< 22 March	24 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 delete. Consensus is for deletion. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 02:03, 31 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

AUTO1 Group[edit]

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

Advert of an online business. No independent sources, only press releases and other promo stuff Staszek Lem (talk) 23:46, 23 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 00:50, 24 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 00:50, 24 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 00:50, 24 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Germany-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 00:51, 24 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - paid-for corporate spam pushed to Wikipedia by a sockfarm (Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Anna Bauer2019). MER-C 21:06, 29 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as spam. -- RoySmith (talk) 01:34, 31 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. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 02:09, 31 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Crowlands Heath Golf Club[edit]

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

Entirely undistinguished golf club with a 9-hole course. Apart from directory listings I can't find any indepth coverage in RS. Delete. Just Chilling (talk) 22:27, 23 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Golf-related deletion discussions. Icewhiz (talk) 22:33, 23 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. Icewhiz (talk) 22:33, 23 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 22:58, 23 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

delete - no notability. Staszek Lem (talk) 23:47, 23 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Smerge and redirect to Chadwell Heath#Sport. bd2412 T 01:04, 25 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - I am normally very sympathetic to a merge/redirect but there needs to be some worthwhile sourced content to merge and there isn't here. Further, the target section is, to be candid, an unsourced mess and adding more unsourced material seems a sub-optimum way forward. Just Chilling (talk) 01:37, 25 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Don't see independent coverage for keeping article or merging content. Orientls (talk) 08:15, 25 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Not notable. Nigej (talk) 10:19, 25 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. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 02:22, 31 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Shriprakash R. Pandey[edit]

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

Struggling to find any independent in-depth coverage in reliable sources - lack of WP:SIGCOV. Fails WP:BIO and WP:GNG. Run-of-the-mill businessman. Edwardx (talk) 22:12, 23 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 22:15, 23 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 22:15, 23 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 22:15, 23 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

delete neither the person nor his business Commtel Networks, have reasonable notability. Staszek Lem (talk) 23:50, 23 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails WP:GOLDENRULE. Significant coverage missing. Accesscrawl (talk) 14:40, 24 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Fails WP:ANYBIO. Also checked for Commtel Networks but that as well fails notability so there is no chance of a redirect or merge even if that article were to be created. --CNMall41 (talk) 02:34, 25 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. This is spam, like nearly all the pages user Dbhathena has made. – Athaenara ✉ 20:37, 25 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. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 02:35, 31 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Wynn Creasy[edit]

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

Article was created as the sole contribution of a SPA. Alexandria Times is a local weekly freesheet that is likely to eulogise about one of their own and the Washington City Paper is a free weekly alternative newspaper that are rarely considered reliable sources. I haven't found any other indepth coverage. I can't source the "Empowered Women International" "Artist of the Year" in order to evaluate this award and the Empowered Women International website contains no reference either to Creasy or the "Artist of the Year". Seems a clear failure of WP:CREATIVE. Just Chilling (talk) 21:57, 23 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 22:14, 23 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Virginia-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 22:14, 23 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Artists-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 22:14, 23 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 22:14, 23 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 22:21, 23 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete clear GNG fail; I saw one decent source in the Lynchburg news, and nothing much else.ThatMontrealIP (talk) 04:47, 24 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Clearly fails GNG coverage requirements. Total coverage available over the last 12 years is three articles (2 in give-away local papers from 2007). The third, "Bedford artist brings modern perspective to quilting" is at least in a proper newspaper, but the paper itself, The News & Advance is very local and that article was in the paper's "local news" section. Comprehensively fails the alternative criteria at WP:MUSICBIO and WP:ARTIST. I can find no evidence of a significant career as an opera singer, no recordings, no prizes, not even mentioned in any reviews of opera or concert performances. As this article is clearly an autobiography, the fact that the actual roles sung at the opera companies listed are not given is telling. There's a brief mention of her here in the "What's On" section of the Washington Post about an upcoming cabaret performance in a local club in 2003. As for the "Empowered Women International" "Artist of the Year" award. Apart from her name not being mentioned anywhere on the site, this is a local charity (Washington DC metro area) that helps immigrant and low income women start their own businesses, mainly in the arts. Even if verified, the award is utterly insignificant. The personal biographical details about her childhood are wildly inappropriate, obviously supplied by the subject, and completely unverifiable. For that matter, so is virtually every claim made in the article. Voceditenore (talk) 09:19, 30 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails WP:SIGCOV.E.M.Gregory (talk) 18:01, 30 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. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 06:14, 31 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Heidi Mendez[edit]

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

I’m not seeing reliable independent sources to indicate that this person is notable. Mccapra (talk) 20:55, 23 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 22:16, 23 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Spain-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 22:17, 23 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 22:17, 23 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 22:17, 23 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 22:17, 23 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I hate to say this because I created the article, but there is not enough to make her notable. From what I can tell she is a high school drama teacher in Salt Lake County, Utah who has appeared in such shows as Granite Flats. The best bio of her I have found to date is in IMDb, which is a sign we are dealing with someone probably not notable. The BYU Magaine link is more an interview than an article, plus university magazines writing profiles on alumni are not exactly indepdent sources. Even at that it is her project connected with incarcerated youth that is the main focus. I found another source along those lines, but nothing seems substantial.John Pack Lambert (talk) 00:39, 24 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Mendez does not make our fairly comprehensive list of Granite Flats actors, so I am suspecting her part in the TV show was not what one would call "significant". That TV show is seeminly a "notable" production, but I am not yet seeing what other notable production she has been in, and the guidelines call for multiple notable productions.John Pack Lambert (talk) 00:41, 24 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Comment This [1] Provo Daily Herald article covers her theatre project, but since she is based in Provo, that is not neccesarily adding towards notability at all. Nothing else seems to come up.John Pack Lambert (talk) 00:46, 24 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete John Pack Lambert's argument for deletion is persuasive.E.M.Gregory (talk) 18:03, 30 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. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 02:46, 31 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Melanie Gillis[edit]

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

Apparently non-notable portrait photographer, does not meet WP:ARTIST. She gets a few photo-credits on Gbooks, and one verifiable one on Gnews. Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 20:46, 23 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 22:18, 23 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Photography-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 22:18, 23 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 22:20, 23 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, I can't find any indication that this person meets WP:NCREATIVE. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 04:55, 29 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete fails WP:SIGCOV.E.M.Gregory (talk) 18:05, 30 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 (WP:NPASR). King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 06:13, 31 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

MEI Academy[edit]

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

Fails our notability guidelines for corporations (NCORP). This isn't a school, so our auto-notability guideline doesn't apply. It's a company that arranges study abroad opportunities, and I find no significant coverage of MEI Academy in any reliable sources. schetm (talk) 05:22, 9 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. AllyD (talk) 08:11, 9 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. AllyD (talk) 08:11, 9 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. AllyD (talk) 08:11, 9 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment the institution is now called ‘Mei International Academy.’ It has accreditation as an education provider so I suppose comparable institutions would be home study and distance learning programmes. It seems to me that it has better coverage than we’d usually find for a school because there are references to it in the sites of the institutions it works with. Mccapra (talk) 11:42, 9 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I just fixed a reference that supports this point: MEI is not just accredited, but the course credits are accepted for university entrance. That makes them a high school and therefore de facto notability applies. Best, Markvs88 (talk) 20:04, 9 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Markvs88: "Secondary schools are not presumed to be notable simply because they exist." Is there any significant coverage in reliable sources to demonstrate MEI Academy's notability? I couldn't find any. schetm (talk) 23:44, 9 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Schetm. According to point 2, "Most independently accredited degree-awarding institutions *and high schools* have historically been kept except when zero independent sources can be found to prove that the institution actually exists." The article has multiple sources, including a newspaper of record (The Kingston Whig-Standard) and the school district itself. Markvs88 (talk) 01:28, 10 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, MEI Academy exists, but a mere passing reference, as we see in the Kingston Whig-Standard, doesn't demonstrate notability. A passing reference is all we have, and it is not significant coverage. The subject fails WP:NSCHOOL, and should not be kept. schetm (talk) 02:54, 10 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

1) If that's a passing reference, then I wonder what you consider in-depth coverage. 2)Hey, you have an opinion! Good for you. Now let me have mine in peace. Markvs88 (talk) 17:38, 10 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Markvs88:, In-depth, or significant coverage, is describe quite clearly in the General Notability Guideline (GNG): "Significant coverage addresses the topic directly and in detail, so that no original research is needed to extract the content. Significant coverage is more than a trivial mention, but it does not need to be the main topic of the source material." In the Kingston Whig-Standard article you brought up, MEI Academy is mentioned in passing twice in an article about high school students studying abroad. That's like saying a police officer is notable because he was mentioned twice in a newspaper report about a crime. Besides, even if the Whig-Standard article you've cited met the standard of SIGCOV, according to the GNG, "multiple sources are generally expected." As such, MEI Academy fails our notability guidelines. This is my policy-based argument, and I leave you in peace. schetm (talk) 20:07, 10 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Dude, just stop. You're not changing my mind as I find your POV to be inaccurate. Markvs88 (talk) 20:38, 10 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 04:37, 16 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Mei international academy is actually a public school. It is part of Upper Grand District school board. All its courses are accredited through there and you can graduate and apply to university with them https://www.ugdsb.ca/continuing-education/credit-courses/summer-school/off-site-summer-school-credit/ — Preceding unsigned comment added by Anonymousme12 (talk • contribs) 03:31, 23 March 2019 (UTC) — Anonymousme12 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, – Joe (talk) 20:07, 23 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. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 02:52, 31 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Bassena[edit]

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

Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2019 March 15#Bassena has concluded with the consensus that the page should not redirect to Bedsit. Concerns about WP:DICDEF have been raised during the RfD, hence this listing on AfD. I am neutral. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 20:04, 23 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Austria-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 20:18, 23 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Architecture-related deletion discussions. Icewhiz (talk) 22:34, 23 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete In addition to WP:DICDEF, it isn't even a correct definition. It's the common water source in such a building, without water service to the individual units. But even if we had an article about those, there's no reason to have it under the German term. Largoplazo (talk) 03:05, 24 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per my comments at the RfD. -- Tavix ^(talk) 20:55, 24 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete NOTDICTIONARY.E.M.Gregory (talk) 09:27, 27 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 Feline infectious peritonitis#In film. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 06:13, 31 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Aeris (film)[edit]

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

Was deprodded, however it's an unremarkable short film which won two minor awards. Other than promotional articles, no in-depth coverage to meet WP:GNG, and definitely doesn't meet WP:NFILM. And my apologies, I originally prodded this article, not realizing that it had already been prodded, and the earlier prod was removed. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 11:30, 16 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

KEEP - Notable film. Also taking into account the cat lover scene, more notable than some folks can fathom. Original Proposed deletion was inaccurate as well. OK, so it's now been nominated for deletion. Oh well.

Winner of 2 awards. One in the US and the other in Canada. Played at other festivals including Hawaii. Nominee in 2 others. Official selection in Santa Barbara and Philly. Aeris
Very good coverage in Pop Dust, 10/11/17 - Aeris: The Unlikely Story of a Cat and Unconditional Love by Megan Christopher which was sourced from Google News.
The film was also discussed on Steve Dale's WGN radio show. WGN, December 11, 2018 - Noted pet expert Steve Dale drops by right before the howlidays by Jasmine Cooper - sourced from Google News.
Also by Steve Dale himself. Aeris the Movie About a Kitten with FIP Now Available
Excellent coverage in the well-respected and loved cat-news website, The Purrington Post which is the go-to source of news for cat lovers and fanatics. The Purrington Post, Nov 30, 2016 - The Story of Aeris: A Legacy Inspired by Love
On Amazon.com, it has some great reviews
Good coverage at the Borrego Springs Film Festival as well.
Also backed by the Winn Feline Foundation due to the importance of the issue of Feline infectious peritonitis which the film not only raises but brings attention to. "Winn Feline Foundation Helping Every Cat, Every Day" - Fifty Years of Milestones Page 9. They also hosted the film's premiere at the Lincoln Center.

