbyMarion (talk) 16:08, 3 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep He directed Hey Arnold!, I added the first reviews that came up in a search, then stopped because there were too many. Every news outlet in the country seems to have reviewed it. This may carry him past WP:CREATIVE. I'm gonna wait and see what other editors find.E.M.Gregory (talk) 01:53, 4 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Soft Keep: I was leaning towards delete when reviewing the article and searching for other sources, but him being director of Hey Arnold! and its feature film (with not so great reviews) may bring him past #3 of WP:CREATIVE. This is barely mentioned in the article but is worth something. — MarkH21 (talk) 18:38, 4 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
MapleTreeXZ: I included more citations for his work with the help of some reliable sources, will this help keep the article about Tuck Tucker up? (from Article author)

Yes it will. Britishfinance (talk) 18:07, 9 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per WP:HEY ahs the article has been significantly improved including the addition of more reliable sources coverage, thanks Atlantic306 (talk) 18:07, 7 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
MapleTreeXZ: Does this mean I can delete the "Article deletion" notice? (from Article author).

No, wait for the AfD to finish formally and the "Article delection" notice will be removed as part of that. Britishfinance (talk) 18:07, 9 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - In the page's currently state, it passes GNG. And I think there are definitely available sources out there that can used for this article to make it even stronger. Horizonlove (talk) 09:41, 8 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Keep. Borderline but Hey Arnold!: The Movie is notable enought to have its own WP article; plus other references closeer to WP:GNG. Britishfinance (talk) 18:07, 9 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Withdrawn by nominator. (non-admin closure) John from Idegon (talk) 07:06, 4 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Gabe Suárez[edit]

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

Fails WP:GNG, and WP:NBASEBALL John from Idegon (talk) 18:20, 2 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Colorado-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 19:41, 2 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 19:42, 2 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Baseball-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 19:42, 2 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Mexico-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 19:43, 2 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Au contraire, he passes WP:NBASEBALL. He played in the 2013 World Baseball Classic. – Muboshgu (talk) 19:52, 2 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep per Muboshgu. Cubbie15fan (talk) 22:54, 2 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep – Presumed notable per point #2 of WP:NBASE. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 01:00, 3 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Meets WP:NBASE #2. Ejgreen77 (talk) 18:45, 3 March 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. TheSandDoctor ^Talk 20:07, 9 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Anadika Guleria Azaad[edit]

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

Being featured on a television programme is not a claim of notability and I'm not seeing significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject. Fails WP:GNG and WP:BIO. GSS (talk|c|em) 18:11, 2 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. GSS (talk|c|em) 18:12, 2 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. GSS (talk|c|em) 18:12, 2 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete an appearance on one show does not make one notable.John Pack Lambert (talk) 22:21, 2 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Has only appeared on one TV programme, and the article was poorly written (still is, in the controversies section) before cleanup. Author may be a UPE, but he did not seem to understand when warned for it. CoolSkittle (talk) 23:03, 2 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Remove the deletion asap as i have mensioned all the refrences and she is a notable women — Preceding unsigned comment added by 47.30.220.104 (talk) 07:30, 3 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Not enough coverage to merit an article, fails per WP:GNG. Shellwood (talk) 07:33, 3 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete- WP:GNG failure due to a lack of any adequate coverage in WP:RS.--SamHolt6 (talk) 14:37, 3 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Hardly notable at all, and fails WP:GNG. DrumSalad (talk) 15:26, 3 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no significant coverage and no notability. Reddragon7 (talk) 04:06, 5 March 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. TheSandDoctor ^Talk 20:06, 9 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Silk Road Group[edit]

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

Originally I put a CSD, but upon looking it up this is actually a sub company it seems. Not sure if this is notable so I wanted others to be the judge on this one. Might be a redirect or a delete or a keep. I'm leaning towards redirect or delete right now. Wgolf (talk) 17:21, 2 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Georgia (country)-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 17:24, 2 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 17:24, 2 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Delete. This is a WP:A7; nothing in text to indicate notability and no refs. Britishfinance (talk) 17:38, 2 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Comment refs and additional text now added from earlier state [2] which does now indicate a potential claim of notability; withdrawing Speedy Delete. Britishfinance (talk) 13:39, 3 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Discussed in detail in multiple reliable sources e.g.: 1, 2, 3, 4.--Pontificalibus 17:45, 2 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Finance-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 00:32, 3 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: Seems to be notable, per above citations. --Plaxie (talk) 17:01, 5 March 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. TheSandDoctor ^Talk 20:05, 9 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Shivendu Madhava[edit]

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

Prod that was removed by the creator of the topic, a entrepreneur with questionable notability. Wgolf (talk) 17:13, 2 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 17:25, 2 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 17:25, 2 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete and salt, an autobiography of a non-notable entrepreneur with no evidence to satisfy WP:GNG or WP:BIO. GSS (talk|c|em) 18:03, 2 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom fails WP:GNG.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 18:44, 6 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, Per above, no sign of notability Alex-h (talk) 14:14, 7 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was withdrawn per the discussion on my talk page. This is now re-closed. (non-admin closure) –MJL ‐Talk‐^☖ 06:25, 3 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Trayvon Martin[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

Subject is only notable for a single event (see WP:1E). Their biography is otherwise run of the mill and most of this is just fluff. See also WP:VICTIM. I had originally proposed a merge to Shooting of Trayvon Martin but on closer examination I don't think there is much worth merging. If the community concludes otherwise I am OK with that. But I can't see any WP:PAG based rational for keeping this article. Ad Orientem (talk) 16:39, 2 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Shooting of Trayvon Martin is well over 200 kB, and should be split into additional articles in order to reduce its size. The article for Trayvon Martin talks about a book entitled Rest in Power: The Enduring Life of Trayvon Martin, and there is a speech from Obama about him. Shooting of Trayvon Martin should be split into articles entitled Background of the Shooting of Trayvon Martin, Investigations into the Shooting of Trayvon Martin, Aftermath of the Shooting of Trayvon Martin and Reactions to the Shooting of Trayvon Martin. --Jax 0677 (talk) 16:53, 2 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - per Jax 0677s rationale above. Great summation. Also per WP:GNG. The size of the propose redirect makes redirect or merge a not good alternative. Also this article has additional info. Spliting the other article into smaller articles and keeping this one on Trayvon is the best alternative.BabbaQ (talk) 16:54, 2 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Passes #3 of WP:BLP1E because his role in the shooting was significant and received significant coverage. Also, as others have said, this is far too large to merge and he's obviously notable. Rather ridiculous nomination. Smartyllama (talk) 17:14, 2 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I don't see how BLP1E #3 applies here unless you are taking such an expansive interpretation that every victim of a sensational murder would qualify for their own article. At the risk of sounding cold, his role in this event was dying. That's it. I am not seeing how the rest of his life is relevant. -Ad Orientem (talk) 17:32, 2 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Africa-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 17:26, 2 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Florida-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 17:27, 2 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy keep for sustained notability and I’m going to say this as “civil” as possible about this: piss off, you troll. Trillfendi (talk) 18:55, 2 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The assumption of bad faith is not needed and provide no constructive input to this discussion. I can see this AfD being made on the sake of Wikipedia's notability requirements. Look at the first AfD from 2013 where the same arguments were presented. – The Grid (talk) 19:08, 2 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. Merging is also an option per previous discussion. –MJL ‐Talk‐^☖ 19:12, 2 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Per a discussion held almost 6 years ago. Plenty have happened for this article subject to achieve more notability etc since.BabbaQ (talk) 23:46, 2 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep Yes the reasons for nomination are valid points. But, regardless of the reasons, there is the amount and types of coverage to satisfy wp:GNG. Also, coverage of the individual is useful for questions that may arise regarding the event. North8000 (talk) 23:03, 2 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Jax's reasonings; AO has been here a long time so they're certainly not a 'troll', but I just don't find the tone of the nom appropriate, nor the use of ONEEVENT (which certainly shouldn't apply to subjects like this). Nate • (chatter) 01:47, 3 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Withdrawing nom At this point I think it is clear that there is no reasonable likelihood of any consensus developing for anything other than a keep. No point in prolonging this. I propose a speedy close. -Ad Orientem (talk) 02:50, 3 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
~~Delete or merge~~ This vote is actually policy-based, so, of course, ignore it. Joefromrandb (talk) 04:00, 3 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. This discussion was previously closed with the following text: The result was speedy keep. Nomination was withdrawn. (non-admin closure) –MJL ‐Talk‐^☖ 05:27, 3 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
- Then the result would have been Withdrawn, not Speedy keep. Joefromrandb (talk) 05:58, 3 March 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. TheSandDoctor ^Talk 20:10, 9 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Auad Raphael[edit]

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

Promotional article for non-notable businessman. Sources are blogs and thinly-veiled advertorials on PR platforms and pseudo news sites. None of the used sources can be considered independent, or reliable for that matter. Note: I have already removed several similar low-quality sources that were even worse. Please see history for previous versions. A Google search revealed no significant coverage in credible publications. GermanJoe (talk) 16:18, 2 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. GermanJoe (talk) 16:24, 2 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. GermanJoe (talk) 16:24, 2 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Brazil-related deletion discussions. GermanJoe (talk) 16:24, 2 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as per nomination.TH1980 (talk) 05:16, 3 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - promotional spam. - Ahunt (talk) 16:30, 4 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - as per above promotional. Reddragon7 (talk) 04:09, 5 March 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) Tymon.r Do you have any questions? 21:00, 9 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Kevin Howard[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

Former minor league baseball player and current minor league coach. Article does not meet notability guidelines...while player was once on the national team that version of the team does not seem to have played in any notable tournaments. Article was previously deleted and then restored. Spanneraol (talk) 15:53, 2 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Baseball-related deletion discussions. Spanneraol (talk) 15:55, 2 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I can't speak for his accomplishments, but to me four articles in the Los Angeles Times is sufficient for wp:n. Markvs88 (talk) 17:15, 2 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 17:28, 2 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 17:28, 2 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I have no opinion on this yet but Markvs88 please read WP:GNG part of the guideline you cited: "Multiple publications from the same author or organization are usually regarded as a single source for the purposes of establishing notability." So 4 sources from LA Times become only 1 for GNG standards and that is before you judging if they are WP:SIGCOV. Jovanmilic97 (talk) 17:31, 2 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Hello Jovanmilic97! Did you notice that while the articles are all published by the LA Times... three of the four are by different authors? So they should not be considered a single source. If someone really wanted to grind on that issue, I've found in the past that it is usually trivial to find a newspaper article reprinted in another paper. Best, Markvs88 (talk) 23:39, 2 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Those articles are all pretty much routine coverage of his career that pretty much every baseball player in the internet age would have. Spanneraol (talk) 01:32, 3 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
The "Player of the Year" and "Hit and Run" articles are more than routine coverage. Most internet era players do not get stories like that, especially from a paper as widely circulated as the LA Times. That said, the LA Times is still a single source, so at least one additional source is needed before we can start debating whether there is enough coverage to meet GNG. Rlendog (talk) 16:12, 4 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Besides the LA Times coverage, at least some of which is not routine, he has also been the subject of stories by at least 2 other sources, The Ventura County Star and South Florida Sun Sentinel. There are a lot more hits on newspapers.com, most of which are clearly routine, but I haven't checked all of them. But even if there is no more non-routine coverage, he has significant coverage from at least 3 sources in 2 states, one of which has massive circulation, so I think he clearly passes the GNG bar. Rlendog (talk) 16:45, 4 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Rlendog --JumpLike23 (talk) 16:48, 4 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
comment He doesn't meet WP:NBASEBALL and all of this coverage seems to be local sports reporting. His player of the year was from the LA Times for Ventura County (hardly significant), the Ventura County Star was local, and South Florida Sun Sentinel is local for a player at Miami. Coverage all seems like typical local coverage like thousands of others receive annually. Not sure what I'm missing that those enthusiastic keep voters see. Perhaps I look less favorably on local sports reporting to show encyclopedic notability.Sandals1 (talk) 23:17, 5 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