Thanks Karl Twist (talk) 12:13, 16 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 13:38, 16 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, the awards won are minor and not notable, independent coverage in reliable sources is not significant. _signed,Rosguill ^talk 18:30, 22 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Atlantic306 (talk) 19:13, 23 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment and reply to Rosguill. It won 3 awards and 2 of the festivals are prominent festivals. In addition to it being a '2018 Garden State Film Festival Winner in the Narrative Short category - 2018 Festival Winners, Narrative Short, it was also a winner in the same category at the Canada International Film Festival - See Aeris & Aeris, Awards I have just discovered that it also a Gold Kahuna winner at the 2018 Honolulu Film Awards - 2018 Winners See Gold Kahuna Winners section. The last 2 are prominent film fests. And yes, there's no Wikipedia article for the Canada International Film Festival because nobody's gotten around to doing one yet. Independent coverage in Pop Dust and WGN are from Google News and reliable sources. And that's not even taking into account the prominence it has in Cat lover culture. It has been shown at Laemmle Theaters - See Films, Aeris. The film was backed by the Winn Feline Foundation - Fifty Years of Milestones Page 9. This has been confirmed by the Cat Fanciers' Association. See CFA EXECUTIVE BOARD MEETING, OCTOBER 7/8, 2017, Index to Minutes - - Page 92 WINN FOUNDATION Notable article! Karl Twist (talk) 11:07, 25 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. - GretLomborg (talk) 15:40, 29 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Reply to the above. Quote: "Delete per nom". The problem is that info in the deletion nomination by the nominator is erroneous with "it's an unremarkable short film which won two minor awards". Also the use of the word " unremarkable" is an opinion and can give a prejudicial slant to the debate. While it is correct that it is a short film and runs for 30 mins approx., that in no way makes it less notable! And Wikipedia proves short films can be notable. Wikipedia has a page for them. Nominator said that it only won two minor awards. Well, that's incorrect! It actually won an award at the 2018 Garden State Festival. It was inner in the Narrative Short category. It also was a winner in the same category at the Canada International Film Festival. It was also a Gold Kahuna winner at the 2018 Honolulu Film Awards. Regarding coverage. Well, two of the references come from Google News. Both are used for other articles in Wikipedia. They are Pop Dust and WGN Radio. And Steve Dale, the host of WGN talks about it elsewhere. And for cat lovers and followers of Cat media and cat news by The Purrington Post etc this is very important. Another thing. It played at Laemmle Theatres as well some time back. This is the very first ever film about Feline infectious peritonitis.
Thanks Karl Twist (talk) 12:33, 30 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note to the closing admin. If by chance you determine that the consensus is to delete, I wonder if the history could please be preserved and the film redirected to Feline infectious peritonitis as this is an important film. It is the very first film about the condition and I know will be referred to more in the future. Personally I think it's notable enough but I'll leave it up to you. Thanks Karl Twist (talk) 12:37, 30 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. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 02:57, 31 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Edwin F. Peterson[edit]

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

Subject does not appear to meet WP:POLITICIAN (city clerk, city treasurer, delegate, and small-town mayor) nor WP:GNG. Several sources appear to lack independence from the subject or are unverifiable. Most of the rest are from a single local newspaper, the Star-Courier of Kewanee, IL. Google News produces only 4 hits, one mentions him in passing, 2 mention a rural high school scholarship in his name, and another mentions him briefly towards the end of an Illinois county news page article that is not about him. I am not seeing enough substantive coverage in reliable verifiable sources, and no subject-specific guideline under which he would qualify (...but do we have one for beekeepers?). A loose necktie (talk) 19:11, 23 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 20:16, 23 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sweden-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 20:17, 23 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Illinois-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 20:17, 23 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 20:17, 23 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I've never seen a personal scrapbook used as a source before. Best, GPL93 (talk) 21:24, 23 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Of those four articles, the fourth that mentions him in passing only does so because the company he founded long after his death was sponsoring a local academic event. Nothing of substance is showing up at all.John Pack Lambert (talk) 00:50, 24 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Delete Promotional spam. scope_creep^Talk 09:15, 24 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Advertising and Promotional spam , not found sources . Swe123123 (talk) 06:28, 24 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Nothing stated here hands him an automatic WP:NPOL pass — the political offices he held were at the local level, not the state or national levels — but the article is referenced nowhere close to well enough to demonstrate that he's of significantly greater notability than most other smalltown municipal politicians. It depends overwhelmingly on primary sources that do not count as support for notability at all — and the stuff that is actually real reliable source media coverage is entirely from his own local newspaper, a type of coverage that every local political figure in every town or city can routinely expect to receive. This is not how you demonstrate that a smalltown municipal politician is notable enough to merit an article in an international encyclopedia. Bearcat (talk) 18:08, 25 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails WP:GNG Lubbad85 (talk) 01:07, 27 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. Overall consensus is for deletion. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 03:14, 31 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

GiveBack GiveAway[edit]

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

No significant coverage about the company in reliable sources. Fails WP:ORG. Pontificalibus 11:41, 16 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 13:37, 16 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Thailand-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 13:37, 16 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Drafity, new draft created by new user. No evidence it's complete. Slightly bitey AfD RhinosF1^(chat)_{(status)(contribs)} 16:14, 19 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Bitey? There's no evidence it's incomplete either. And if the subject is not notable it won't do anyone any favours to allow the article to be developed. ----Pontificalibus 20:28, 19 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect or merge to Johnny Ward (travel blogger), or delete. Subject does not appear to be notable on its own; almost all mentions in third-party sources are passing mentions in the context of wider coverage of Ward's activities. --Paul_012 (talk) 07:59, 22 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, So said The Great Wiki Lord. (talk) 19:06, 23 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete The first ref is a listing on an affiliate's page. The other 4 references are self-serving promotional interviews where he says whatever he cares to about his enterprises, , even the Independent, and therefore fails WP:NCORP. Everything potentially worth margining is already in the bio. There's no reason to make a redirect even, for everything a person does. Google takes care of that. The ed is a spa, writing about him and his enterprise, and therefore COI is very likely. DGG ( talk ) 16:03, 25 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Per DGG, there's no room for merging. Lapablo (talk) 17:58, 28 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per DGG's analysis; WP:NOTPROMO is policy, and we should try and avoid merging spam into otherwise OK articles. ——SerialNumber54129 18:03, 28 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 Théophile Obenga#Fringe linguistic theories. Seems to be the most reasonable solution here. If a different result is desired consider nominating Théophile Obenga for deletion or nominating this redirect at WP:RFD. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 06:11, 31 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Negro-Egyptian languages[edit]

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

This recently created article is non-notable pseudoscience at best, and does not warrant an article per notability. But it's more likely to be a non-notable racist conspiracy theory or hoax. I redirected it for now to Pseudoscientific language comparison, but it isn't even notable enough for a rd. (And it isn't mentioned at that article.) There are also two rd's that should be deleted with this: Negro-Egyptian Language Family and Negro-Egyptian. Another linguist-editor's comments, and my response, are on the talk page. — kwami (talk) 18:28, 23 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete (See [2] for the article prior to its being redirected.) This is a complete joke, hoax, or just plain incompetency. Anyone with a basic background in linguistics would be horrified (or amused) by the misclassifications, bizarre claims, and incoherence of the article. The hoax book "Black Civilizations of Southeast Asia (Austro-Asiatic)" comes to mind. Perhaps consider moving it to Uncyclopedia! — Stevey7788 (talk) 20:52, 23 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I must commend the contributor for his creativity. The incredibly detailed linguistic evolution narrative in there is a true marvel. There are striking similarities with the Book of Revelation. — Stevey7788 (talk) 20:58, 23 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 23. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 18:43, 23 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Egypt-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 20:05, 23 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Language-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 20:06, 23 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Even with my superficial knowledge of linguistics, I know that this is not how languages evolve: "Rather than produce new words with every new idea or phenomenal experience, which would result in the need for an individual to exhaustively remember hundreds or even thousands of words, through an agglutinative process, the vocabulary of Negro Egyptian was able to be expanded—new words were constructed and semantically extended from a core set of words." Remembering hundreds or thousands of words is not difficult for Homo sapiens; most four-year-olds do exactly that. But winnowing the root words of the purported protolanguage down to just ten consonant-vowel pairs no doubt makes it much easier to find the kind of false cognates that pseudolinguistics rely on. And there's some really twisted logic at work (something about transposition of vowels and consonants at the ends of words) when you put Middle Egyptian and its direct descendant Coptic on different branches of the linguistic tree.

Moreover, this idea doesn't seem to be at all notable as a fringe theory. The article is kind enough to tell us exactly who is responsible for the concept: Théophile Obenga, Jean-Claude Mboli, and Asar Imhotep. Obenga is a notable fringe theorist and seems to be the origin of the term "Negro-Egyptian language family", but I see no reason that his linguistic claims merit a separate article. The details of the purported language family as described in this article seem to be the work of Mboli and Imhotep. The first section of the article body, which contains most of the linguistic substance of the article, cites nobody except the two of them. Googling shows that they have virtually no online presence except in their own self-published works and in the narrow community of Afrocentrist fringe thinkers. A. Parrot (talk) 22:01, 23 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

What I find amusing is that they think Afrocentrist pride is served by claiming that Africans don't have the mental capacity of a 4-year-old. — kwami (talk) 22:53, 23 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Fringe theorists are not exactly known for thinking through the full implications of their ideas. A. Parrot (talk) 23:06, 23 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I didn't realize that Théophile Obenga mentions this. I'd be happy with a redirect there, though we'd need to be careful about making clear that it's pseudoscience if there's pushback per BIO.

However, as per comments on the talk page there, I doubt the bio passes WP:PROF. Should Théophile Obenga be put up for AFD? — kwami (talk) 23:20, 23 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. Thank you to User:Doug Weller for bringing this to my attention. I accepted this at AfC because it appeared to meet WP:AFCSTANDARDS. Beyond that, I offer no opinion either way. -- RoySmith (talk) 16:03, 24 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I responded to the comments made by the editors: Talk:Negro-Egyptian_languages. I am willing to work with other editors (especially those who would make prudent, critical assessments about the content of the article and who have specialized knowledge in African linguistics) to improve the overall quality of the article in the draftspace. Obenga, Mboli, and Imhotep are proponents of "Negro-Egyptian", who are all of African descent (which makes the gross mischaracterization of the article as "racist", possibly due to an inclination to make a hasty assessment, incorrect). Obenga's and Mboli's work are in French, whereas, Imhotep's work is in English; this makes it particularly reliant on Imhotep's work. Yet, it should be noted that most of the article is arranged to reflect the revisions Mboli (2010) made to Obenga (1993). With that said, I did try to use sources from Mboli for the content in the article. Once again, I am willing to work with others to improve the overall quality of the article in the draftspace and am open to friendly, constructive criticism that can improve the overall quality of my edits. -- Daniel Power of God (talk) 19:44, 24 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: Regarding consideration of notability, Obenga (1993) and Mboli (2010) are both included in WorldCat and Stanford Libraries. Both are also referenced in the article:

Obenga is known for his participation in the UNESCO symposium: https://unesdoc.unesco.org/ark:/48223/pf0000032875/PDF/032875engo.pdf.multi; https://books.google.com/books?id=gB6DcMU94GUC&pg=PA65&dq=%22negro-egyptian%22+language&hl=en#v=onepage&q=%22negro-egyptian%22%20language&f=false; https://books.google.com/books?id=Ta0wDwAAQBAJ&pg=PA41&dq=%22negro-egyptian%22+language&hl=en#v=onepage&q=%22negro-egyptian%22%20language&f=false. This is also referenced in the article.