As far as I can tell, "thousands of others" do not get this kind of coverage. I have looked up coverage for numerous players at AfD who have failed NBASEBALL over the past 10 years or so, and from my experience this level of coverage for is very rare for modern players who fail NBASEBALL. Rlendog (talk) 16:10, 7 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Meets WP:GNG and WP:BASIC, per Rlendog and Markvs88. Ejgreen77 (talk) 03:20, 8 March 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) Tymon.r Do you have any questions? 20:42, 9 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Pannonian Romance[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

Has been deleted once through an AfD, and the second time was turned into a redirect. It has been reconstituted once again, without the addition of a single valid RS (The only additional source in this version is to another wiki). After reverting to the redirect as per the former AfD (since this is virtually the same article), the other editor reverted and left a very polite message on my talk page (User talk:Onel5969#Reinstating the article Pannonian Romance). Since it is virtually the same article, the same reasons of the last AfD still remain. The only changes are the addition of an unsourced quote and the addition of material from the non-RS wiki source. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 13:00, 2 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Thank you for the discussion here, I will continue to be polite (hopefully) and explain my reasons for recreating the article.

1. The additional citation that Onel5969 mentions above, is of an original document from 1200 to 1230, of a history book, the Gesta Hungarorum. The to another wiki is Wikisource, which is an online digital library of free content textual sources. The citation itself refers to the Gesta Hungarorum. You can question the accuracy of a history book written around 1200 about events that took place 300 years before that, by an author we can longer determine. But it is a valid citation.

2. I read criticism in the original discussion of the 2007 article, as mostly about missing citations and also that the language was a speculation. It was deleted back in 2007 and parts of the article were preserved in Pannonia. The details are not preserved in Pannonia any more.

3. The article was reinstated in 2009 and stayed up for 8 years. During that period numerous editors improved it and added citations. Then in 2017 it was put up for deletion again. I don't see how a consensus was reached in 2017. 2 editors were for Keep and 4 were for Redirect (if I am counting that correctly). The editors favoured different redirections, with History of Romanian, Pannonia and Keszthely culture all being up for debate.

4. I would like to comment that I am not the first editor to break the consensus of the AfD debate in 2017, because the Redirect has already been changed from Redirect History of Romanian to Redirect Keszthely culture.

5 I would argue against both these redirects. With Keszthely culture because it narrows the language and the population that was still cited to have been there and not assimilated, down to only one settlement. And against History of Romanian because that article goes to great lengths to explain language development in Roman Dacia to the north of the Lower Danube and ignores Pannonia, and because those populations were romanized Dacians, closely related to Thracian and distinct from Illyrian, and in Pannonia there were Romanized Celts. Two different Indo-European sub-branches being converged by a third. Alternative Transport (talk) 16:10, 2 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Language-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 13:22, 2 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Europe-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 13:24, 2 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 13:24, 2 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: The population was there and it was isolated from both Byzantine and Roman control for 600 years, with unstable local governments. The use of a Romance language was attested. It is of course regrettable that we do not have the same degree of documentation of this Celtic influenced Eastern Romance Language compared to the Dacian, Illyrian, Thacian, Hellenic influenced languages of Daco-Romanian, Aromanian, Megleno-Romanian, and Istro-Romanian, but it is notable and interesting history and should also be included in the English Wikipedia. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Alternative Transport (talk • contribs) 16:29, 2 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Once deleted, once redirected. Why are we doing this again? Alternative Transport has brought nothing new. Srnec (talk) 22:28, 2 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Dear Srnec,

Why are we doing this again? Because, I would argue, no true consensus was reached in 2007 or in 2017 with the AfD discussions basically just being a vote and not a consensus between editors. Wikipedia is not a democracy and majority voting is not the determining factor in whether a nomination succeeds or not. Nergaal argued strongly to keep the article, as did P Aculeius and Peterkingiron. To reach consensus there needs to be consensus and not just a tally of votes. The article was up again for 8 years, and as far as I can tell was only considered again for deletion because all articles from one editor were up for deletion consideration.

Maybe I can convince you to change your mind on the arguments you brought in 2017. In 2007 you argued for a redirect to Keszthely culture or delete with the reasoning that purely hypothetical that a distinct Romance vernacular was spoken in Pannonia.

As argued above I disagree with the redirect to Keszthely culture because it narrows the langoid down to only one settlement.

To your purely hypothetical argument. There are a few ways to understand what you mean here.

* First way would be that you argue there were no Romanized inhabitants of Pannonia, that they were all killed or driven into exile by the Huns, Lombards, Gepids or Avars. But there are records that disprove that hypothethis, the Franks after defeating the Avars record a romanized population with a church that has fallen into decentralization and the Magyars record them as one of the four populations in their new kingdom, and we have gravestones in Pécs, Tokod, Sopron, Szombathely, Dunaújváros and Keszthely. There was a population there for 600 years that spoke some Romance language.

* Second way to interrupt your argument is, that this population was speaking some Romance language for 600 years that was spoken somewhere else and thus it should be linked to that article. I would like to note again that the population was isolated from Roman and Byzantine authority and had various local governments and not that strong cultural and linguistic exchanges with other parts of the Latin world. The argument here is not if the this langoid was a distinct language or a dialect, there is little data to show how much of the original Celtic language was retained and if it had any common features with e.g. to oïl languages. It is hard to quantify how much Illyrian, Germanic, Turkic influence the various local governments had on it. But there it is quite certain that a population isolated for 600 years develops at least a dialect if not a separate language, and there are many dialects with their own article.

* Third, you were arguing that there is no exact documentation of this language and thus it is hypothetical and not to be determined if this langoid was a dialect or a language. It is not necessary to be able to determine if it was a dialect or a language, the uncertainty should be explained in the article. And even if it was a hypothetical language with only few clues, there are wiki articles of hypothetical language that have less evidence.--Alternative Transport (talk) 13:10, 3 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

If the article you created were new, there would be something to talk about. But you simply reverted the legitimate result of an AFD. I have reverted you and restored the consensus. When you have new content to add or new sources to cite, then we can have a productive discussion. Srnec (talk) 21:07, 3 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Dear Srnec, I do intend to fix the issues raised in the previous discussions. It has been 3 days since I recreated and I have added a new citation and I intend to further improve the article. I am very much trying to be productive here. I am trying to improve the short commings of the article. I am trying to understand your arguments. I read Wikipedia:Guide to deletion before recreating it and stated my understanding on the talk page of the article. I would like point to you that violating the General advice of Wikipedia:Guide to deletion by blanking it (see: You must not blank the article (unless it is a copyright infringement).) I will thus revert your edit. It is also important that the article is not blanked, so I and hopefully others can continue to edit the article during the discussion period.--Alternative Transport (talk) 21:56, 3 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I think you are wrong. You do not get to determined now whether the AFDs were closed properly, which is what you are doing when you say that consensus was reached. A consensus was reached: that's what the closer determined. Further, while a deleted article can always be recreated new, restoring the exact same article that was AFD'd is not kosher. Frankly, you are wasting people's time. You should have begun the article from scratch or used the old article to work from in your userspace or off-wiki.

The terms "Pannonian Romance" and "Romance Pannonian" are almost completely unknown in English. There is certainly not enough to sustain an article. I get many more hits for, e.g., "Pannonian Latin". These cannot be regarded as synonyms: the vernacular Latin of late Roman Pannonia could perhaps sustain an article, but the existence of a subsequent development to that language after the Romans left is hypothetical and there is not enough to say. I do not deny that there was a Vulgar Latin-speaking population in sub-Roman Pannonia, but nobody knows if it was a continuation of the Romanized population of imperial times or a new culture created among immigrants and settlers in the confusion of the Roman withdrawal and barbarian movements. Even that it spoke Vulgar Latin/Proto-Romance is a 'best guess' and not a fact proved by inscriptions or anything. No, BONOSA is not evidence of a Pannonian Romance language. I'm afraid I don't know anything about Latin- or Roamnce-inscribed "gravestones in Pécs, Tokod, Sopron, Szombathely, Dunaújváros and Keszthely" from the Avar period. This is not my area of expertise (archaeology never is); I've just read some relevant books and papers. Where can I read about these inscriptions? Srnec (talk) 23:18, 3 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Possible keep -- It is unfortunate that the green colour on the map is indistinct at the normal magnification. This map plots it as a language in scattered areas of western Hungary. As such a merge or redirect to anything directly related to Romania is inappropriate. The 1st AFD ended with the suggestion of redirecting to Keszthely culture, but that is tied to a single village, possibly a "type site" for the culture. If it is a "type site", that article needs to be amended, so that it covers all the settlements of which it was a type. The present article has content that is not in that one, so that a merger would be needed, but by someone who knows and understands the subject, which I do not. Note that the cross reference to British Romance redirects to British vulgar Latin, a languages used in ecclesiastical contexts until the Reformation and legal ones until 1733. Peterkingiron (talk) 16:37, 3 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The map has a couple of issues and should be recreated as an SVG. One of the issues is that it shows extinct languages and living languages on the same map without distinction. It is confusing that Aromanian and Meglenoromanian are shown with their present day or recent distribution, and Pannonian Romance is then shown with settlments of around 600 settlements, whiles Dalmatian is shown for about 1800.Alternative Transport (talk) 22:12, 3 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

keep We need more information on Pannonians, not less. They are obscure, sure, but still part of history and making them less obscure is what a source like Wikipedia is supposed to do. Once so far I have made a Wikipedia link to the main article dealing with Pannonians, but if for some reason you must delete this, merge it into the main Pannonian article.--Epiphyllumlover (talk) 04:17, 4 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep This appears to be an elusive topic, but it has seen coverage; that little definite has been concluded about the language does not detract from the fact that people have written about it, which is our criterion. Sourcing in the "Language" section isn't great, and in particular it would be helpful to get that ref for "linguist Roxana Curcă" (the only academic of that name I can find deals in the archaeology of salt consumption?), but it seems just about sufficient. (The "Geography section", on the other hand, seems very tentative and peripherally related; I'd ditch that.) --Elmidae (talk · contribs) 21:04, 7 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy keep. Nomination withdrawn by nominator. (non-admin closure) Elmidae (talk · contribs) 23:18, 2 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Isodar[edit]