Imhotep has also participated in DISA (Diopian Institute for Scholarly Advancement)'s Cheikh Anta Diop International Conference (2015 - https://www.diopianinstitute.org/images/Documents/27th_Program_2015.pdf; 2018 - https://www.diopianinstitute.org/images/Documents/30th_program_2018.pdf), which is also referenced in the article.

I am also willing to work with other editors to improve the overall quality of the Theophile Obenga article as well. - Daniel Power of God (talk) 11:35, 25 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Per Nom. AfC is not exact science and sometimes even the worse of the worse fall through the cracks. --CNMall41 (talk) 02:54, 25 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
~~Weak delete~~ Merge Its clearly a thing, and seems to be highly notable. But it also seems as if this is (really) the work of one notable academic and polemicist (to be clear, both him and this theory are notable for being mainly a loony fringe, the stuff that gets noted when nothing else is about).Slatersteven (talk) 08:46, 25 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Let me make this clear (as there seems to be some confusion). The only notability this has is as a silly season story linked wholly to one controversial academic. As such I vote merge with its creator (which is the only reason it is notable, it is not Independently so). Note I have change my vote to reflect this factSlatersteven (talk) 08:26, 26 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) DannyS712 (talk) 01:08, 31 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Jagannath Dixit[edit]

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

Though there are mentions of the subject in several news articles. All the sources mentioned are about lectures/workshops delivered by the subject. Nothing about why the subject is notable? No secondary reference is given. I fear such third party source exists on the subject. So it does not pass WP:NACADEMIC QueerEcofeminist^{"cite! even if you fight"!!!} [they/them/their] 18:04, 23 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 20:06, 23 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 20:06, 23 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Keep I cannot stop laughing when I read something like no secondary references are given! Surely the person making such claims should understand what WP means by secondary sources. I wish them good luck for study! -- Dr. Abhijeet Safai (talk) 18:35, 24 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - The discussion regarding possibility of conflict of interest / paid editing of the account which has proposed this deletion is going on here. -- Abhijeet Safai (talk) 07:17, 25 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Health and fitness-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 07:55, 25 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Notable, however the article needs to be developed. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Lubbad85 (talk • contribs)
~~Delete~~ Seems to be another right wing lunatic charlatan who chooses to undertake scientific research by the means of media-coverage rather than by publications in credible scientific journals. NOTNEWS and all that; there is hardly any in-depth coverage. ∯WBG^converse 06:42, 26 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Interesting. Lets consider each point which WBG has mentioned. Lets leave the word lunatic because we cannot expect better language from him, but I am curious to know how he terms Dr. Dixit as right wing. Also was the charlatan word was for WBG himself? I agree with that then. Thank you. Happy editing. -- Abhijeet Safai (talk) 06:58, 26 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Right wing from this source which mentions Dr Dixit has also been appointed as BJP’s brand ambassador for anti-obesity and diabetes reversal....the Dixit diet plan was originally conceived by the late Dr Shrikant Jichkar, who was also a politician.

Lunatic charlatan from Jimbo's famous reply, the context of which may be read over here. Also, the above-linked source states Experts from Indian Medical Association (IMA) pointed out that Dr Dixit is neither a dietician nor a diabetologist and hence his claims need to be put to scientific test before they can be accepted......Dr Dixit is not a diabetologist neither he is a dietician. Hence he cannot promote this diet.....There has to be a proper study that backs his claim...... Another source states The claims of Dr. Dixit that amount of insulin released in response to meals has no relation with the quality and quantity of meals is factually incorrect, and is in stark contrast to the physiological facts established via numerous published studies.....Dr. Dixit’s viral claim is not only misinformed but is potentially harmful for the pre-diabetic and type-2 diabetes patients....

Describing me to be a charlatan is very close to violating one of our pillars and I advice you to be cautious enough. Best, ∯WBG^converse 07:38, 26 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - WP:IDONTLIKEIT and WP:JIMBOSAID aside, this topic does appear to pass WP:GNG just by going from the English language sources in the article. Probably a lot more in the Indian languages sources. Even if a person is a quack/charlatan/fraud, that doesn't mean they can't be notable. (Cough. Cough.) Oakshade (talk) 01:44, 27 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Article passes WP:GNG and as Oakshade said, WP:IDONTLIKEIT isn't a reason to delete a page. --Rsrikanth05 (talk) 09:44, 27 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep -- On re-thoughts, this will be a nice re-rendition of BGR-34 :-) I still believe that it's in NOTNEWS territory, every-time somebody claims such bunkum stuff, the media flocks but on retrospection, the benefit of having the article to aware readers of the dubiousness exceeds the downsides. ∯WBG^converse 14:36, 27 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as self-advertisement. That's a sufficient reason for deletion regardless of notability. DGG ( talk ) 18:29, 27 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I don't find this Deletion request valid. The person is notable and I don't see any self-advertisment as commented by DGG as Jagannath and the article creator/editor Abhijeet Safai are two different one. Secondly this request looks as a rivalry request by the Nominator as this is something which is not new, the Whole Marathi Wikipedia is full by similar Vandalism and the user has been even blocked in the past for similar vandalism there. I advise the current stub article to be kept as per comments of User:Oakshade and must be properly improved in a neutral way and we hope to find new sources in near future. Thanking you. --✝iѵɛɳ२२४०^{†ลℓк †๏ мэ} 07:02, 30 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Tiven2240, ohhh I was just waiting for you, as you have been stalking my contributions, you would come and comment here too. I want to remind you that, you have been suggested to not stalk and follow my contributions, please stop making false alligations and personal attacks on me. here talk about content, provide refs and be civil if you could. QueerEcofeminist^{"cite! even if you fight"!!!} [they/them/their] 07:44, 30 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. Consensus is for deletion. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 03:20, 31 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Vishwambhar Choudhary[edit]

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

Very little/ almost no valid sources to establish notability, the subject is mentioned in the recent news articles while citing opinions given by subject on various social issues. But no reason I could find to consider the subject notable. QueerEcofeminist^{"cite! even if you fight"!!!} [they/them/their] 17:55, 23 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Environment-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 20:07, 23 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 20:07, 23 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The person nominated this needs to understand different sources because WP is all about understanding sources. -- 18:37, 24 March 2019 (UTC)
Comment - The discussion regarding possibility of conflict of interest / paid editing of the account which has proposed this deletion is going on here. -- Abhijeet Safai (talk) 07:18, 25 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
The next discussion will be very likely about whether to indef you for slinging wild aspersions at others and refusing to back down. ∯WBG^converse 07:00, 26 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Comment, Choudhary has had some news coverage over the years, eg. "RTI Documents Show Membership for Govt Officials at Low Rates in Lieu of Land for Poona Club", "Development of Lavasa Now Under PMRDA Ambit", "Green Brigade Frowns on Amit Shah’s Welcome With 10,000 Motorbikes", and "Ministers Fail to Convince Anna Hazare to Call Off Agitation", but more is needed to meet WP:ANYBIO notability. Coolabahapple (talk) 07:52, 25 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete--No significant coverage is located per my searches. ∯WBG^converse 07:00, 26 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Nothing remotely approaching WP:SIGCOV in my searches; can't even find good RS where they are really the subject of the article. The refs that come up on searches are focused on other subjects, of which they are involved – E.g. Indian Express [3], Times of India [4], The Financial Express (India) [5], and India Times [6]. In all cases, hardly even gets a paragraph; and nothing about their details/bio. Can't even make a "contrived" case for a BLP. Perhaps better Indian-language RS are available, but on en-RS, it is a delete. Britishfinance (talk) 22:56, 29 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. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 06:02, 31 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Stephen Reinhardt (musician)[edit]

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

Fails WP:NBIO. Only incidental mention in the reliable sources that I found. Rogermx (talk) 17:07, 23 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 20:09, 23 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Pennsylvania-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 20:09, 23 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 20:09, 23 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Dance-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 20:10, 23 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. — JJMC89 (T·C) 20:11, 23 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Portland Urban Coyote Project[edit]

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

This probably worthy and interesting project appears to be of strictly local significance, interest and notability. Several mentions in the local press, nothing to indicate any wider coverage. Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 22:12, 16 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Animal-related deletion discussions. Icewhiz (talk) 22:20, 16 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. Icewhiz (talk) 22:20, 16 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Oregon-related deletion discussions. Icewhiz (talk) 22:20, 16 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, So said The Great Wiki Lord. (talk) 16:51, 23 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. — JJMC89 (T·C) 20:12, 23 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Red (nightclub)[edit]

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

I can't find any notability for this defunct nightclub. Sure, it seems that it was popular with the patrons but that does not seem to have translated to coverage in reliable sources. I actually found an archive of the only reference in the article, that talks about the club's closing in the local section "Going out guide - D.C.-area nightlife, events and dining". Other that that, I could not find anything else to clear WP:GNG. RetiredDuke (talk) 22:24, 16 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. Icewhiz (talk) 22:33, 16 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Washington, D.C.-related deletion discussions. Icewhiz (talk) 22:33, 16 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete no real assertion of significance made in the article. Mccapra (talk) 22:37, 16 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, So said The Great Wiki Lord. (talk) 16:51, 23 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. MBisanz ^talk 17:15, 30 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Standard Predictor[edit]

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

Fails WP:GNG. Wunderkidding (talk) 16:47, 23 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete (from nominator). Article is an advertising piece written by the creator of the test being advertised. No secondary sources to support GNG, and the primary sources on the page are (non-peer reviewed) WP:SPS's, again written by the creator of the test being advertised. Wunderkidding (talk) 16:53, 23 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Psychology-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 07:16, 25 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - WP:GNG - Does not meet the general notability criteria. Only 17 hits on google, the first and second reference in the article are not neutral, the third reference does not mention the subject. Considering the name of the author, it is self-promotion. Sincerely, Taketa (talk) 18:22, 25 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above. I'm assuming that this is a good faith effort at detecting those at risk of violence but this is clearly part of a promotional effort. Also, many of the names listed as coauthors in the refs and the text of the Clarke quote are from testimonials at standardpredictor.com. There doesn't seem to be independent verification that the assessment is accepted and widely used. --mikeu ^talk 22:25, 25 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 Echota Cherokee Tribe of Alabama. MBisanz ^talk 17:15, 30 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Charlotte Hallmark[edit]