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

~~Neologism lacking multiple independent sources, and I can’t find any to support this. Mccapra (talk) 12:55, 2 March 2019 (UTC)~~Withdraw nomination per discussion below. Mccapra (talk) 20:09, 2 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. XOR'easter (talk) 15:19, 2 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Honestly not sure where you looked, because there are sources out the wazoo [3][4] (even discounting the electron-scattering thing with the same acronym). The article author has done a faceplant by including nothing but primary references; that does not reflect reality. Most textbooks seem to be critical of the method to some extent, but that doesn't matter re notability, and there is also plenty of practical uptake and trials, as the paper search shows. => Keep and add those secondary sources. --Elmidae (talk · contribs) 16:06, 2 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment thanks you’re right. My search threw up plenty of finds for the term but with different meanings and in ithe fields, not this one. Clearly there are sources to support this use.
Withdraw nomination with thanks to Elmidae for identifying sources. Mccapra (talk) 17:18, 2 March 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) Tymon.r Do you have any questions? 20:43, 9 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Duluth model[edit]

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

Accuracy of this article was disputed by User:174.20.84.102 (talk), who made various attempts to delete the content, and have launced an AfD on their behalf. Anthony Appleyard (talk) 06:12, 23 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment This is my first time taking part in a deletion discussion, but if the issue is one about accuracy, wouldn't it be possible to make the article more accurate (through research) and then be able to save the article? --Comment by Selfie City (talk about my contributions) 06:24, 23 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Sheldybett (talk) 10:39, 23 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. Sheldybett (talk) 10:39, 23 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Sheldybett (talk) 10:39, 23 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Have looked back at the comments made by User:174.20.84.102 when they tried to delete the page. They say (in part) "I actually work for this program in Duluth. What do we do about the fact that others have time to write so much but it is so inaccurate? We do not want a page about our program where we are just defending it against these ludicrous arguments. The defense in and of itself would legitimize them. ... this is the way in which the article completely misrepresents The Duluth Model. Throughout, it presents something that is actually called Creating a Process of Change for Men Who Batter: The Duluth Curriculum as "The Duluth Model" ... [this] is only one very small component of The Duluth Model or what is commonly known as "The Coordinated Community Response" ... . If the user is correct, I have some sympathy for this and clearly we don't want an inaccurate page up. But I'm not sure how we can be sure about any of this without someone doing some work to establish an accurate and referenced description of the model, and if it is a contested area that is going to be difficult. Is it a valid reason for deletion that someone with a CoI says a page, which is not a BLP, is inaccurate? Tacyarg (talk) 11:30, 23 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Simply not a notable concept at this time.... There’s virtually no mainstream sources on it, only academic journals. The question is, if this thing has worked why is the implementation section empty? Trillfendi (talk) 17:51, 23 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

"Only academic journals" as a reason for deletion? Peer-reviewed papers in academic journals are pretty much the best possible sources, and are very much mainstream. Phil Bridger (talk) 12:04, 24 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. This clearly has plenty of coverage in reliable sources, so we should have an article based on a proper balance of what those reliable sources say. If there is disagreement about the content then that is a matter for discussion on the talk page, rather than deletion. Phil Bridger (talk) 22:02, 25 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. Don't understand how this discussion works exactly. So complicated. And to understand it a guide page leads to another guide page and to another guide page. Not sure when/if a rule is being broken. But anyway - in answer to some of the comments. The title of the article is inaccurate (and not capitalized); the subject matter is NOT about the title; the references appear correct but they are akin to a particular selection of words cut from a news paper to create a message that wasn't originally intended by (most of) those who wrote the articles in the paper; it cannot be corrected - that would mean we have to follow the format of the existing article, it needs a new one entirely; there is an ethical question here for your the whole Wikipedia system - can Pro-Life of America write a page for Planned Parenthood (citations included) and it is accepted on this site? That is what we have here. And there isn't a person 'reviewing' the request for deletion who knows the topic well enough to realize that what we're saying is true. Its a kind of tyranny of structurelessness. There needs to be a mechanism for the human subjects of articles to be able to have a say in what is being posted about them. This is the era of trolls and fake news. If you don't the site will become garbage before long. Because there are people who are working hard to make the world a better place (on this site but mostly off of it) and there are people who spend their time deliberately trying to sabotage those efforts, and a 'structure' like this is a gift to them.

Comment. First of all, you have been given a "voice" in Wikipedia, and we are now in the middle of a discussion (which I think you proposed) to delete this article. The article title of "Duluth model" complies with Wikipedia's WP:MOS for titles, and is what it is referred to in most sources. This article's structure is also pretty vanilla - summary, origin, effectiveness, and criticism. There is nothing inherently "controversial" in such a structure. Your comments, while I am sure are well meant, appear as a "rant". You have yet to highlight a single sentence that you find false (and of course the appropriate reference from a WP:RS to back that up). We have major discussions on Wikipedia on topics that are far far (far far) more controversial than the Duluth model, and we get to sensible outcomes. We are also well able to defend and protect content against other people's bias and WP:POV, even when the ariticle creator is long-gone. Britishfinance (talk) 11:04, 1 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. At a simple level, the "Duluth model" exists and is notable. I can even produce enough online GNG references on that — E.g Huff Post [5], or NPR [6]. However, I don't even think the IP-proposer of this AfD questions the subject's notability anyway. On that basis, it is a technical Keep.

There is an allegation of WP:OR and/or WP:SYN, which could be summarised as a WP:TNT case for deletion. AfD is not always best for TNT but is done for extreme cases. Reading the article, it does not appear unbalanced. It has a section on "Criticism" which seems balanced. It has sections on history and effectiveness which do not seem OR/SYN. There is no obvious AfD-type OR/SYN case to me.

I agree with Anthony Appleyard's decision to give the IP-editor access to the AfD process, however it is required of the IP-editor that they meet WP:PAG in making their case regarding OR/SYN. And in particular, highlighting the specific sentences of dispute, and providing references from WP:RS to back them up. We owe that to the creator of this article. Britishfinance (talk) 10:53, 1 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Jovanmilic97 (talk) 11:16, 2 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I provided a cited reasoning when I put in a request for deletion. Where is it. I tried to put in here again but it wont let me. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 174.20.84.102 (talk) 02:14, 3 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. AFD is not cleanup. The sources provided both in the article and in this AFD are convincing. NPOV is an editing issue. shoy (reactions) 13:48, 6 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. New to all of this, yet a free flow of information from both sides should be allowed, if citation of sources is provided.

It appears that the user who is crying for this page desires for it to be deleted, is doing so as their inherent bias is not supported here, with their unsubstantiated claims not backed up with suffice evidence to justify their edits. If this page is deleted, it will set a precedent that if you are unable to edit a page to reflect your views, you are able to have it removed via request for deletion, irrelevant how many cited resources are included within it.

Please do not set such a precedent and instead, encourage the user to provide evidence substantiating their views via cited sources, rather than trying to bully us into their viewpoint. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Wikipedian1234567 (talk • contribs) 13:52, 6 March 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) Tymon.r Do you have any questions? 21:17, 9 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Nyko FrontMan[edit]

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

Fails WP:NPRODUCT due to lack of significant coverage in independent, reliable sources. SITH (talk) 00:10, 16 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Video games-related deletion discussions. ~Ruyaba~ {talk} 00:56, 16 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. ~Ruyaba~ {talk} 00:56, 16 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sheldybett (talk) 10:44, 23 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - I was able to find dedicated, 3rd party, RS coverage.

As the list indicates, IGN took a particular interest in the product line, and even write a few more articles on it too. There’s enough to meet the WP:GNG here. Sergecross73 msg me 15:25, 28 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. As currently written and in its unreferenced state, this is a WP:A7. Not sure that the refs above change this. They prove existance but was this product really popular and notable in its time; and reviewed as a top products in Tier 1 RS. I don't think so? Britishfinance (talk) 01:57, 1 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
- An A7 would be wildly inappropriate, incompetent move here. All sources are reliable, third party sources, with consensus for being so per WP:VG/S. Every source is multi-paragraph and dedicated entirely to the subject. AFD is WP:NOTCLEANUP - all that matters is that the sources exist. Sergecross73 msg me 02:42, 1 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  - Existance is not notability. I can provide a yearly article from gardening magazines on the specific brand of fertilizer I use on the lawn, but that doesn't make the fertilizer an automatic subject for a WP article. This was a very niche product with very niche references. Unfortunately, there is nothing in any reference which says notability – that is why this is still, even post your references above, so close to an A7 case (and I as I said, if I tagged this article in the unreferenced state that it was s A7, it would get deleted). Britishfinance (talk) 15:18, 1 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    - This is the second time now that you’ve lectured me on existence not equating notability, and I’m just as baffled this time as I was the first. At no point was it’s existence cited as a reason to keep the article. My argument was that it met the WP:GNG through dedicated and sustained coverage over the years through reliable third party sourcing. The assertion that massive entertainment and technology publications like IGN and Wired (magazine) are minor niche outlets is equally ludicrous. Also, as a person who has deleted over 1200 articles at CSD, a simple Google search would have found enough to disqualify it from an A7. If someone did, they would have done a sloppy job with a violation of WP:BEFORE likely. Sergecross73 msg me 18:30, 1 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
      - Sorry Sergecross73, I don't mean to lecture and apologize for that; w are all volunteers here and it is important that we can all enjoy ourselves doing this. My A7 point is that, unlike AfD, a google search is not required to check notability; it is based solely on what is in the article. Even an unreferenced claim of notability can prevent an A7, but a no claim of notability (and no references), is an A7. You have provided good references and this AfD has not had much comment so far, so another re-list is probable, and your refs will get a full hearing. cheers. Britishfinance (talk) 18:46, 1 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
- An A7 would be inappropriate here because A7 requires the article be about a real person, individual animal, commercial or non-commercial organization, web content, or organized event. The topic of this article resides within none of those categories. --Izno (talk) 15:00, 4 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Jovanmilic97 (talk) 11:15, 2 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - I’ve integrated 7 new sources into the article, and added s brief reception section. Far from perfect, but it demonstrates a viable path to cleaning up the article at least. Sergecross73 msg me 19:36, 3 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I struggle to see how it fails NPRODUCT; the rationale does not make it clear which of the cited paragraphs in NPRODUCT are relevant and my read of all of the paragraphs therein does not point to failing that particular part of NORG. Perhaps the GNG is relevant here given the rationale, however....
Even if the deletion rationale better fits with GNG, the coverage Sergecross found is sufficient to meet the GNG. Keep. --Izno (talk) 15:20, 4 March 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. TheSandDoctor ^Talk 20:05, 9 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Tate Westbrook[edit]

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

Fails WP:GNG and all applicable WP:SNG John from Idegon (talk) 11:04, 2 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. RhinosF1^(chat)_{(status)(contribs)} 12:20, 2 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. RhinosF1^(chat)_{(status)(contribs)} 12:20, 2 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Tennessee-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 13:27, 2 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Surely, as commander of the Navy task force that launched the 2017 Shayrat missile strike, he would meet WP:MILPERSON #4 "Played an important role in a significant military event such as a major battle or campaign". RebeccaGreen (talk) 13:48, 2 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
- The key term there is "major". Notable =/= major. John from Idegon (talk) 18:17, 2 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

No, the key word is "significant". "Major" is an example, following "such as". RebeccaGreen (talk) 03:59, 3 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Considering that the 2017 Shayrat missile strike was the first combative strike by the US against Syria, doesn't that make it a tad more important than merely notable? I could understand your argument if Westbrook commanded the task force that launched the 7th out of 38 missile strikes, or some arbitrary number like that. Also, it should be noted that IVORK had similar concerns early on, but ultimately found it acceptable under #4. Woko Sapien (talk) 02:27, 3 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I accept WP:MILPERSON(4) and add possibly (5) - commanding a task force in battle with a captain's billet (5 - has capital ship, however many modern task forces do not have a capital ship at their core - a destroyer squadron should fit the bill in relation to land/air formations there). Icewhiz (talk) 12:59, 3 March 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. czar 19:32, 9 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Rugged Maniac Kansas City[edit]

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

possibly non-notable event? I searched and found very little coverage other than local. valereee (talk) 10:51, 2 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. RhinosF1^(chat)_{(status)(contribs)} 12:22, 2 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. RhinosF1^(chat)_{(status)(contribs)} 12:22, 2 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. RhinosF1^(chat)_{(status)(contribs)} 12:22, 2 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Missouri-related deletion discussions. RhinosF1^(chat)_{(status)(contribs)} 12:22, 2 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Fails WP:NEVENT and WP:NOTNEWS RhinosF1^(chat)_{(status)(contribs)} 12:24, 2 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Note that page creator has a COI here and has created ~~multiple~~ over two dozen other similar pages for local Rugged Maniac events here All now tagged for COI. If this article subject proves non-notable we should probably assess the rest. valereee (talk) 17:48, 2 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Non-notable promotional content by paid editor, also delete those at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Rugged Maniac Chicago. Reywas92^Talk 22:05, 5 March 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 Southampton Row. (non-admin closure) Tymon.r Do you have any questions? 22:58, 9 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Grange Holborn Hotel[edit]

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

No significant coverage in independent reliable sources. Fails WP:GNG, WP:NBUILDING, and WP:NCORP. Previously had a PROD removed in 2010 for no clear reason. — MarkH21 (talk) 09:38, 2 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Icewhiz (talk) 09:46, 2 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. Icewhiz (talk) 09:46, 2 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I cant see anything that makes the building noteworthy for an article. MilborneOne (talk) 09:48, 2 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nomination. Mccapra (talk) 12:41, 2 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Question - Was this building always the "Grange Holborn Hotel"? It doesn't look hotel purpose-built. Could there have been other names for it? There might be coverage under different titles.Oakshade (talk) 20:20, 2 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Architecture-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 00:34, 3 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

- @Oakshade: All I've been able to find is that it's been the "Grange Holborn Hotel" since at least December 2001*and was built crica 1950 by T.P. Bennett and Son and was "insensitively reclad in the 1990s" [7][8] (pdf page 86). Based on a profile of the (former?) Grange Hotels owners [9] it seems like the building was probably built as an office and converted in the early-mid 1990s.
  *based on the oldest version of the Grange Hotels website found on the Internet Archive, but the link trips the spam filter. Thryduulf (talk) 10:30, 3 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Southampton Row. I can find sources that show the hotel exists, and that a bank once stood at this location in the early 20th century, but that's about it. It doesn't appear to have a prestigious history like several London landmarks, and isn't listed. Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 14:40, 8 March 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) Tymon.r Do you have any questions? 22:56, 9 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Paul D'Amour[edit]

If you came here because of this external discussion on Reddit, please note that this is not a majority vote, but instead a discussion among Wikipedia contributors. Wikipedia has policies and guidelines regarding the encyclopedia's content, and consensus (agreement) is gauged based on the merits of the arguments, not by counting votes.

However, you are invited to participate and your opinion is welcome. Remember to assume good faith on the part of others and to sign your posts on this page by adding ~~~~ at the end.

Note: Comments may be tagged as follows. Suspected single-purpose accounts: ((subst:spa|username)), suspected canvassed users: ((subst:canvassed|username)), accounts blocked for sockpuppetry: ((subst:csm|username)) or ((subst:csp|username))

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

Nominating here to resolve a dispute between two editors who are revert-warring. There is a question of whether this individual has sufficient non-inherited notability. Polyamorph (talk) 09:13, 2 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Icewhiz (talk) 09:14, 2 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. Icewhiz (talk) 09:14, 2 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Washington-related deletion discussions. Icewhiz (talk) 09:14, 2 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Notable for as founding member of Tool and other bands. The article includes listing or each band at WP:RSMUSIC Allmusic and Rolling Stone with D'Amour as a founder, it also has interviews and information primarily about D'Amour from other publications including Sin, Gashaus, Bassplayer and Metal Assault which are not listed at WP:RSMUSIC. Just to clarify I'm not one of the warring parties but did curate the article through then added some text and references in an attempt to bring the article up to a standard acceptable to the editor who had the notability issues. Hughesdarren (talk) 10:14, 2 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

None of those sources provide significant, third party, reliable coverage on the band member himself. Sergecross73 msg me 17:43, 2 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep some of the references provided appear to indicate independent notability.Polyamorph (talk) 10:59, 2 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Which ones specifically? See source comments below. Sergecross73 msg me 17:43, 2 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Bass Player looks pretty credible, and there is a ton of coverage via a simple google search. This person is clearly notable. Polyamorph (talk) 08:08, 3 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

People keep saying WP:THEREMUSTBESOURCES, but this has been argued for a few weeks now, and only the same garbage sources keep being provided. If this is true, why doesn’t anyone find them? Sergecross73 msg me 14:31, 3 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

You keep quoting essay's, incorrectly I might add since I have not said there must be sources, I am saying there ARE many sources, a quick google search you can easily do yourself using the search term "paul d'amour" bassist returns 13,200 hits, including bassplayer.com, metal assault (audio), Revolver Magazine, allmusic biography, metalstorm.net biography, IMBD biography. This is just a few, I believe they represent significant coverage, the fact that their biographies exist on reliable sources, the fact that this is the founding member of a major band and other successful bands since, the fact that the information provided on the page can be cited to reliable sources, all points to this being a highly notable individual that clearly satisfies our notability policy on WP:GNG. Polyamorph (talk) 16:01, 3 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep apart from being a founding member of a major band, there's a ton of stuff online, such as [10], [11], [12], [13], etc to meet any notability requirements. Lugnuts ^{Fire Walk with Me} 13:30, 2 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Lugnuts Im rather disappointed by your analysis here. These sources are unacceptable for a WP:BLP. Alternative Nation is an unreliable source per consensus WP:NOTRSMUSIC. “SilasLikesMusic” is a self-published WordPress Blog, certainly not the sort of thing you use in a BLP. BassPlayer is probably a reliable source, but it’s just an interview, as is Metal Assault, which I’m unfamiliar with. We don’t write WP:BLPs by interviews, which are largely first-party accounts. See WP:INTERVIEW for more issues around their use. Lastly, any other sources are merely passing mentions culled from band/album reviews. There’s nothing indicating independent notability here - we don’t have separate band member articles for every popular band. Sergecross73 msg me 17:43, 2 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

WP:INTERVIEW is an essay. Lugnuts ^{Fire Walk with Me} 17:49, 2 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I’m aware. But you’re missing the point. Are you arguing it’s acceptable to write a BLP according to first party accounts and self-published Wordpress blogs here? Sergecross73 msg me 17:55, 2 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

See below. Metal Assault is unlikely an RS either. Sergecross73 msg me 00:53, 3 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

What I meant by my post was that I was able to find multiple sources in seconds. A bit more time, would find a whole lot more too. Lugnuts ^{Fire Walk with Me} 09:15, 3 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, everyone keeps falling back on their WP:THEREMUSTBESOURCES defense pretty hard... Sergecross73 msg me 14:31, 3 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect - None of the sources provided are providing significant, third party coverage appropriate for a WP:BLP article. It’s nothing more than a WP:BOMBARDment of unreliable blogs, and, passing mentions cherry picked from the bands he’s worked with. You can’t write a BLP article around that and a bunch of first-party-account interviews. Sergecross73 msg me 17:46, 2 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Revised stance - had always meant redirect because it is a plausible search term. Sergecross73 msg me 17:56, 2 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per Lugnuts. —Locke Cole • t • c 18:07, 2 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep What Lugnuts said. Jaydoggmarco (talk) 19:55, 2 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Lugnuts has offered us 3 unreliable sources and an interview. Not good. Sergecross73 msg me 00:53, 3 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: I'm not sure Metal Assault counts as an RS, it's basically a one-man blog [14]. The source from Bass Player is the only reliable one I've found so far. Richard3120 (talk) 21:41, 2 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Richard3120 Thank you for being the sole person to even comment on the source quality. I don’t know if I’ve pissed off an off-wiki Tool fansite, or the En-wiki Tool cabal, or what, but I can’t get people to even engage in discussion about the sources. This usually only happens when I’m arguing deletion for an indie video game with a passionate fan following or something... Sergecross73 msg me 00:53, 3 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

People are talking about the sources, You just won't listen. Jaydoggmarco (talk) 03:47, 3 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

They sure are. They’re listing off unreliable sources, and saying things like WP:THEREMUSTBESOURCES. Except you - we’ve been arguing for days on this, and you haven’t said a specific thing about a source or meeting the GNG. I’m not convinced you understand anything about notability at all, your every argument has boiled down to “but he was in Tool!” Or completely piggybacking off of what someone else said. Sergecross73 msg me 14:31, 3 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Sergecross73 this WP:BATTLEGROUND (WP Policy) behaviour and revert warring (also policy) at the page under question is unbecoming of an administrator. I would request you respect that other editors have other opinions to your own and that is OK. Thanks Polyamorph (talk) 16:12, 3 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

He's been standoffish and rude towards me during every interaction which why i put off responding to him, He deserves to be blocked for being uncivil and refusing to even listen to what other editors are saying. Jaydoggmarco (talk) 17:15, 3 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I would not go that far and it takes two (or more) to have an argument - all sides need to respect each other. However, administrators in particular are "expected to lead by example and to behave in a respectful, civil manner in their interactions with others". Polyamorph (talk) 17:31, 3 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

It is not BATTLEGROUND to ask people to provide better sources or explain which sources provide reliably sourced significant coverage when the first batch of sources are largely unreliable. Even the newer batch contains an IMDB profile? Really? Furthermore, a look at the page history sheds a bit of context to your accusation of “revert-warring”. The edits related to redirecting the article consists of 3 edits across around 10 days - 1 edit WP:BOLDly redirecting, doing it again 4-5 days later when no one involved engaged in the talk page discussion, and then doing it again when the only person in the talk page discussion (not Jaydogg, who reverted 3 times w/o participating in the discussion at the time) said they were dropping it. So to be clear, we’re talking about 2 reverts, both done with no active talk page opposition at the time of making the edit. Sergecross73 msg me 18:55, 3 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