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

Has been flagged for being non-notable since 2012, she no longer holds the office, and no new articles about her have emerged in recent years Yuchitown (talk) 15:48, 23 March 2019 (UTC)Yuchitown[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. CASSIOPEIA^(talk) 16:38, 23 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Alabama-related deletion discussions. CASSIOPEIA^(talk) 16:38, 23 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Echota Cherokee Tribe of Alabama as a appropriate target. I am not sure the community has developed consensus (under WP:NPOL) toward principal chiefs/chairs of sovereign Indian nations in the United States, but there is value in maintaining lists of chiefs/chairs of all recognized tribes. In this case, the subject was chief of the Echota Cherokee Tribe of Alabama from 2006 to 2014. --Enos733 (talk) 17:10, 23 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Merge relevant information onto Echota Cherokee Tribe of Alabama. oncamera 17:19, 23 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Echota Cherokee Tribe of Alabama. - CorbieV ^☊ ☼ 18:21, 23 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, added several references to article. A tribal chief should be inherently notable due to the office held. GregJackP Boomer! 18:43, 23 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect or Delete Preferably delete. The individual is not notable beyond her terms as chief. Every chief of every Nation does not have their own page nor are they listed on the page of the associated tribe.Indigenous girl (talk) 19:50, 23 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: I think more articles on the tribes should have a government section that lists their chairpersons, as they are sovereign nations. If we have articles about historical tribal leaders, the least we could do is also list contemporary leaders to reflect that tribes are modern and living entities. Most articles about the tribes are not very indepth, sadly. oncamera 20:51, 23 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Merging the biography into the article about the state-recognized group is a totally fine compromise. Yuchitown (talk) 22:58, 23 March 2019 (UTC)Yuchitown[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 to delete. I note that Wikipedia:WikiProject United States courts and judges/Notability#Judges of state trial courts of general jurisdiction states: "Such judges are not inherently notable, but holding such a position is strong evidence of notability that can be established by other indicia of notability". For full disclosure, I wrote that passage. However, it applies reasonably well here. There is an absence of consensus to delete, and it is noted that this judge received at least some coverage for unusual cases presided over. I also note that his obituary was published in the Boston Globe, a paper from a state outside his own, which is of some significance. bd2412 T 01:32, 31 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

G. Sarsfield Ford[edit]

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

Not really a notable judge. He purportedly (modified at 04:46, 16 March 2019 (UTC)) served on the state Supreme Court... and yeah, no one really wrote anything about him. No significant coverage here, of his tenure before or during his stint on the state Supreme Court. More than half the judges on the Connecticut Supreme Court page rightly don't have an article, for reference. Any useful content could maybe be a minibio on that page, but most of what's here (especially before I took out the most egregiously irrelevant filler nonsense) is promotional puffery or other thoroughly routine coverage. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 15:38, 15 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Connecticut-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 16:45, 15 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Law-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 16:45, 15 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per WP:JUDGE. He meets WP:JUDGE due to having "held international, national or sub-national (statewide/provincewide) office", specifically being a justice of the Connecticut Supreme Court. Other sources and references may also be able to help expand the article. I would also not call his date of death (which the nominator removed from the article), "egregiously irrelevant filler nonsense". Note that hypothetically, if "More than half the judges on the Connecticut Supreme Court page" didn't have an article, that does not necessarily mean that they are not notable. The statement by the nominator also appears to be false, as more than half of judges listed on the page Connecticut Supreme Court and on the page List of justices of the Connecticut Supreme Court currently have an article. MarkZusab (talk) 22:06, 15 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, the world needs to know he was a proud Irishman... I mean, maybe around this time of year, but really? That said, Show Don't Tell these heretofore unknown references exist. His death date was, in fact, still in the article, just once instead of twice. You cite a guideline, which is not a hard and fast rule for a reason; I would submit this is why, because there's WP:NOPAGE here. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 22:22, 15 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I suspect that the brief reference in one of the sources to the subject serving on the Connecticut Supreme Court was an error. That same source mentions when the subject became a judge of other courts, but not the state Supreme Court. I also note that the two other sources cited (obituaries) don't mention him being on the state Supreme Court, which one would think they would mention if it was actually true. More importantly, he doesn't appear on the list of justices on the Connecticut Supreme Court Historical Society web site. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 01:59, 16 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
- Although some more sources have been added to the article, I am still not convinced that there is significant coverage to support the subject's notability. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 04:20, 17 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. I have struck out my keep comment above after Metropolitan90 showed that Ford was likely never actually part of the Connecticut Supreme Court. If he had served on the Connecticut Supreme Court I would have kept my opinion as keep, but I have found no other sources that state that except for the brief reference Metropolitan90 mentioned. Possibly delete per WP:GNG and not meeting WP:JUDGE. MarkZusab (talk) 02:57, 16 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. Ford served on several different Courts over his career. AFAIK, he was never a CSC Judge, but he did argue cases in front of the CSC when he was a lawyer. It also does not help searching that the various CT courts have been renamed (in some cases multiple times) since 1950, such as the Connecticut Supreme Court of Errors becoming the Connecticut Supreme Court in 1965. You can find it referred to as the "Connecticut Court of Errors" or just "the Court of Errors"" in some sources well into the 1970s. Markvs88 (talk) 12:59, 16 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. Over the last ten days, the number of sources have doubled to 16, and they are from major news outlets. I ask you both to reconsider your votes. Markvs88 (talk) 11:11, 26 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I was rather puzzled as to how a state supreme court judge could attract so little coverage - even in a state the size of Connecticut I would expect to see much more, especially as such judicial appointments are highly politicized in the US. Metropolitan90 has cured my puzzlement by noticing that the subject was not actually a supreme court judge. Phil Bridger (talk) 09:56, 16 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep NOTICE: HEYMANN. I think that people got hung up on his unusual name in searching, because Google was pretty useless for that. The only reason I know who he was is because I'm a local. I've expanded the article with reliable sources and IMO he's a definite keep, especially because of his 1987 judgement of serial killer Michael Ross. It's also worth noting that Ford was most often a sentencing Judge, and so received less news coverage unless it was a notorious case. I'm very surprised to see that the Peeler case is wholly missing on the 'Pedia, I'll create it soon. I do agree with The Blade of the Northern Lights, the article as it stood was crufty and poorly sourced (and was likely edited by Ford's son). Markvs88 (talk) 12:34, 16 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Just to say I'm a local myself, neither here nor there but thought I'd mention it. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 22:47, 16 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I started the G. Ford Saarfield Ford article. I take full responsibility for writing and putting the article online. I should had done a better job about researching the article. One comment-there is a wikiproject involving writing articles about the justices who served on the state supreme courts in the United States. Again my apology for writing the article and putting it online. Thank you-RFD (talk) 14:25, 17 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 15:38, 23 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Keep I'm somewhat on the fence on this one. Ford has received coverage due to his role in two very high profile death penalty cases in Connecticut. The first, Michael Ross was the first person executed in New England since 1960 and the last executed in Connecticut before the death penalty was abolished here. Ford also imposed a controversial life sentence on Russell Peeler when the jury deadlocked on a death sentence determination, a result that was first overturned and ultimately reimposed when the CT Supreme Court abolished the death penalty for existing death row inmates in 2015. 24.151.50.175 (talk) 17:07, 24 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. MBisanz ^talk 17:14, 30 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

F.A.R.T. the Movie[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

Seems to fail WP:NFILM. Previous deletion proposal reached no consensus. THE NEW ImmortalWizard(chat) 15:36, 23 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. CASSIOPEIA^(talk) 16:33, 23 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. CASSIOPEIA^(talk) 16:33, 23 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Non-notable film.TH1980 (talk) 03:14, 24 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. MBisanz ^talk 17:14, 30 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Chimayo pepper[edit]

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

PROD declined by NessieVL.

Original PROD rationale: Doesn't appear to be a notable variety of pepper; I didn't find any in-depth sources about it on search of Google, GScholar, GNews, GBooks, only single-sentence mentions. The two sources currently cited do not appear to me to be RS - Pepperscale is a commercial site that sells pepper products, and Dave's Garden is at least partly user-generated (you can submit info) so that's right out.

Additional AfD commentary: I did another BEFORE search (checking both "chimayo pepper" as a phrase and chimayo+pepper as a two-word inclusive search) before taking this to AfD and I am confident that this is not a notable pepper cultivar. In addition to my above results, I found no substantial hits on JSTOR, Questia, and ScienceDirect.

Of the sources presently in the article:

Brewing Local: Single paragraph in a book about brewing. Not necessarily unreliable but not in-depth enough on its own to hang an article on.
Taco USA: Single sentence about the pepper.
Atlas Obscura: Content from AO is user-submitted. Per their FAQ, "anyone, anywhere in the world can add to Atlas Obscura." Although "all contributions to Atlas Obscura are reviewed by our editorial team", it isn't clear to what extent - copyediting only? fact-checking as well? Either way, user-submitted content can't substantiate a notability claim.
PepperScale and Dave's Garden: Discussed in original PROD rationale above.
Columbus Dispatch: One single sentence, fails depth requirement.

Overall, there isn't enough content about this particular cultivar to support an article about it. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 15:03, 23 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Food and drink-related deletion discussions. CASSIOPEIA^(talk) 16:36, 23 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of New Mexico-related deletion discussions. CASSIOPEIA^(talk) 16:36, 23 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

~~Merge into Capsicum annuum~~ Keep, see below. (previously: Dave's Garden and several other sites seem to indicate that this plant is some variety of C. annuum, and while that may be nothing more than a marketing ploy (and therefore not a botanical designation or varietal), the idea that it is a "special" kind of chili seems to exist. If the article were about this idea rather than about a kind of plant, it might be possible for an article on it to be worth retaining. As an article on an imaginary variety of plant that nevertheless is a kind of C. annuum, a merge seems like it might handle this well enough. That merge should end with this chili being no more than mentioned, however. A loose necktie (talk) 20:44, 23 March 2019 (UTC))[reply]

The C. annuum article doesn't mention any other cultivars/varietals, so that would be WP:UNDUE in my opinion. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 20:51, 23 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I just found an entry in a published source, The Field Guide to Peppers, that mentions the Chimayo as a strain of C. annuuum. I then found an article in another published source, The Complete Chile Pepper Book, that also mentions it as a landrace of the same plant. Given these sources, I am changing my vote from "merge" to "keep". A loose necktie (talk) 21:14, 23 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: According to the USDA: "...and, of course, Chimayó chile, an heirloom variety cultivated in the small valley for more than 300 years."[7] Here is a paper[8] and another[9] from New Mexico State University that describes it as a landrace culitvar. See also Restoring a Sacred Seed and its Name: Chimayó (University of Arizona) and maybe some of the references at Chimayo,_New_Mexico#Chimayó_chile. Note: alternate spelling Tsimayo. --mikeu ^talk 14:42, 24 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: While this is locally notable and only recently gaining more widespread attention I'm seeing academic sources discuss the topic[10] and press coverage.[11] There appears to be enough reliable sources to improve this article. --mikeu ^talk 15:03, 24 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I'm curious to hear what the nominator thinks of the Google Books returns, which at the very least seem to indicate that this pepper passes WP:V. And what do they think of https://www.foodandwine.com/travel/sante-fe-chimayo-chile-counterfeit? Abductive (reasoning) 18:15, 28 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. ~ Amory (u • t • c) 17:05, 30 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Daniel Otto[edit]

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

High school/college athlete with a few mentions in local news coverage, but nothing substantial enough to meet WP:GNG. Cordless Larry (talk) 13:40, 23 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Nebraska-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 14:32, 23 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Africa-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 14:33, 23 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 14:38, 23 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Repeatedly failed at AfC, the last approval at AfC looked very, very similar to the last time it failed. Almost certainly a COI as well. The creator has repeatedly tried to include Daniel Otto into various lists and pages of people without any reliable sources (before the article was even created). I believe that the creator may be the subject or closely related. They have no contributions outside of this subject. Most of the news mentions in the article are fleeting, and all of the mentions of family are clearly WP:OR, as the sources are merely things those people have written and do establish any biographical info about Daniel Otto. The articles on sports do not meet the criteria for WP:SPORTCRIT. Captain Eek ^{Edits Ho Cap'n!}⚓ 19:12, 23 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Doesn't meet any notability criteria at WP:NSPORT. I couldn't find the significant coverage I believe is needed to meet WP:GNG. Routine sports coverage and passing mentions are not enough. Some references don't mention him at all. Definitely COI and promotional--for both business and family. Papaursa (talk) 16:32, 24 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete looks like a WP:PROMO to me. Best, GPL93 (talk) 21:35, 25 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 delete as combination of a hoax, promotional only material, copyright violation, non-notable content and content created by a user evading their block Nick (talk) 19:51, 23 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The3rdMaster[edit]

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

Article makes claims of working with notable artists (e.g. "The3rdMAster work with The Weeknd in Black Panther movie soundtrack"), but this is unverifiable (or at least hasn't received any attention in reliable independent sources). The claims of working with e.g. Ariana Grande are also unverifiable. If they worked with all these artists, it has been in very minor, uncredited roles. Fram (talk) 12:58, 23 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 14:39, 23 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 14:39, 23 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 14:39, 23 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete yeah, I know it has a "claim" of significance but it is total bullshit for lack of a better word. It's more or less a hoax in the sense that not a word of it is true. Praxidicae (talk) 19:24, 23 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. MBisanz ^talk 17:13, 30 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

D.light, Inc.[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

In 2016, IagoQnsi AfD'd this article with the rationale This article makes no credible claim of significance and has no indication that its subject is notable. The article includes a lot of information about how big the off-grid solar industry is (1.2 billion people as target customers, 100 companies in industry), but makes no mention of why d.light might be considered a notable player within that industry.