This, and the talk page of the article in question, is not a discussion with polite requests for clarification and civil interactions. It is a battleground. I will be interested in hearing the opinions of other editors on this matter (this AfD). Regards Polyamorph (talk) 19:08, 3 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I was reverted 3 times by someone who refused to engage in talk page discussion, and you want to focus on me not being nice enough when I have to ask something multiple times? Yikes, come on. Rest assured, I won’t ask any further, I won’t be wasting any further time on this AFD. I’ll leave to more constructive efforts. Thanks. Sergecross73 msg me 19:17, 3 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Great, thanks. Polyamorph (talk) 19:22, 3 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Good, Go outside and get some fresh air. Jaydoggmarco (talk) 19:31, 3 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

You are not the innocent party in this Jaydoggmarco, I have noticed some off-wiki canvassing related to this AfD by User:Jaydogg1994 who you are associated with. Please also interact with others respectfully. Polyamorph (talk) 10:19, 4 March 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. czar 19:31, 9 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Institute of Policy Studies (New Zealand)[edit]

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

Not notable. Tagged for possible lack of notability since April 2012. There appear to be no online sources other than the institute's website and this Wikipedia article. Akld guy (talk) 08:32, 2 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. The article is linked at three other articles: Think tank, where it is linked in a simple list (no ref), New Zealand Emissions Trading Scheme with a 2008 context and linkrotted ref, and at Climate Change Response (Emissions Trading) Amendment Act 2008 with a valid 2008 ref. Seems to have not been in the news for at least 10 years, despite maintaining a current website. Akld guy (talk) 08:41, 2 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2019 March 2. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 08:49, 2 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. Icewhiz (talk) 08:55, 2 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of New Zealand-related deletion discussions. Icewhiz (talk) 08:55, 2 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academic journals-related deletion discussions. Icewhiz (talk) 08:55, 2 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I agree that they are probably not notable, but there are lots of mentions on line. I will not be surprised if someone finds something solid, but I can't. (Dushan Jugum (talk) 09:27, 2 March 2019 (UTC)).[reply]
Delete. as per Akld guy and Dushan Jugum. This lacks notability and 3 duplicated articles which has some similarity anyway. Sheldybett (talk) 12:29, 2 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. There is general agreement that her career places her near the line between notability and non-notability, but the rough consensus is that she does not yet cross it. Xymmax ^{So let it be written} _{So let it be done} 18:52, 9 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Aly Ryan[edit]

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

Came 4th in the German national final for Eurovision Song Contest 2019 !!!! fails WP:ENT fails WP:GNG Theroadislong (talk) 22:35, 22 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep (Article author) - Per WP:GNG. Per WP:NMUSIC. Notable singer. Has en extensive music career beyond her ESC participation.--BabbaQ (talk) 22:37, 22 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 22:47, 22 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Germany-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 22:47, 22 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 22:47, 22 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete While Ryan does have a career, she does not have a notable one. The article is stuffed with fake sources to make it look like it pass GNG, but it doesn't. Lordtobi (✉) 22:56, 22 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I have removed those since your !vote. So a !vote on this new version is needed. And added a notable one from Billboard. BabbaQ (talk) 22:59, 22 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Per nom. I respectfully disagree with the article creator on passing NMUSIC especially for a BLP. The "Billboard" link is just pretty advertising. She will likely one day be notable but Wikipedia is not a crystal ball. Otr500 (talk) 06:00, 24 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep, Ryan has a career which is somewhat or just barely acceptable of inclusion. Davidgoodheart (talk) 09:36, 25 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Wait: Maybe her participation single gets an entry in the German Single Charts next Friday. --Goroth (talk) 10:15, 25 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom: the participation to a Eurovision selection alone, which is the only thing this artist seems to have in her bag, isn't enough. Of course, if her song does make it to the German singles chart, the article will have to be kept. ×°˜`°×ηαη¢у×°˜`°×
Keep: The consensus here is 'she isn't famous because her only claim to fame is Eurovision selection entries', but Ryan is more notable than is being made out to be. One of her songs long before her Eurovision attempt (No Parachute) had 13.7 million streams on SoundCloud, which is a fair number. Serhatserhatserhat (talk) 14:44, 26 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Serhatserhatserhat Your argument is essentially WP:GHITS. We need independent sources that demonstrate she is notable, not your own judgement based on how much her music has been streamed. SmartSE (talk) 15:49, 27 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

User:Smartse: In that case, I suggest wait until at least tomorrow. Her song may place on the German Singles Chart as Goroth highlighted earlier. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Serhatserhatserhat (talk • contribs) 20:58, 28 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Serhatserhatserhat: it didn't. Richard3120 (talk) 17:48, 6 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Serhatserhatserhat. On the the basis that her song has not charted, and that "hits" are not accepted as a statistic of notability, is there any other tangible fact hat would support her under WP:GNG and/or WP:MUSIC? As things stand, we have nothing now. Britishfinance (talk) 15:29, 9 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Her references are no significant independent sources but low-grade blogs/sites; fails GNG. Her songs, "hits" aside, do not yet meet NMUSIC. Maybe in the future (her career is still on a trajectory), but not today; not even borderline. Britishfinance (talk) 21:20, 28 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
WAITing until chart comes out makes sense. I did see an article about a performance as a young teenager=. My German was not up to figuring it out sufficiently to add it to the page. E.M.Gregory (talk) 11:01, 1 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

OK, this article has not been re-listed yet, so I would support re-listing for another week (will that be enough?) to check this point. Britishfinance (talk) 11:57, 1 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 07:05, 2 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - Wear Your Love failed to chart in the German top 100. ×°˜`°×ηαη¢у×°˜`°× 20:04, 2 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. Thanks Merynancy. Hard to make any case now for her. Britishfinance (talk) 15:23, 9 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: fails WP:GNG and WP:MUSICBIO. Ms. Ryan may yet have a notable career, but at the moment it's WP:TOOSOON. Of the sources in the article, one is a Eurovision blog, and the Dreampions website appears to be something like a crowdfunded website allowing people to tell their "inspirational stories", without any editorial control. That leaves the sources from Billboard and Frankfurter Allgemeine Zeitung – the latter is behind a paywall, but from what I can glean from the introduction, it's a summary of all six contestants for the German Eurovision entry, so unlikely to be an in-depth profile. Even including these two sources, the sum knowledge of what we have about Ms. Ryan is (1) she is the daughter of well-connected parents (her father is chief spokesman for Deutsche Bank, and her mother is a TV reporter for ZDF, so Ms. Ryan's notability could be WP:INHERITED), and (2) she lives in Los Angeles. We don't know anything else about her from reliable sources to even be able to construct a worthwhile stub. Richard3120 (talk) 18:53, 6 March 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 Stuart Matthewman. As WP:ATD. (non-admin closure) Jovanmilic97 (talk) 20:08, 9 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Vanessa Bley[edit]

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

Only one cited article from 2015. Searched for more on her and she does not have information that meets the notability requirements for music. Actaudio (talk) 04:04, 15 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. IntoThinAir (talk) 04:11, 15 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. ~Ruyaba~ {talk} 04:23, 15 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. ~Ruyaba~ {talk} 04:23, 15 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. ~Ruyaba~ {talk} 04:23, 15 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. ~Ruyaba~ {talk} 04:24, 15 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, DannyS712 (talk) 07:18, 22 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Searches find passing coverage for the subject's Twin Danger and Beast Patrol bands, but insufficient for WP:MUSICBIO in their own right. Neither these nor the subject's other projects have the coverage to demonstrate attained notability. AllyD (talk) 07:39, 22 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Possible redirect, I saw one article that has some good coverage but more is needed. I think if we can't find much more, how about it gets redirected to her father Paul Bley or Stuart Matthewman? We could have small paragraph in either. I think in a few years she'll be easily notable. By redirecting we can preserve the history. Karl Twist (talk) 13:36, 22 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Xymmax ^{So let it be written} _{So let it be done} 04:15, 2 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Redirecting to Stuart Matthewman seems like the best case scenario at this time. Trillfendi (talk) 23:45, 2 March 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 Anthelmintic. Sandstein 09:29, 9 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Antinematodal agent[edit]

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

Fails WP:NOT#DICT. DannyS712 (talk) 01:10, 2 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. CASSIOPEIA^(talk) 04:46, 2 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as per nomination.TH1980 (talk) 03:25, 2 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nomination. ‘Antinematodal’ is already on Wiktionary. Mccapra (talk) 04:41, 2 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. Icewhiz (talk) 07:43, 2 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Anthelmintic, which is the parent topic. --Elmidae (talk · contribs) 15:58, 2 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Anthelmintic. Nick Moyes (talk) 07:43, 5 March 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 redirect to River East Transcona School Division. Already mentioned at the target and nothing is mergeable. Just Chilling (talk) 22:40, 2 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

River East School Division[edit]

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

1 sentence non-notable former school division. DannyS712 (talk) 01:08, 2 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 03:31, 2 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 03:31, 2 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 03:31, 2 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to River East Transcona School Division, with a personal appeal to nominator DannyS712 to slow down a bit with the script-clicking. This should have just been a WP:BLANKANDREDIRECT without AfD involvement. It's an unsourced stub that hasn't had any substantive content changes in over a decade, so redirecting to the obvious target per WP:ATD-R is highly unlikely to be controversial. Bakazaka (talk) 07:29, 2 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@Bakazaka: Sorry, given that its not a ~new~ page I didn't want to just unilaterally redirect it. I agree that that is the ideal solution though. What do you mean about the script-clicking? I would have used a script to redirect it... --DannyS712 (talk) 07:31, 2 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@DannyS712: I am simply asking you to take a bit more time to select what you click on. Bakazaka (talk) 07:45, 2 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Bakazaka: Got it. My original point still stands (about not blanking an old page) but I'll keep your advice in mind. Thanks, --DannyS712 (talk) 07:46, 2 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Michig (talk) 07:23, 9 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

KBXZ[edit]

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

Per WP:BROADCAST, unlicensed station with very little information available from web search or web news searches so seems to fail WP:CORP. Closeapple (talk) 23:39, 23 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Radio-related deletion discussions. Closeapple (talk) 23:40, 23 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Arizona-related deletion discussions. Closeapple (talk) 23:40, 23 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per my own nomination. Despite the article title, this is not a licensed station and has no officially-issued call sign: The name "KBXZ" is a self-created alternate name to give the appearance of a call sign. (There has been no licensed station with the callsign KBXZ since at least 1979, if ever.) I've found exactly one news article: a non-substantial, one-paragraph mention of starting up in the Quick Reads columns of the Navajo-Hopi Observer, November 24, 2004. I also looked on Google web search and Google News. The phrase "carries programming from the Premiere Radio Networks" is in the Wikipedia article, so to find anything that isn't a Wikipedia copy, I searched for "Fox Sports Radio 1650" -Wikipedia -"carries programming from the Premiere Radio Networks" — No results found on Google web search or Google News. The search "KBXZ" -Wikipedia -"carries programming from the Premiere Radio Networks" shows only mass-created audio-streaming links (which are just the generic Fox Sports Radio streaming feed) and unrelated topics; the news link shows only the ASU only the ASU football station list from 2009, and 3 irrelevant non-Latin-alphabet pages. Searches for "Bill Hagen" (possible station owner) and "Out the Window Advertising" (his marketing firm) with various combinations didn't help much either: I got the Navajo-Hopi Observer column that way though. --Closeapple (talk) 00:18, 24 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ~SS49~ {talk} 00:24, 2 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Delete: Fails NMEDIA. It's not a licensed radio station, aka pirate, which means it does not enjoy the same notability that all other legal (ie: licensed) radio and TV stations do under NMEDIA. Plus, just in case there are any questions as to whether the station might be under a different callsign, it isn't. The State of Arizona does not have a signal "expanded band" AM station within the state's borders, which would include AM1650, the frequency KBXZ claims to broadcast on. Also, according to the FCC Callsign Query Database, the KBXZ callsign is available. The station is a pirate or just outright fake. Delete. - Neutralhomer • Talk • 00:32 on March 2, 2019 (UTC)
Comment – There are only two !voters arguing to delete, as the second one is the same as the first. Also, the speedy delete !voter is not arguing to speedy delete at all. J 947 ^{^{^(c)}}, at 00:44, 2 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
- Reply to Comment: @J947: Actually, if you would read my post, I am giving the EXACT reasons why it's a Speedy Delete. Doesn't meet NMEDIA, isn't in any FCC database (AMQ or CQD). I just got wordy and showed my work instead of just saying three or four words which really said nothing. Also, Closeapple's post and mine are not the same. He focused on Google web and Google news search results, I focused on FCC results. Again, read before commenting. - Neutralhomer • Talk • 04:21 on March 2, 2019 (UTC)
  - Actually Neutralhomer, failing NMEDIA is not at all a reason for speedy deletion. And the nominator counts as a !voter, so Closeapple could you please strike your second !vote. J 947 ^{^{^(c)}}, at 04:31, 2 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  - Also unless you add a new comment pings don't work. Fun fact. J 947 ^{^{^(c)}}, at 04:37, 2 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    - J947: You still saw it, so whatever works. :) NMEDIA is the cornerstone of WPRS and TVS. So, yes, if an article fails NMEDIA, it is an immediate Speedy Delete. Also, the nominator can !vote on the AfD to expand on the reason for the AfD. It's a common practice. I believe you need more experience with AfDs. - Neutralhomer • Talk • 05:59 on March 2, 2019 (UTC)
      - @Neutralhomer: See WP:Articles for Deletion#How to contribute, which says Nomination already implies that the nominator recommends deletion (unless indicated otherwise), and nominators should refrain from repeating this recommendation on a separate bulleted line, and is NMEDIA listed as a criterion for speedy deletion? And I find it hard to believe that I am inexperienced at AfDs. 1316 unique AfD pages edited. Sure, most of them aren't !votes, but 167 of them are. Inexperienced? Really? J 947 ^{^{^(c)}}, at 03:39, 3 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
        J947: I thought pings didn't work? Anywho, just because you've edited 1,316 AfDs, doesn't mean you understand the process or you would know it's commonplace for the nominator to still !vote regardless of their nomination. As for "NMEDIA [being] listed as a criterion for speedy deletion", the rules setforth in NMEDIA allow me to Speedy Delete a page as the KBXZ page does not enjoy the notability legally licensed radio and television stations do...again, under NMEDIA. As such, NMEDIA allows the page to be Speedy Deleted or CSD'd under G3. - Neutralhomer • Talk • 04:00 on March 3, 2019 (UTC)
        @Neutralhomer: It is not a hoax as from a simple google search you can see mentions that evidently indicate this is their subject. And if you know that it's a bit commonplace to !vote with your nomination, like I do, then you should also know that it's discouraged. I could point you to many examples if I had the time to dig through archives and my contribs. And pings only don't work when you add them in a separate edit to your comment, as you did earlier. J 947 ^{^{^(c)}}, at 04:10, 3 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
        It's a blatant hoax because everything legal under Wikipedia rules shows the station does not exist and there is no backing third-party reliable sources outside of a newspaper article with a passing one paragraph mention and their own Facebook page. That's not good enough. How they somehow found a way to get their "callsign" onto Fox Sports and ASU radio network websites is another matter. What the matter is, and what you don't seem to understand, this article does not pass Wikipedia rules. If it weren't for you being in New Zealand, I would say you had a hand in the page's creation and update as hard as you are pushing for it's inclusion. Stand down. - Neutralhomer • Talk • 04:15 on March 3, 2019 (UTC)
        Hold on a second. Did I ever say I was arguing for this undeserved article to be included? In fact, I am thinking the exact opposite right now. I know full well that this article does not pass Wikipedia rules. But you are arguing among the wrong rules. You should be solely arguing about GNG and NMEDIA (both of which it fails), rather than G3. Do you really think this article falsehood deliberately fabricated to masquerade as the truth? (from WP:HOAX) Do you notice anyone else arguing here along the lines of G3? And a passing one-paragraph mention and other (unreliable) sources backing that up is surely enough to pass G3. It's nowhere close to GNG, I know. It doesn't pass it at all. But you're arguing for 'Speedy Delete' not just plain 'Delete', which implies you think the article fails the CSD guidelines. The article just barely passes A7, I must say, and it certainly doesn't belong here in the first place, but it's a long, long way off from failing G3. J 947 ^{^{^(c)}}, at 18:01, 3 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
        J947: Arguing that one deletion !vote should be struck and my !vote should be removed/changed/whatever because it doesn't meet your version of Speedy, yes, I say you are fighting pretty damned hard for this article to be included. NMEDIA is really all I need to argue, it adds the GNG rules within it. It was written that way by people who can write a helluva better than I can. The article also fails BROADCAST. When those are failed, the discussion is over. There is no need for more and more...and more...and more discussion, ad naseum. It's over. 3 delete !votes, stick a fork in it, it's done. Give it a rest already, will ya? - Neutralhomer • Talk • 18:19 on March 3, 2019 (UTC)
        @Neutralhomer: 4 deletes. You didn't notice? :) J 947 ^{^{^(c)}}, at 18:31, 3 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

J947: About time! So, ya good now? No more discussions? We can all move all with our lives? - Neutralhomer • Talk • 18:54 on March 3, 2019 (UTC)

Delete Why a major network like FSR associates with a talking house station is way beyond me (usually these are all 14 year-olds playing 'pretend radio' like the one-guy SoCal noms from last year), and this is real...but it is not an FCC licensed station (and it certainly isn't playing Sun Devils sports, because I'm sure KMVP-FM would have made them a financial crater by now for usurping their market rights). No matter if Dan Patrick is actually voicing promos saying to tune into this station, it has no history outside of feeding FSR with no local continuity and without any actual local history like many of the FM LP and closed-circuit school AM stations we usually pass here. It talks nothing about its signal range, even as a city-wide pirate operation (though since it's at the end of the AM dial and playing low-rated national sports talk you can stream easily from a smart speaker rather than explicit rap music over a mid-FM frequency, it's probably a very low priority for the FCC to shut down). If it had that...maybe it would be a weak keep, but per CA and NH, this is a strong delete from me. Nate • (chatter) 01:57, 3 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment Another source (as tenuous as radio boards can be, of course), describing that they started as an FM pirate (with the 'nope, FCC wouldn't give out those calls' of KWTF) before beginning this convoluted AM scheme which only gets four miles of range, at best. Yes, it's real, but they've never headed to the FCC and asked to make it legal, so it doesn't meet WP:BROADCAST under our standards, J947. Nate • (chatter) 07:21, 3 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  - Comment: The Zona Rocks format referred to in the radio board thread does still exist, but in online-only form (they were in an extended set of GNR). It still mentions "Northern Arizona" on it's website and in the station's bumpers. So, it stands to reason this is probably from the same people that came up with KBXZ. I agree with the radio board discussion, it's a Part 15 AM on steroids and agree with Nate, doesn't meet BROADCAST either. - Neutralhomer • Talk • 08:23 on March 3, 2019 (UTC)
  - Comment: For what it's worth, an anonymous IP on 2013-12-14 edited this wiki article to say "Fox Sports Radio 1650 is often confused with a low-power station 'AM 1650 The Buzz' in Prescott Valley Arizona, which shares the same Flagstaff-Prescott radio market." Whether the anonymous IP didn't know what he was talking about, or they were cooperating, or why this Flagstaff station uses the fake name "KBXZ" but the Prescott Valley station uses the name "The Buzz", I don't know. The line was removed on 2019-02-23 by a different anonymous IP with the edit summary "deleted info on AM 1650 The Buzz, as the station doesn't seem to exist on terrestrial radio anymore". --Closeapple (talk) 20:56, 4 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above. Can't find anything extra in my Gnews search so fails GNG by a long shot. Was going to suggest redirecting to Flagstaff but I thought better of it as it is too big a jump up for a redirect. Also was thinking List of radio stations in Arizona could be a possible target but realised that it's only for FCC-licensed ones so not a good redirect. J 947 ^{^{^(c)}}, at 18:12, 3 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: The presumption of notability for broadcast stations does not extend to unlicensed stations, regardless of its programming — and a lack of local programming is itself a strike against potential notability. Granted, having existed since 2004 is a pretty decent run for a maybe-Part 15 station (though they did run into FCC issues in 2005), but the general notability guideline requires more than that. --WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 19:02, 4 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Unlicensed radio stations don't get the same presumption of notability that the licensed kind get. The licensed kind get kept as long as reliable and authoritative sources verify three key facts (the station holds an FCC license, it's actually operational and it originates at least some local programming) — but for the unlicensed kind, the notability test requires that the station is substantively the subject of enough reliable source coverage to demonstrate that it's of significantly greater notability than most other unlicensed stations. And no, simply being listed in the self-published affiliate lists of the shows it carries is not reliable source coverage: the only thing here that is reliable source coverage about the station is the Navajo-Hopi Observer, but that's just a short blurb in a news briefs column which is not substantive enough to carry this station over that bar all by itself.
And as for the tangential process debate above, it is not unusual at AFD for a nominator to initiate the discussion with a single-sentence statement of what the grounds for deletion are, and then provide more detailed reasoning in a separate "vote", instead of combining the two into a long nomination statement. It's not the way I do AFD nominations, but it's not at all unheard of and it's not against the rules. Bearcat (talk) 15:21, 6 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. Sandstein 09:27, 9 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Wish (charity)[edit]

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

Does not appear to meet WP:CORPDEPTH. SITH (talk) 19:27, 16 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Health and fitness-related deletion discussions. Bakazaka (talk) 20:08, 16 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. Bakazaka (talk) 20:08, 16 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. Bakazaka (talk) 20:08, 16 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Wales-related deletion discussions. Bakazaka (talk) 20:08, 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) 20:13, 23 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete No independent sources. Reywas92^Talk 22:27, 23 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep It's easy to find more sources such as Psychology, Discourse And Social Practice or Do women need special secure services?. See WP:IMPERFECT and WP:NOTCLEANUP. Andrew D. (talk) 09:33, 24 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ~SS49~ {talk} 00:23, 2 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep It does not a bit of a clean-up, however I do think there enough sources for this to remain. Cindlevet (talk) 19:49, 2 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep It seems to be quite well known and its conducting own research. scope_creep^Talk 03:12, 9 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Michig (talk) 07:29, 9 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Oliver Conant[edit]