The only noteworthy coverage that d.light seems to have received is the NYTimes article, which is not enough to indicate notability in the absence of other reliable sources.

The AfD did not gain any input but I find the argument compelling. SITH (talk) 12:33, 23 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 14:42, 23 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 14:42, 23 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of China-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 14:43, 23 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Kenya-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 14:43, 23 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 14:43, 23 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete for the reasons I gave in 2016. –IagoQnsi (talk) 12:36, 25 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. Consensus is on the side of this being an inappropriate WP:POVFORK. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 06:02, 31 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Discrimination against girls in India[edit]

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

See WP:OR and WP:SYNTH. The article is poorly written and such subject "discrimination against girls" is not available for any other country. We don't have Discrimination against girls in the United States. We don't need to create more POV forks when we already have Gender inequality in India, Violence against women in India. ML^talk 12:22, 23 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 14:44, 23 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 14:44, 23 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 14:44, 23 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. I agree that this article is poorly written and sourced: it's meandering and the material needs consolidating and expanding. It is clearly a sub-topic of Gender inequality in India, and needs to be edited to sit effectively alongside Female foeticide in India, Female infanticide in India, and Violence against women in India. On the other hand, there's no question that discrimination against girls specifically in post-natal health, education and employment is the subject of huge amounts of academic research, and it makes sense to have a proper article on this, cited as a 'main' article at the relevant paragraph in Gender inequality in India. Just to demonstrate notability, I've rather tentatively begun Discrimination against girls in India#Some further reading based on a quick scholar.google.com search. This is by no means an expert selection, and of course what this article really needs is proper in-line references, but I believe it indicates that the topic readily meets WP:GNG. As for the point that other similar entries don't exist for other countries, that's not an argument to delete this piece. Maybe they should exist! But either way, India is such a vast country that it's bound to sustain articles on subjects that would be too niche for many other countries. Alarichall (talk) 10:46, 24 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete WP:POVFORK. There is nothing here that we can't cover on the named articles. Accesscrawl (talk) 16:06, 24 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I don't understand how this is a point-of-view fork. There's no question that discrimination against girls exists in India, and this article isn't offering a conflicting opinion to the articles of similar content. Rather it is attempting (albeit not very successfully) to present more detail on a sub-topic. I don't think that's what a WP:POVFORK is. Alarichall (talk) 19:02, 24 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. There is no need to keep a standalone article for "discrimination" since the scope of the subject and the concerning sources cover what has been already added to articles like Women's health in India, Female infanticide in India, and Violence against women in India. --RaviC (talk) 10:19, 25 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:POVFORK. There at enough closely similar articles that can be expanded instead. desmay (talk) 00:36, 27 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: This article is well-sourced and brings together a number of useful aspects.--Ipigott (talk) 10:46, 29 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per RaviC and WP:POVFORK. - GretLomborg (talk) 15:38, 29 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. This article is seven years old and seems integrated/linked to other WP articles. Does this article serve as a useful portal/gateway to other specialist WP articles on the subject (as I think it is trying to do)? OR, is the content in this articile taking a different view/POV-conclusion from the specialist WP articles on the subject; in which case we are getting into POVFORK territory. Could the nom give us some specific examples? The topic is certainly notable (I won't list the references, as this should not be in dispute), so the issue is really down to one of a POVFORK for me. Note that his topic is not specific to India by a long-shot, but that shouldn't factor. Britishfinance (talk) 23:16, 29 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete on the basis that the subject is concerns rights of women and should be better covered on existing articles instead of WP:CFORKING. Rzvas (talk) 23:25, 29 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. Materialscientist (talk) 06:51, 29 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

David Lach[edit]

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

Guys claim to fame is the first fiber glass painter. Sure that is notable, but I can't find any sites for this guy. (The only URL went to a site that is now something rather inappropriate, couldn't use the dead link for it either) Interesting that not even the Spanish wiki has a page for this guy, has been on here for years though. Wgolf (talk) 01:32, 9 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Okay I have looked up David Lach (painter) and I have found some links for him, but nothing as of yet to say he was the first one. If someone can find proof behind this I will cancel this AFD. Wgolf (talk) 01:33, 9 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Wgolf, Perhaps this: "El mexicano David Lach está considerado como el primer creador plástico que utilizó fibra de vidrio ..." http://ceape.edomex.gob.mx/sites/ceape.edomex.gob.mx/files/David%20Lach.%20Catarsis.pdf Vexations (talk) 22:51, 9 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Mexico-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 22:17, 9 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Artists-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 22:17, 9 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 22:17, 9 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment, is painting on fiberglass really notable? would it mean Lach meets no. 2 of WP:CREATIVE because of it? Coolabahapple (talk) 23:14, 9 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

All fiberglass boats since the 1960s have been painted. Painting on fiberglass, even if it's not a boat but instead a figurative, abstract or contemporary painting, seems like a silly claim.ThatMontrealIP (talk) 03:30, 12 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Not so much painted as covered in gelcoat. Vexations (talk) 21:43, 12 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I was thinking of below the waterline, where epoxy-based paints are usually applied. Not that it is worth arguing about. Hand-painted fibreglass lampshades were also popular in the 1950s. ThatMontrealIP (talk) 21:50, 12 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment After a quick search I found 3 antique stores and a mirror wiki.^[1] ^[2] ^[3] ^[4] I mean it's arguably notable. Mosaicberry (talk) 00:33, 13 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

References

Delete Fails WP:GNG. All sources found above are promotional, merely selling the artists paintings. I could find no reliable secondary sources to document the facts claimed in the article. Captain Eek ^{Edits Ho Cap'n!}⚓ 07:36, 16 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 09:23, 16 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Tymon.r Do you have any questions? 12:09, 23 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as I couldn't find any WP:RS in any of the academic databases I have access to. --Theredproject (talk) 23:15, 27 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

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

The result was delete. MBisanz ^talk 17:12, 30 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Pex L[edit]

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

No notability, with very little online coverage. aNode (discuss) 16:51, 8 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 17:06, 8 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Spain-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 17:07, 8 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete As per nomination. Also, the article is two sections with only one sentence each and only two sources are listed.TH1980 (talk) 03:35, 10 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 05:36, 16 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Tymon.r Do you have any questions? 12:09, 23 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. MBisanz ^talk 17:12, 30 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Gratnells[edit]

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

All the references look like paid advertisements to me. This article is very suspicious. It was created by an account that was dormant for 2 years prior to its creation. Looks like paid editing. Vanjagenije (talk) 19:18, 9 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 19:47, 9 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 19:47, 9 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The references don't look like paid advertisements, but some of them may not be independent. The local news reference seems to contain some independent coverage but the indication of notability only from local coverage is not enough. HuffPost UK appears to be a blog page and I'm not sure of the independence of other sources; better sources may be needed. Peter James (talk) 18:44, 15 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 04:30, 16 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Tymon.r Do you have any questions? 12:08, 23 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) Natg 19 (talk) 00:46, 30 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The Richest Man in Babylon[edit]

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

This article is an extensive summary of a 1926 book without any demonstration of notability. ubiquity (talk) 19:57, 8 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

How are the sources that I added to the article, and the many more available from the Google Scholar search linked above, not a demonstration of notability? If you object to the extensive summary of the book then edit it out, but this is very obviously notable. Phil Bridger (talk) 20:15, 8 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. Icewhiz (talk) 20:18, 8 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Finance-related deletion discussions. Icewhiz (talk) 20:18, 8 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. There are actually a fairly solid list of sources that could be used to write an article about this book. But right now, we don't have an article about this book. We have an article-length treatment of the contents of this book, in violation of WP:PLOT. I'm generally an advocate of "AFD isn't for cleanup". But the lead is essentially the only policy-compliant element of this article as it stands. If that's the best we can do, then we maybe ought to put this down and try again, although I suspect that an interested editor could do something better here in short order either way. Squeamish Ossifrage (talk) 21:14, 8 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Why on Earth should we get rid of the lead? Yes, please remove the lengthy summary of the contents of the book if you don't like it, but if this article was written with only the lead section we wouldn't delete it, so why now delete the lead section as well as the junk? Phil Bridger (talk) 21:45, 8 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The lead may be policy-compliant, but it's hardly valuable content. It says nothing about why the book is important. It gives the author, a brief description of the contents, and a publication date. Yes, that's cited to reliable sources, but that's not even a credible claim of importance! Now, as it happens, I'm fairly convinced that this book is notable. But nothing of the article that we have here is what does the convincing. If someone wants to WP:HEY this, I'm happy to retain it. If not... I don't think I'm likely to explicitly advocate for deletion here, but that might not be a bad thing, either. Squeamish Ossifrage (talk) 22:57, 8 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 21:20, 8 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Plenty of mentions, AFD not cleanup. ^Thanks,L3X1 ◊distænt write◊ 01:18, 11 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 00:10, 16 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment is draft space an option? Because we seriously cannot ignore the fact this article is basically plot summary and not mainspace-ready.White Siddiqah (talk) 03:02, 16 March 2019 (UTC)Blocked sock. Alpha3031 (t • c) 03:58, 23 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. Even if this book is notable, most of the current content of the article, which consists largely of plot summary, has got to go. I agree with White Siddiqah that we should consider moving the page to draft space. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 03:32, 16 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment @Metropolitan90: Have re-wrote the article and added references; would not quality for draft now. Britishfinance (talk) 20:56, 23 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Massive WP:BEFORE fail by Nom. Kudos to Phil Bridger for reducing text to a very brief, informative stub.E.M.Gregory (talk) 21:04, 19 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Tymon.r Do you have any questions? 12:08, 23 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Keep. This book is regularly ranked in the top financial advice books of all time (I have added refs from the WSJ, and Forbes, and others). 90 years later, it is still in print. There is a large amount of GNG on this book; the biggest problem is navigating through the overwhelming amount of links on google from all the "wealth management" websites who recommend this book, to get to proper WP:RS. I have added some modern references from good quality RS confirming its notability, and I could add 10 times more. Would make a great GA/FA article for an editor, as even the individual parables in the book haven their own WP:RS. The huge amount of references in google to this book shows that reader appetite for such an article is there? Britishfinance (talk) 17:59, 23 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Couldn't help myself, and as well as the refs, also added a section on the books' advice/key lessons. Britishfinance (talk) 15:23, 25 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep In addition to the many sources about the book (passing WP:NBOOK#1), a targeted search of .edu sites finds that the book is the subject of instruction at many US universities (passing WP:NBOOK#4). It is notable, and as Britishfinance points out, there's no question that enough sourcing is available to support a standalone article. Remaining concerns can be addressed through editing, which does not require AfD intervention. Bakazaka (talk) 20:09, 23 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Meets WP:GNG. Article is improved with reliable sources to show subject is notable. Lubbad85 (talk) 14:07, 25 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. What can I say? It's a real article now, with references and everything. ubiquity (talk) 14:49, 25 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Commment Say WP:HEY. Britishfinance (talk) 15:18, 25 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.