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

Subject fails WP:BASIC and WP:NACTOR. Article is completely unsourced and fails WP:V. A WP:BEFORE search failed to yield anything that even remotely comes close to ringing the WP:N bell. The first five pages off the Google search yielded trivial mentions from non RS sources only. Ad Orientem (talk) 20:10, 23 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 20:21, 23 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 20:24, 23 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete While playbill.com credits him for Finishing Touches [15] I think the most in-depth article about him is his wedding announcement [16]. Even the NYT review of the play mentions him in passing amongst other cast members [17] as "young people". Seems to be just trivial mentioning. HickoryOughtShirt?4 (talk) 21:31, 27 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ~SS49~ {talk} 00:22, 2 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Appears to fail inclusion criteria and an actor who does not meet the WP:NACOR requirements for an article on Wikipedia. as I'm not seeing significant coverage in independent reliable sources to support this article in Wikipedia mainspace. CASSIOPEIA^(talk) 05:01, 2 March 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. I think this qualifies as an example of The Heymann Standard, but regardless there is a clear consensus to keep the article. (non-admin closure) DannyS712 (talk) 05:51, 9 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The Pastoral Review[edit]

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

Notability questioned since April 2012. Source searches for the current name (Google, Books, WorldCat), its previous name (Google, Books, WorldCat) and its first name (Google, Books, WorldCat) turn up nothing in the way of significant coverage in independent, reliable sources and thus it appears to fail the general notability guideline. SITH (talk) 11:47, 16 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Journalism-related deletion discussions. ~Ruyaba~ {talk} 13:30, 16 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of News media-related deletion discussions. ~Ruyaba~ {talk} 13:30, 16 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. Bakazaka (talk) 18:42, 16 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, RL0919 (talk) 17:29, 23 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ~SS49~ {talk} 00:21, 2 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

*Delete per nomination. Mccapra (talk) 11:54, 2 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I've done some expansion on the article. The periodical in question is actually a Roman Catholic academic journal, and has been cited in a couple of books. IMO this one is tricky because (let's face it) most of its content is of no interest to 99% of society and won't get much press, like most of what we see on List of theology journals. Markvs88 (talk) 01:23, 3 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Comment the Congress was the only thing I could find about it too. Not sure if that helps with notability. Mccapra (talk) 22:37, 3 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The article has citations for three books which detail specific articles from this journal. They appear to be 3rd party. Also, the podcast is translated into multiple other languages and the paper is edited/produced out of several tertiary institutions of higher-learning. Deleting this would be like deleting science organizations/publications that are rather niche in interest and therefore don't get much coverage in the press. Lastly, articles about media sources are great on Wikipedia if you are putting in a citation from the media source. It allows the user to learn more about the media source right away. Wikipedia has lots of articles about media personalities and periodicals which might not otherwise be notable, but are useful in the nuts-and-bolts aspect of helping the users understand the sources. If you delete this, someone would might come across a citation to the Pastoral Review and have no idea if the source is Catholic vs. say Episcopalian or Unitarian. But with this article on Wikipedia it makes source evaluation easier.--Epiphyllumlover (talk) 04:09, 4 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Kudos to User:Markvs88 for WP:HEYMANN sourcing.E.M.Gregory (talk) 12:43, 4 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Good work finding sources, but there should be more available as an established ecclesiastical journal. scope_creep^Talk 03:19, 9 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I’ve struck my earlier !vote after the work done by User:Markvs88 to find and include additional sources. Mccapra (talk) 05:22, 9 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. Sandstein 09:26, 9 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hoverboard ASDF[edit]

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

Seems to be a clear failure of WP:GNG (and the relevant essays: WP:NVG and WP:NSOFT). Opting for AfD over PROD to allow analysis of Korean sources, however, a machine-translated search doesn't seem to turn up significant coverage. SITH (talk) 13:05, 16 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Video games-related deletion discussions. ~Ruyaba~ {talk} 13:17, 16 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Games-related deletion discussions. ~Ruyaba~ {talk} 13:17, 16 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. ~Ruyaba~ {talk} 13:17, 16 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of South Korea-related deletion discussions. ~Ruyaba~ {talk} 13:17, 16 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment there are a small number of articles about it in the entertainment sections of major South Korean newspapers like Kyunghyang Shinmun [18] and Dong-a Ilbo [19][20][21], as well as a very brief one in a Singapore Press Holdings magazine [22]. In the long term the better way to cover this game would probably be to redirect it to a new article about the developer AniPark (who have had hundreds of newspaper articles written about them over the years [23]). 59.149.124.29 (talk) 01:59, 23 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, RL0919 (talk) 17:25, 23 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ~SS49~ {talk} 00:21, 2 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. Sandstein 09:25, 9 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

My Destiny (Malaysian TV series)[edit]

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

Not notable show per sources. Also the cast members are not notable. No significant show. Xain36 (talk) 15:21, 16 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. Bakazaka (talk) 18:47, 16 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Malaysia-related deletion discussions. Bakazaka (talk) 18:47, 16 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment -- I don't know what exactly you mean by saying not notable per sources. But, while notability is not inherited, there were are articles on actors involved with the show -- you should not take poor linking to be indicative of anything. matt91486 (talk) 18:08, 17 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Matt91486: Sorry for the delay, my "sources" point indicated Google News. Xain36 (talk) 05:12, 21 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not capable of searching for Chinese language sources. It's a bit complicated because the show's name is similar to another show's name, and the age of the show makes online sources a bit less common. Nevertheless, as a nationally broadcast show, whose existence is clearly verifiable by google searches, it should be keep. I agree that it needs improved sourcing. matt91486 (talk) 04:21, 2 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, RL0919 (talk) 17:23, 23 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ~SS49~ {talk} 00:20, 2 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Sandstein 09:25, 9 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Iris van Berne[edit]

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

Now let’s see... article has practically no sources. As I tried to look for sources to verify said jobs... (oh would you look at that, NYMAG Model Profiles no longer exist. Just as I said a month ago would happen when you all thought that was a “reliable” source 🙃.) and all that’s out there is “model attends another model’s wedding.” The only job I could find a reliable source for is Oscar de la Renta. One job does not a notable model make. Trillfendi (talk) 17:08, 23 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Bakazaka (talk) 18:57, 23 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fashion-related deletion discussions. Bakazaka (talk) 18:57, 23 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Netherlands-related deletion discussions. Bakazaka (talk) 18:57, 23 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Nominator, meet the Internet Archive: [24]. Bakazaka (talk) 18:59, 23 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Nominator, Vogue seems to disagree with you about her only having "one job" [25]. -- Willthacheerleader18 (talk) 15:24, 24 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I didn’t say she had only one job (read....) I said the only job I could find an independent, reliable source for is Oscar de la Renta and that’s clearly not enough for an article. All you showed was a slideshow of runway images with absolutely no text. What does that do here? Trillfendi (talk) 16:24, 24 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ~SS49~ {talk} 00:20, 2 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Can't find any substantive sources about her beyond the standard profile listings that merely confirm she is in fact a model or passing mentions that she was present at an event. Reywas92^Talk 05:04, 2 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Seems to have many many profiles, you could say a lot, or even a whole lot spread over the web, but they are mostly profile images. Apart from those, not much coverage. I think fails WP:BIO and WP:SIGCOV. Perhaps WP:TOOSOON. scope_creep^Talk 03:29, 9 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Sandstein 09:25, 9 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Ellisha Boie[edit]

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

Appears to fail WP:GNG, as I'm not seeing significant coverage in independent reliable sources. The various claims for notability listed in awards appear to be non-notable as well, as I am unable to find any reliable independent source coverage of such awards. GSS (talk|c|em) 17:16, 16 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. GSS (talk|c|em) 17:17, 16 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Ghana-related deletion discussions. GSS (talk|c|em) 17:17, 16 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fashion-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 11:09, 17 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Mhhossein ^talk 16:53, 23 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. The subject of this article fails WP:GNG and WP:CREATIVE. A Google search of him doesn't show him being discussed in reliable sources. The awards he was nominated for is also not notable. Versace1608 ^{Wanna Talk?} 03:13, 27 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ~SS49~ {talk} 00:20, 2 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Sandstein 09:24, 9 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Brian L. Porter[edit]

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

Even if the "Best Thriller Novel Award" conferred notability, about which I am doubtful, the only sources I can find which state this are either unreliable blogs or self-published (search). SITH (talk) 19:18, 16 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. Bakazaka (talk) 20:05, 16 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. Bakazaka (talk) 20:05, 16 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Mhhossein ^talk 16:53, 23 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ~SS49~ {talk} 00:19, 2 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as far as I can tell these novels are all self-published and the awards won are given out by a website that is a forum for self-published authors. Mccapra (talk) 13:17, 2 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep/withdrawn. Per WP:SCHOOLOUTCOMES #2, after the status of the school was clarified and some sources were provided. (non-admin closure) gidonb (talk) 11:37, 5 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Nayanova University[edit]

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

This organization was related on the town page to an accreditation mill in Italy and inserted before Samara's main university. To be on the safe side I'm listing it for deletion or for discussion as it has no listed references (not a reason for deletion by itself) and I could not find anything beyond primary or self published. This may be a language problem. The pictures do look suspicious: a wrinkled flag that diploma mills typically take out of a drawer for ceremonies and a plaque. Nothing substantial. Listed without clear prejudice because of a few red flags. Grateful for any response! gidonb (talk) 16:50, 23 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. Bakazaka (talk) 18:53, 23 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Russia-related deletion discussions. Bakazaka (talk) 18:53, 23 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 19:07, 23 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