At first sight, this looked as though it was a long and complex case, which would be difficult to assess. However, on more detailed examination it turned out to be a long but not particularly complex case. Apart from the numerical preponderance of "delete" commentators (7:4 not counting the nominator), the situation is as follows. Arguments for deletion have given cogent reasons why the sources do not satisfy Wikipedia's requirements. Arguments for keeping (ignoring ad hominem arguments and irrelevant accusations against editors) have largely either not addressed the notability guidelines (e.g. "There are enough sources") or have, as has been pointed out, misrepresented sources. (That is not to say that the misrepresentation was deliberate, but that makes no differences.) Reading the whole discussion, it is perfectly clear that the arguments for deletion are more substantive than those for keeping: therefore the result is delete. The editor who uses the pseudonym "JamesBWatson" (talk) 21:44, 30 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Vidyut Kale[edit]

If you came here because someone asked you to, or you read a message on another website, 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)

this person is not enough notable, also the article is not written within WP:NPOV encyclopedia format. it's more like someone telling a journey of her. also, the sources cited are most of them are not reliable to the information. 'ShUbHaM XTalkᗙ 16:31, 15 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 16:41, 15 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 16:42, 15 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 16:43, 15 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. She has been covered by multiple surces, such as New York Times and Times of India. WP:NPOV can be worked upon. SerTanmay (talk) 17:13, 15 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

While being "covered my multiple sources" is a necessary condition, it is not sufficient to establish notability in and of itself. WP:BIO requires that a subject must have received "significant coverage" in "reliable secondary sources" that are "independent" of the subject. In this case, the subject has not received coverage that can be characterized as "significant" in any sense. The NYT article, for example, includes quotes from Kale in the context of another subject altogether (domestic abuse). This means that while Kale is mentioned transitorily, she is not the subject of the coverage. — Nearly Headless Nick {c} 11:42, 27 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment nominator is an indefinitely blocked sockpuppet. Flapjacktastic (talk) 18:44, 15 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
~~Keep~~ subject is notable (WP:BEFORE), the other issues should be resolved by AfD is not for cleaning up articles --DannyS712 (talk) 23:42, 15 March 2019 (UTC) Neutral based on the analysis of sources below --DannyS712 (talk) 17:55, 30 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Comment – Struck the nomination, which was posted by a confirmed sock puppet (WP:SOCKSTRIKE). North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 20:38, 16 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as subject does not meet WP:BIO or WP:GNG. Substantive and in-depth coverage is lacking in the sources produced above, including the NYT article and Times of India. Her primary claim to fame seems to be creation of spoof sites on two Indian politicians. — Nearly Headless Nick {c} 12:07, 17 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails WP:GNG. --Rsrikanth05 (talk) 09:06, 20 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Does not meet basic WP:GNG although New York Times article is a good reference, I do not think it is enough. Peter303x (talk) 03:20, 21 March 2019 (UTC) 20240404071420[reply]
Delete since subject fails WP:NPERSON. Wikipedia is not a collectioon of random information, nor a forum for puffery. -The Gnome (talk) 10:39, 22 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I believe that she does meet WP:GNG. The Times of India, India Today and Femina sources all have significant coverage of her and her work, and the LiveMint, Telegraph, and New York Times sources add more coverage of her, which also combines to demonstrate her notability, per WP:BASIC. RebeccaGreen (talk) 03:56, 23 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Once again, on sources: The New York Times article is about domestic violence, in general, in India and the subject is name dropped once, in a side note about refuges. The Telegraph piece is about women who blog in India, and has about a dozen of them, one of whom is the subject; Times of India has a report titled "The real housewives of Twitter", with two women in it, one of whom is Kale; LiveMint contains an advocacy piece by the so-called "Centre for Internet and Society, Knowledge Commons and the Internet Democracy Project", featuring Kale; then, there's a portrait by the feminist blog Femina. On whether these sources make a subject notable per WP:NPERSON or WP:GNG I'll leave others to comment; I already posted up my suggestion. -The Gnome (talk) 08:48, 23 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks very much, Gnome. I concur with your opinion and came to the same conclusion myself. — Nearly Headless Nick {c} 21:26, 23 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

But the NYT times article mentions her name twice, and she is not "name checked", she is quoted and is clearly one of the main subjects of the article? India Today has other articles on her where she is the subject India Today; why did you not quote these? You are not giving the subject a fair hearing. Britishfinance (talk) 21:35, 23 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I came to delete but having read the references (which are mostly WP:RS and are on her as subject), found more (India Today India Today Times of India), she does at least technically meet WP:GNG. She could possibly make the technical case for WP:NAUTHOR with this: Amazon, given her blog (and thus her book) are widely covered. And remember, these are just the online English sources on her, I have not been able to search non-English soures on her. Britishfinance (talk) 09:49, 23 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. She also appears in this book on Global Journalism and the Coverage of "Third World" Development regarding her interviews: [12]. Britishfinance (talk) 10:02, 23 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. The United Nations Conference on Trade and Development (UNCTAD) also consider her endorsement important: [13] [14]. Britishfinance (talk) 10:05, 23 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. She also appears to be used as a commentator in mainstream RS on Indian politics: The Friday Times [15]. Britishfinance (talk) 11:10, 23 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. She was also profiled in a journal by the highly ranked Observer Research Foundation (link on Scholar) [16]. Britishfinance (talk) 11:19, 23 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Jovanmilic97 (talk) 12:03, 23 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as subject does not meet WP:BIO or WP:GNG. Lubbad85 (talk) 20:25, 25 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

You mean per WP:JNN. Britishfinance (talk) 22:06, 25 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - There are enough sources in news articles, books to make it start class. QueerEcofeminist^{"cite! even if you fight"!!!} [they/them/their] 05:45, 26 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Indeed, there are numerous sources, but are they sufficient to pass the muster under WP:BIO and WP:GNG? Most of these sources make a transitory mention regarding the subject, in others she is not even the subject of focus. — Nearly Headless Nick {c} 11:00, 27 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

But that is not true, several refs have been given above where she is the main subject of the piece; this is not helpful. Britishfinance (talk) 11:09, 27 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Just noticed Sir Nicholas de Mimsy-Porpington that you have added a WP:OR tag to the lede beside two Tier 1 refs on her, the New York Times and Asia's 5th-ranked think tank, Observer Research Foundation; both commenting on what the lede states about her exposure of domestic abuse. That is a very unfair treatment of the subject (and the editors who improved this article). Britishfinance (talk) 11:15, 27 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Please do not revert established users without discussing the issue on the talk page. The lead section of the article is a total misrepresentation of the sources and constitutes original research. — Nearly Headless Nick {c} 11:47, 27 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

You stuck an ^{[original research?]} tag beside two Tier 1 refs (NYT and ORF) in the lede withtout any Talk Page discussion. That is not collaborative, that is POV. Your POV "Red-Tick" list below also shows just how strong your POV is in this area. This is an Indian Hindi woman whose English-refs alone, meet WP GNG. We haven't even gotton to her Indian-RS. How many Indian-language BLPs have this amount of English-RS Refs in their BLPs?Britishfinance (talk) 15:01, 27 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I stuck an ((OR)) template there for the simple reason that the lead section *does not say* what the sources have been saying. This is either a misrepresentation on the part of the editor who made those changes to the lead section, *or* it's original research not backed by reliable, secondary sources. Have you actually read what the NYT and ORF sources say? — Nearly Headless Nick {c} 18:00, 27 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as fails WP:GNG. Also, some of the passing mentions have simply been puffed up and made into 2-3 sentences in the article. The original content also does not write so much!! §§Dharmadhyaksha§§ {Talk / Edits} 10:45, 29 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

So you ignore at least 3 WP:SIGCOVs from WP:RS sorouces (per analysis below), as well as two inclusions in two scholarly works, coverage in the New York Times, and two articles in major Indian WP:RS listing her as one of the most important women in India for online blogs/twitter? Would your WP:JNN dismissal of her BLP have anything to do with the fact that you have made many contributions to Bharatiya Janata Party articles on WP, of which she is a strong critic of (and probably why a WP:SOCK nominated her BLP for AfD in the first place)? Definately the most surreal AfD I have yet taken part in on Wikipedia. If this was a normal UK BLP with these refs this would be a staightfoward Keep. Something odd is happening here. Britishfinance (talk) 12:48, 29 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

All personal accusations should be taken to ANI and not be used to simple make a text wall and degrade AfD discussions. All the ifs and buts that get applied to UK articles don't necessarily apply to other regions. That's one reason why other regional editors have to fight various unneeded battles just because your country centric view doesn't fit for others. Now do not come complaining that I am dividing you with your nationality because you started that first and should first redact it. §§Dharmadhyaksha§§ {Talk / Edits} 04:40, 30 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Britishfinance, please maintain civility and avoid ad hominem attacks on users you don't agree with. --Rsrikanth05 (talk) 05:15, 30 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

And yet neither of you make any contribution on the RS of this BLP. The only editor who attempted to cover the improved RS of this BLP (see below: arbitrary break), really ended up proving that she did have sufficient RS to meet WP:GNG. Regarding claims of AGF and "ad-hominem attacks", please regard WP:BOOMERANG. Britishfinance (talk) 11:01, 30 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Take the promotional prose and original research away and you’re left with nothing. She doesn’t meet notability standards at this time. Trillfendi (talk) 16:25, 30 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Vidyutblogger (talk · contribs) claims to be the subject of the article herself and has left comments below. They have also edited their own article in violation of WP:AUTO and WP:COI. In addition to the above, they have drawn attention to the biography article in question on their Twitter account – [17], [18], which is likely in violation of WP:CANVASS. Furthermore, a Twitter account apparently operated by User:Theopolisme drew attention to the article in question while it is undergoing AFD. This is borderline WP:GAME-y, in my opinion. — Nearly Headless Nick {c} 18:03, 30 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: I was not aware of breaking any rules. There was information that was inaccurate or outdated. According to https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Biographies_of_living_persons/Help#Editing_the_article_yourself I should post a request for assistance in the talk page, which I did. If editing own article is a violation, why do you publish instructions on how to do it? This is confusing for non-editors. Anyway, I will not edit any further and I guess you can undo the changes I did. To the best of my knowledge, my soliciting has not resulted in anyone coming to improve the article. If anyone contacts me, I'll tell them to ignore it. I can delete the tweet. If asking people to improve a page is a problem, that too should be mentioned clearly in instructions instead of saying ask uninvolved editors to do it, no? I've made calls for volunteers to add/edit Wikipedia from my Twitter account, including for language versions, adding pages about women and what not. How was I to know I'm doing a violation by asking if someone can fix the title of the page - which incidentally mentions my married name from years before while I'm currently married to someone else? Not a small error. Obviously, I have no idea who made the page and nor have I conspired to have it made, or I'd at least get the name right. Anyway, if the page survives, what do you recommend I do about missing information or errors? Or should I just ignore it? I can do that. Vidyutblogger (talk) 18:41, 30 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for responding, Vidyut. Yes, I recommend deleting those tweets and not doing anything that looks like you are soliciting opinions or !votes in respect of this AFD. Please allow the process to take its course. — Nearly Headless Nick {c} 18:48, 30 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Done. Trust me, the chances of organized political vandals are way higher than gaming editors if I post publicly. And I had absolutely not suggested voting. I haven't even voted myself! Vidyutblogger (talk) 18:56, 30 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: I don't know what notability is, but seriously, the most important thing about me isn't that I spoke up about domestic violence (or for that matter censorship) when I suffered it myself. That isn't why I get quoted. Everyone fights when they themselves are under threat. What is special about that? It is the dozens of things I speak up on, without directly benefiting from them. So I thought I'd add what matters and I gave references. That was all. Vidyutblogger (talk) 18:49, 30 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Arbitrary break[edit]

I thought it would be a good idea to put up an analysis of the citations contained in the article, the context in which they have been used, and some commentary on whether they are pertinent with regards to establishing the notability of the subject concerned.

Femina (India), or femina.in^[19]: The subject has received significant coverage in this publication, is generally considered to be a reliable secondary source. Femina magazine is owned by the Times Group, and is a publication that exercises editorial control, has a reputation for fact-checking, and is independent of the subject of the biography. Note: The article misspells the URL of the website as aamjanta.com instead of aamjanata.com, which is the actual URL. Y
The New York Times^[20]: The subject of this NYT article is "domestic abuse in India", and Kale is not the subject of this article. She is quoted in the article twice and is described as a "a corporate trainer and blogger who has written extensively about witnessing domestic violence in her family as a child, and then confronting abuse — emotional, financial and sexual — in her own marriage." This is a transitory reference at best, and in the context of a different subject of discussion. Moreover, the lead section of the article of the WP biography relies on the NYT article to make an overblown claim that Kale is "widely recognized" for her "work exposing domestic abuse in Indian families". N
Observer Research Foundation^[21]: The ORF Issue brief makes three transitory reference to Kale, in an article that primarily covers "Gender and Identity on Social Media". Again, Kale is not the primary subject of the article, nor does she receive coverage that can be characterized as "significant" in this case. As with NYT, this article has been erroneously(?) relied upon to make the same overblown claim as pointed out above with regard to the lead section ("Vidyut Kale, a stay-at-home mother and an online activist from Maharashtra, often tweets about the domestic abuse which she says she suffers at the hands of her husband. She faces as much abuse for her radical socio-political views as she gets for washing her dirty linen in public"). N
The Times of India^[22]: This is a reliable source and its coverage on Kale is significant in my view. However, the Times of India and Femina magazine are both owned by the same publisher, that is, The Times Group. Therefore, multiple articles in publications with the same owner, while reliable sources, may not count twice towards proving the notability of a subject. N
Livemint^[23]: While Livemint is a reliable source, Kale is not the primary subject of the article which discusses free speech on the Internet. The subject is quoted but mentioned in a non-substantive, transitory sense. Note: The article misspells the URL of the subject's website as aamjanta.com, instead of aamjanata.com.N
India Today^[24][25]: India Today is generally considered to be a reliable source, and the coverage is significant in both cases. It will not be counted twice, however, in the context of proving the notability of the subject.Y
The Times of India^[26]: The primary subject of the article is having a "Pirate Party" in India. Kale is quoted in the article, but does not receive coverage that can be characterized as significant in the article. Even if the coverage were to be considered significant, as stated above, the Times of India is owned by The Times Group and hence will not contribute towards proving the notability of the subject more than once.N
The Friday Times^[27]: This is not a reliable source and should not be used in article space on WP.N
The Economic Times^[28]: A tweet by Kale is quoted in the article, and this does not constitute significant coverage. Moreover, this publication is owned by The Times Group and should not count twice towards proving the notability of the subject.N
The Telegraph (Calcutta)^[29]: While the Telegraph is generally considered to be a reliable source, the article covers about a dozen Twitter celebrities, and while Kale is included in the list of Twitter celebrities, and also quoted, the coverage is non-significant.N

— Nearly Headless Nick {c} 14:24, 27 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Response #1. Didn't you forget to mention in your summary that this is WP:SIGCOV - a key anchor of a WP BLP? Britishfinance (talk) 10:27, 28 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Response #2. I have included quotes from the NYT article showing she is more than a "transitory reference". This is one of the highest Tier RS covering a Hindi subject. There are many Indian BLPs without even a namecheck in the NYT, never mind several paragraphs. Britishfinance (talk) 10:27, 28 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Response #3. That is not accurate. She is the focus of a section of this report. Anybody can read for themselves [30]. You forgot to mention that ORF is the 5th-ranked think tank in Asia. Your OR tag is the "overblown" item here. Britishfinance (talk) 10:27, 28 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Response #4. This is getting to be a "contrived" argument to reduce her quantity of RS; which is material. Femina and The Times are vastly different publications. At least you recognize the quality of the RS. This RS is WP:SIGCOV and covers a lot on her and her family/background wider work. Britishfinance (talk) 10:27, 28 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Response #5. At least you recognize that LiveMint is an RS. Any editor/closer reading the LiveMint article (her picture on the head of it) can see your POV here ("transitory sense"). For good measure, here is a scholarly work on the same affair as the LiveMint piece, where is the focus of a whole section and named 7 times [31]. Britishfinance (talk) 10:27, 28 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Response #6. Oh dear, despite your tick, you fail to mention that she is the subject of an article in one of India's biggest papers - E.g. WP:SIGCOV; something you mention everywhere else when she is not the main subject (and forget when she is, per Femina above)? Britishfinance (talk) 10:27, 28 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Response #7. A "contrived" argument to lessen the quantity of RS on the subject; GNG does not require Kale to be the subject of every RS. Britishfinance (talk)
Response #8. The Friday Times has its own WP article which if you cared to read, has won international awards for its work. Again, POV. Britishfinance (talk) 10:27, 28 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Response #9. A repeat of your "contrived" nature of trying to cull her WP:RS from the same corporate media groups above. Britishfinance (talk) 10:27, 28 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Response #10. It is not "non-significant"; another POV statement, which anybody reading the article can verify. Note that this is a country of a billion people, and this article's by-line states "Prasun Chaudhuri looks at the women who matter in India's Twitterverse". Kale is in this small group. This goes direct to notability, and is from an RS. Britishfinance (talk) 10:27, 28 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Response to above in summary. I'm not going to resort to "Green Ticks". The above are only a selection of the refs in the article, but it at least shows that she has been covered in multiple RS (as verified by Sir Headless Nick), some of which are WP:SIGCOV (at least three), and some of which are still material Tier 1 WP:RS coverage suitable for WP:GNG. She is also covered in two academic works (per above). If that is not enough GNG, please read the article, as there are several more. And remember, this is only her English-language references!

Britishfinance (talk) 10:27, 28 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I will respond to the above in more detail later as I don't have time today. Many of the above POV "Red-Ticks" conflict directly with the content of the articles themselves (e.g. she is one of two people profiled in the NYT article which is about them; she is a material section of the ORF report); however, at a WP:COMMONSENSE level, the above list (which is not all refs), does highlight just how many references this Indian Hindi female subject has in English-WP:RS.

And note that this is both a woman and one who has embarrassed the Indian political establishment - E.g. she is off-limits for many Indian RS. Can add Indian-language RS for her (which can be translated), if needed. Would be a shame to lose this interesting BLP based on the above POV "Red-Tick" technique. Britishfinance (talk) 14:57, 27 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Again, you're misrepresenting sources. The NYT article begins by mentioning Nita Bhalla and Meena Kandasamy, whose stories "helped to underline the reality of domestic violence in India". Kale is mentioned much later as a "corporate trainer and blogger". And no, she's not a "material section" of the ORF report, which can be discerned by anyone at a "COMMONSENSE" level. I have no personal interest in the subject and no dog in the race, and I do not really care whether this article stays or not. I am only interested in ensuring that Wikipedia's policies and guidelines on notability are followed. On the other hand, as the primary author of the article who seems to have spent considerable energy in its development, you appear to be emotionally invested in making sure it stays. — Nearly Headless Nick {c} 15:11, 27 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Now you are just making this up. I am not the author of this BLP and never saw it before this AfD. I do strongly believe in “improving” WP by “adding” good RS for cases that I think are interesting to our readers (which I do at AfD per WP:HEY). You seem to have a different objective. Britishfinance (talk) 15:20, 27 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Making this up? Here is a link documenting 59 revisions made by your account to this biographical article (before my edit today) since 23 March 2019. You may have come across this after it was nominated for deletion, but you have made 63 edits in total to this article and added 6,108 bytes worth of text since then, which is much more than any other user. — Nearly Headless Nick {c} 17:54, 27 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I am not the article author - as with your POV "Red Links", you are trying to spin a view. While you have being filling up AfD, I have added more links to cover her journalism with The Quint [32], and with India Today's DailyO by Vidyut Kale. I have also noted her contribution to Palagummi Sainath's archive. Sorry, I know this does not fit with your agenda. I will get to her Hindi language refs in the next few days. Britishfinance (talk) 18:12, 27 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

* Okay. Primary sources are problematic. Please read WP:PRIMARY, especially the Policy part. --Rsrikanth05 (talk) 19:38, 27 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Not when they are being used to demonstrate that she is a journalist for several WP-notable Indian news outlets. There are thousands of WP:BLPs on journalists that list/quote the subject's primary work as evidence (e.g. New York Times David Brooks (commentator)). This AfD is attracting odd comments; dispiriting stuff. Britishfinance (talk) 20:44, 27 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Articles written by the subject herself are primary sources and may be used to support assertions regarding the subject's views on different issues. However, they cannot be used to demonstrate notability of the subject. — Nearly Headless Nick {c} 21:03, 27 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

These references are to her archive of articles on the websites of major Indian online publications (most which have their own WP-articles). We don't need them for notability as she already has plenty of WP:SIGCOV, WP:RS and even coverage in academic journals (per my response above). However, they would help a reader on this BLP realise that she is not just a "blogger" and is well published in Indian online news outlets. Britishfinance (talk) 10:58, 28 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