If address info in the article is correct, I did find the building on Google Maps. Pedestrians on its sidewalk are protected with a canopy and sidewalk shed implying building instability (or invisible construction). Perhaps this is essentially an elementary school (pre-k onwards) with some options for high school and post high school education. Looking forward to feedback, also from those who speak Russian. gidonb (talk) 19:19, 23 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Canopy was set to renew the facade for the upcoming Football World Cup because building is directly on the tourist route near main fan zome. Besuglov.S ^cont / _talk 11:03, 25 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Additional research seems to confirm that this is an unaccredited instution of higher learning plus a k-12 school. Not sure if it is notable, also given the personal character of university name equals dean name. If it is kept after all, then perhaps a name change away from university to include all school levels? gidonb (talk) 01:08, 24 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - checking the Russian Wiki article and the Academy website, together with some rusty Russian skills - it seems to just have lost Russian accreditation (from the Russian article "In accordance with the order of Rosobrnadzor No. 1341 of 10/01/2018, the University of Nayanova is deprived of state accreditation" with a link to the Government database that I couldn't figure out how to use). Otherwise our article is just a straight translation of the earlier Russian article. It's got 3 dormitories, plus the building whose photo I added to our article (not an impressive building). It was founded in the chaotic time of 1993 as a "College" (an unusual name for a Russian academic institution). The photo of the plaque is from a dormitory, just saying that the building was used as an "evacuated" state hospital in WWII. None of this improves my confidence that this is a real academic institution. Together with their claim that they have less than 400 students and university-level students, ranging from preschool to doctoral level, and the lack of references, "delete" seems obvious. Smallbones_(smalltalk) 03:54, 24 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
It is real and really small. As for the student number is was number of students for higher education stage and is currently equal to zero after loss of accreditation and redistribution. Academy license can be checked with Federal Service for Supervision in Education and Science Besuglov.S ^cont / _talk 11:03, 25 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Besuglov.S, so at the moment, all students are in primary and secondary education? Are there online sources about the K–12 school? Can you spell the simple, full new name of the school in Russian (without extra phrases such as terms in brackets, previous names and abbreviations)? gidonb (talk) 07:42, 28 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Yes. All students are at School level now (we have 11 years). Reorganization is not completed yet so the old name still stands. Charter states names in Russian (Государственное бюджетное образовательное учреждение высшего образования Самарской области «Самарская государственная областная академия (Наяновой)») and English (Samara State Oblast Academy (Nayanova)). New soon to be signed charter will most probably establish names as "Государственное бюджетное нетиповое общеобразовательное учреждение Самарской области «Академия для одаренных детей (Наяновой)»." and "Samara state academy for gifted children (Nayanova)". While reorganization process has not completed yet we still in university list rather then school. License, enrollment permission state and old name can be checked with Federal Service for Supervision in Education and Science Besuglov.S ^cont / _talk 10:28, 28 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Answering "not an impressive building" concern - it is just not true. All of the three buildings have 100-120 years worth of history behind them. Exactly this building was built as Second female gymnasium in 1912, serve as General Emergency Hospital in World War I, School in 1930s, hospital for evacuees during World War II when lots of heroes were treated there till hospital was moved to a specially built location and freed building for the university in 1993 and one of them got remembered in a literature. It's not in it's best shape because it needs restoration rather than simple modern repair. As for one of the other buildings (have it's own story & built even before 1900) it stands face to face with Samara Opera and Ballet theatre [ru] on the front of the Kuybyshev Square considered to be largest public square in Russia and in Europe. Besuglov.S ^cont / _talk 08:23, 5 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Academy founded in 1988 was the one of the first experimental educational institutions of late USSR (History citation added). In last October accreditation indeed was cancelled for all programms of higher education as well as for postgraduate studies. Students was redirected by regional minestry of education to continue with their programms to other univercities. Now academy is undergoing a transformation process with information added to the article with citations of regional minister of education statement. Academy license can be checked with Federal Service for Supervision in Education and Science Besuglov.S ^cont / _talk 11:03, 25 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
As additional notability and coverage input:

In 2003 univercity team share 21st place at World Finals of The International Collegiate Programming Contest.^[1]

Besuglov.S ^cont / _talk 17:27, 28 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Academy participate in volunteer exchange program - International cultural youth exchange. ^[2]

Academy is part of language network of partner univercities of France embassy. ^[3]

Since 2011 Academy is part of network of associated UNESCO schools.^[4]

Academy is certified partner of Goethe-Institut with programm PASCH-SCHULEN: Partner der Zukunft.^[5]

Besuglov.S ^cont / _talk 05:16, 1 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ~SS49~ {talk} 00:19, 2 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Since 2000 academy publishes a newspaper for students learning French. A newspaper is recomended by Department of Culture of the French Embassy in Russia.^[6] Besuglov.S ^cont / _talk 06:58, 2 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Academy participates in the program of bilingual schools under the aegis of French Ministry of National Education and Department of Foreign Affairs and International Development of France.^[7] Besuglov.S ^cont / _talk 15:02, 3 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

In 1998 according to journal Career (Placed first in popularity index of Managers Association as monthly journal. Held a leading position in the group of monthly business/financial publications in the TNS Gallup Media rating ^[8]) university placed #12 in a list of "One hundred best universities of Russia".^[9] Besuglov.S ^cont / _talk 06:01, 4 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

In 2013 Moscow Center for Continuous Mathematical Education and the Ministry of Education and Science of the Russian Federation included academy's faculty of General Education (primary, secondary school & early specialization stage) in TOP-500 Russia Schools.^[10]^[11] Besuglov.S ^cont / _talk 07:29, 4 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

In 1992 college students participate in forming items for Space Flight Europe-America 500 goodwill mission.^[12] Besuglov.S ^cont / _talk 06:20, 5 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

References

^ "The ICPC Results World Finals". ICPC. Retrieved 2019-02-28.
^ "Russia National Profile 2019" (PDF). ICYE. Retrieved 2019-03-01.
^ "ACADÉMIE D'ETAT DE LA RÉGION DE SAMARA NAYANOVA". RELU. Retrieved 2019-03-01.
^ "National Coordinators". UNESCO. Retrieved 2019-03-01.
^ "PASCH-Schulen - Goethe-Institut Russland". Goethe-Institut. Retrieved 2019-03-01.
^ "Fran cité". Retrieved 2019-03-02.
^ "Liste sections bilingues francophones russie 2016-2017" (PDF). L'INSTITUT FRANÇAIS DE RUSSIE. Retrieved 2019-03-03.
^ ИД Родионова — о журнале «Карьера» Archived 28 October 2009 at the Wayback Machine
^ "Сто лучших вузов России" [One hundred best universities of Russia] (in Russian). Retrieved 2019-03-04.
^ "В список лучших школ России вошли 15 учебных заведений Самарской области" [The list of the best schools in Russia includes 15 educational institutions of the Samara region] (in Russian). Аргументы и факты. Retrieved 2019-03-04.
^ "15 школ Самарской области попали в ТОП-500 лучших в России" [15 schools of the Samara region were in the TOP-500 best in Russia] (in Russian). Комсомольская правда. Retrieved 2019-03-04.
^ "РКЦ Прогресс Пресс-релиз от 22 ноября 2012 года" [Progress Rocket Space Centre Press release - November 22, 2012] (in Russian). Progress Rocket Space Centre. Retrieved 2019-03-05.

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

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

The result was delete. Sandstein 09:15, 9 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Vanessa Teemsma[edit]

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

Searches turned up very little about this individual, certainly not enough in-depth coverage to pass WP:GNG, and she doesn't pass any of the SN guidelines either, like WP:NACTOR or WP:FILMMAKER. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 16:22, 23 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 16:22, 23 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Bakazaka (talk) 18:51, 23 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. Bakazaka (talk) 18:51, 23 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 19:13, 23 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ~SS49~ {talk} 00:18, 2 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete No evidence of notability at this time and the promotional aspect is unacceptable. Trillfendi (talk) 19:04, 2 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Sandstein 09:15, 9 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Core dashboard[edit]

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

WP:CRYSTAL. One primary source, one press release and one - gods help us - Quora spam post. Guy (Help!) 14:21, 23 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 19:15, 23 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 22:36, 23 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. It's too soon to know what impact this initiative will have and it clearly falls well short of any notability guidelines now. References are low quality (at best). Edgeweyes (talk) 20:04, 28 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ~SS49~ {talk} 00:17, 2 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Michig (talk) 07:10, 9 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Trevaun Solomon[edit]

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

WP:TOOSOON. Likely COI form the creator, but the main problem is the paucity of sources, which makes the BLP element hard to police given allegations of tax evasion. Guy (Help!) 14:14, 23 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Caribbean-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 19:18, 23 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Delete. I removed several bogus references to Trevaun Solomon articles in the NYT, Forbes and other RS. This is close to a WP:G3 case. Clearly an article written by the subject himself (who is a programmer), looking to build his profile via WP. Any references that do mention him imply zero notability. We will be seeing a 2nd AfD o this. Britishfinance (talk) 02:10, 1 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ~SS49~ {talk} 00:16, 2 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. Icewhiz (talk) 07:41, 2 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Delete per Britishfinance, half the sources were fabricated and almost certainly a WP:COI. Best, GPL93 (talk) 17:04, 4 March 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. Sandstein 09:14, 9 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Unge Agder[edit]

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

Doesn't appear to be notable, WorldCat and Google Books in both English and (machine translated) Norwegian don't turn up significant coverage. Opting for AfD due to age of topic and potential for Norwegian speakers to chime in. SITH (talk) 00:24, 16 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Journalism-related deletion discussions. ~Ruyaba~ {talk} 00:43, 16 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of News media-related deletion discussions. ~Ruyaba~ {talk} 00:43, 16 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Norway-related deletion discussions. ~Ruyaba~ {talk} 00:43, 16 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sheldybett (talk) 10:44, 23 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ~SS49~ {talk} 00:13, 2 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Sandstein 09:14, 9 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Kelly Forbes[edit]

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

Does not pass WP:ATHLETE. Mccapra (talk) 08:55, 23 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Sheldybett (talk) 10:35, 23 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. Sheldybett (talk) 10:35, 23 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. Sheldybett (talk) 10:35, 23 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Did not qualify for highest level, no substantive sources. Reywas92^Talk 23:26, 23 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ~SS49~ {talk} 00:12, 2 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Unnotablen athlete. Trillfendi (talk) 21:07, 2 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, doesn't meet WP:NATHLETE or WP:GNG as far as I can tell. PK T(alk) 19:30, 5 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Michig (talk) 07:06, 9 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Peace Love World[edit]

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

Peace Love World does not appear to be notable. The company does have news from notable publications but seems to lack in-depth coverage. The article was also stripped down in the past and is now extremely short. The World's Signature (talk) 03:07, 16 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2019 February 16. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 03:18, 16 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. ~Ruyaba~ {talk} 04:13, 16 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Florida-related deletion discussions. ~Ruyaba~ {talk} 04:13, 16 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Bakazaka (talk) 18:41, 16 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Spirit of Eagle (talk) 04:56, 23 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Delete Strong G11 (if not also A7) case. Very little notability beyond scraps (properly notable fashion retailers throw up lots of strong RS given their business). Britishfinance (talk) 01:26, 1 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ~SS49~ {talk} 00:11, 2 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Delete Article is skimpy and lacks sources that establish notability.TH1980 (talk) 03:28, 2 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Michig (talk) 07:04, 9 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

K9.5: The Tail-Wag Tour[edit]

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

Non-notable video game. Didn't really have a release, no third-party sources. Wizardman 03:10, 23 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Video games-related deletion discussions. ___CAPTAIN MEDUSAtalk 12:53, 23 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 13:28, 23 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Delete. More like an A7. Unreferenced, but that is because there are almost no references to this. Fails NPRODUCT. Britishfinance (talk) 01:10, 1 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ~SS49~ {talk} 00:10, 2 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: normally I would suggest a merge or redirect to the developer, Lightspan, except that article doesn't exist despite the company being more notable than any of their individual games. Notability for the company and their games as a whole from [26] and [27] and enough academic studies to warrant a metastudy [28] (which I sadly don't have access to, beyond seeing that it exists). If anyone feels like having a go at creating Lightspan then that would be great, especially if they have access to the academic literature. If not, then deletion is probably the best option here. Lowercaserho (talk) 11:37, 2 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Not A7 eligible, but nothing meeting the WP:GNG either. Willing to reconsider if more sourcing is unearthed, as it was released on the era where hypothetical coverage would likely only exist in paper magazines, but I’m not particularly convinced that would the case with a game like this either. Sergecross73 msg me 14:32, 6 March 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.