* There are literally, tons of people out there who have written for DailyO, Wire, YouthKiAwaz and what not and do not qualify for a page. As I said, please read WP:PRIMARY. Articles written by people do not contribute to their own notability. Please don't confuse notability with the requirements of a Twitter verification. --Rsrikanth05 (talk) 12:06, 28 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Added material (both primary and secondary), on her involvement with the 2013 United Nations Commission on Science and Technology for Development working group on governance for digital media. Britishfinance (talk) 20:44, 27 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Also found coverage on her 2012 IT Act censorship in academic research (p 384) [33]. Britishfinance (talk) 22:29, 27 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Would be great to get some help from WP Indian-editors about sourcing Indian-RS on her (every reference so far is English-RS). Britishfinance (talk) 22:32, 27 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: @Britishfinance: Could you please clean up your responses above? They are right in the middle of my comments and are likely to cause confusion for the closing admin. If you like, you can re-format my responses with numbering rather than bullet points, and then address each point with a corresponding response below. — Nearly Headless Nick {c} 11:37, 28 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Sir Nicholas de Mimsy-Porpington: I think the format above is right as it is helpful for a reader/closer to see my response below each of your "Red-Ticks". Any other format would be confusing and require readers to jump up an down through lists. I have taken the time (a lot of time) to go through each one of the "Red-Ticks", and would appreciate the courtesy to ensure that my responses to your "Red-Ticks" are properly read and easy to follow. The goal is to have editors/closers be able to easily engage with this AfD. Britishfinance (talk) 11:41, 28 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I have had to clean up your responses just now. Please do not do this again. — Nearly Headless Nick {c} 12:02, 28 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I can understand you wanting to distance your "Red-Ticks" from my individual Responses to each one of them. I hope you find other areas of WP that you can more positively contribute to. Happy editing. Britishfinance (talk) 12:06, 28 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Arbitrary break II[edit]

I am Vidyut - the subject of this page. I am honored someone thought my contributions worthwhile. I have no idea of what is notable. I'm involved in a diverse range of rights related issues and not one specific thing. Usually on the organizing side, so my name is rarely in the news. For the record, Kale was my surname when I was married to my son's father - the stories of domestic abuse covered in some references. I currently go by "Vidyut" alone or "Vidyut Gore", which is my maiden name and am active in the opposition to Aadhaar.

https://indianexpress.com/article/lifestyle/art-and-culture/ramu-ramanathan-aadhaar-playwright-play-theatre-to-be-or-not-to-be-7-5027615/ https://scroll.in/magazine/866299/even-mahabharata-heroes-are-pointing-out-the-epic-failures-of-aadhaar https://www.nationalheraldindia.com/opinion/aadhaar-a-project-replete-with-tech-glitches-and-errors

Stuff like this. Or sometimes it is just a sanity check. Like this https://www.oneindia.com/india/does-the-blue-whale-challenge-even-exist-it-could-just-be-an-urban-legend-2514605.html

Not a proper public figure related with one specific subject. I make handmade soaps and am also one of the very very few carnivorous plant growers in the country and I think the only one from whom plants can be purchased online in India - but this is not mentioned in any news I think.

I am sorry if I have not edited this correctly. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Vidyutblogger (talk • contribs) 10:37, 30 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. As if this AfD could not get any stranger. Vidyut Gore (sometimes called Vidyut Gore-Kale) is a completely different person from Vidyut Kale. When I was looking for better sources to help this article at AfD (during which I also came across Vidyut Gore-Kale who has her own "lifestyle" blog), I came across blogs discussing the "Bharatiya Janata Party troll farms" who target Kale (I couldn't resist including this in the BLP for the one quality Indian WP:RS that was prepared to go on record about this issue The Times of India [34]) because of the BJP corruption that she has exposed on her blog (which has been covered by Indian WP:RS, despite the position of the BJP party). I have marked the latest contribution above as an "Arbitrary Break II" (I have not moved it, however), to avoid it adding further confusion, as otherwise, I would have to just strike it out completely as a false statement by another likely WP:SOCK; per the nom. Britishfinance (talk) 10:49, 30 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. I don't know what to say. I can tweet a specific message you suggest from my handle to prove it is me - as far as I know, there are no other Vidyut Gore, Vidyut Kale or Vidyut Gore-Kale other than me - particularly related with these subjects. The references in the article are about me, as well as the links I shared. Someone told me they found a page in my married name (which I no longer use) when searching for something I wrote, so I came over to see. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Vidyutblogger (talk • contribs) 11:18, 30 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Does this help? https://twitter.com/Vidyut/status/1111952956293894144

Thank you all for giving me consideration, regardless of how this goes. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Vidyutblogger (talk • contribs) 11:29, 30 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Other work in public interest includes compiling information in times of crisis. Lists of names compiled on aamjanata.com were used by the google person finder after the Uttarakhand floods and the page on google.org also hosted a link to the searchable lists on the website (though the page is now closed)^[1]^[2]. Information about evacuations and shelters was shared after Cyclone Phailin. While not on aamjanata.com, Vidyut was part of the team coordinating rescue efforts after the Chennai Floods. https://www.dnaindia.com/technology/report-2013-year-of-natural-calamities-how-social-media-boosted-disaster-management-1938084 Vidyutblogger (talk) 13:48, 30 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

References

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. Materialscientist (talk) 06:54, 29 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Kevin Concepcion[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

subject is a boxer. He has no notable title in any championship but local fights. Fails WP:NBOX CASSIOPEIA^(talk) 11:08, 23 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

subject is mentioned in a number of independent, reliable sources. User:QUALITEE123 13:27, 23 March 2019 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Qualitee123 (talk • contribs)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. CASSIOPEIA^(talk) 11:09, 23 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Boxing-related deletion discussions. CASSIOPEIA^(talk) 11:09, 23 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Martial arts-related deletion discussions. CASSIOPEIA^(talk) 11:09, 23 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. CASSIOPEIA^(talk) 11:09, 23 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Coverage is routine or local newspaper articles on him or the boxers he fought. Doesn't satisfy WP:GNG and didn't reach a level that would satisfy WP:NBOX. --Michig (talk) 09:01, 24 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Non-notable boxer. Fails to meet WP:NBOX. Coverage is routine sports reporting and/or local. Nothing to show WP:GNG is met. Papaursa (talk) 16:18, 24 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep WP:ANYBIO Lubbad85 (talk) 14:59, 26 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Except he doesn't meet any of the criteria at WP:ANYBIO. He didn't win a major award, he's not widely recognized for his contributions to boxing history, and he doesn't have an entry in the ODNB or equivalent. Papaursa (talk) 21:31, 26 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete a non-notable boxer.John Pack Lambert (talk) 02:32, 27 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

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 Lists of Philippine films. At least for another nine months, anyway. ~ Amory (u • t • c) 16:33, 30 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

List of Philippine films of 2020[edit]

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

Per WP:CRYSTAL it is premature to create this unsourced page Captain Eek ^{Edits Ho Cap'n!}⚓ 07:34, 23 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. Icewhiz (talk) 08:29, 23 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Philippines-related deletion discussions. Icewhiz (talk) 08:29, 23 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 10:11, 23 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Empty shell. Once there's at least one release confirmed for 2020, that is sourced, then recreate it at some point towards the end of this year. Lugnuts ^{Fire Walk with Me} 14:09, 23 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Next time you encounter something like this, a better approach may be to discuss with the creator on their talk page, explain the issue and see if you can get their agreement to deletion, and then prod it. AFD is a lot more bureaucracy and needlessly confrontational/anti-community when you just paste a boilerplate deletion notice on someone's talk page the day after they post something. "Hey there, I see you just posted this yesterday but there's not any content yet and we should avoid creating empty pages. I think we should delete it now, and then recreate it later only when it will have valid entries, is that alright with you?" Something like that. postdlf (talk) 14:22, 23 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Lists of Philippine films. In fact, Philippine film lists go by decade, not by year. Ajf773 (talk) 18:42, 23 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Not since 2010 they haven't. List of Philippine films of the 2010s is a list of lists of individual years. SpinningSpark 23:09, 23 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, then we should still revert to this article due to WP:TOOSOON. Ajf773 (talk) 04:21, 24 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, it's too soon, but why bother to delete it? It's not really WP:CRYSTAL that there will be some Phillipines films in 2020. I support Ajf773's suggestion of redirect. SpinningSpark 23:14, 23 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:CRYSTAL, WP:TOOSOON and WP:HAMMER. It is too early to announce the movies for the Philippine cinema, as a Filipino myself. ApprenticeFan work 13:39, 25 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. WP:TOOSOON. --Hiwilms (talk) 08:47, 28 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. Withdrawn by nominator. Probably notable, but the majority of the article's content should be removed as original research. (non-admin closure) — Newslinger talk 07:50, 23 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

STAND (organization)[edit]

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

Not notable, and also promotional. Does not meet WP:GNG, as there are insufficient independent reliable sources providing significant coverage of STAND (Students Taking Action Now: Darfur). The two sources cited in the article do not mention the organization at all, and an online search did not reveal significant coverage from non-local sources beyond one page in the book Not on Our Watch. The tone of the article is also highly promotional, with puffery in every section. — Newslinger talk 07:30, 23 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. — Newslinger talk 07:32, 23 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. — Newslinger talk 07:32, 23 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Africa-related deletion discussions. — Newslinger talk 07:32, 23 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Washington, D.C.-related deletion discussions. — Newslinger talk 07:32, 23 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. TonyBallioni (talk) 17:32, 23 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The Deptford Society (Community Interest Company)[edit]

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

Non-notable local community group. Fails WP:ORG. No signifiant coverage in reliable sources that discusses the organisation in detail. Not to be confused with the former church group of the same name which is mentioned widely in historical books. Pontificalibus 15:52, 8 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 16:57, 8 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 16:57, 8 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete The multiple sources with lack of this coverage that is enough to fail WP:ORG. Sheldybett (talk) 01:41, 10 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 05:36, 16 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sheldybett (talk) 06:04, 23 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. --mikeu ^talk 12:52, 23 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. ~ Amory (u • t • c) 16:55, 30 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Cane Pecoraio Varbutu[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

This page appears to be a translation from Italian Wikipedia. The only source there is a PDF of unclear origin - looks like it's from a blog. I've searched for other sources, and drew a blank - only hits are Wiki pages and mirror sites, and one or two random facebook pages, blogs etc. Nothing on Google News, Google Books. I don't think this is a hoax, but there's nothing published that I can find, so fails WP:GNG GirthSummit _(blether) 15:41, 8 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

There seems to be very few sources, I only found these:

List of Italian dog breeds (by an Italian cynologist Antonio Crepaldi): "Cane da Pastore della Sicilia Centrale (Varbutu Picurariscu o Varbuteddu?: punto di domanda perché queste denominazioni sembrano sarde e non siciliane)"

This is the one I mentioned above - the source of the PDF isn't clear, but it appears to be the author's blog. Probably not reliable. GirthSummit _(blether) 16:20, 8 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Extinct Italian dog breeds: "Cani Varbutu Picurariscu o Varbuteddu, originario di una zona limitata delle alture centrali siciliane, era utilizzato come conduttore e guardiano delle greggi, molto simile al Cane di Mannara, caratterizzato da una lunghissima criniera che spesso raggiungeva addirittura le zampe."

I'm not 100% sure about the site - it describes itself as a social networ for dogs, and it's not clear who wrote this article; also it only mentions this breed very briefly (one two-line sentence in a list of breeds). GirthSummit _(blether) 16:20, 8 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Extinct Italian dog breeds: "Hunde Varbutu Picurariscu oder Varbuteddu. Quelle: zu den Höhen von einem zentralen Teil von Sizilien beschränkt. Haltung: Nachhilfelehrer und Dirigent Herden. Features: anders Spino sizilianischen und vieles mehr wie der Hund Manyara, mit der Charakteristik einer dicken und langen Mähne, die ausgehend von Wamme die Beine fast erreicht; alten Hirten behaupten, dass mit dem Hund wer koexistierten und war besonders resistent gegen Schneestürme und Unwetter. Situation des Rennens: wahrscheinlich ausgestorben."
Italian Forum of Protection and Recovery of Breeds (although I don't think this forum is reliable enough, since anyone can write and post there)

This appears to be WP:UGC - not reliable.GirthSummit _(blether) 16:20, 8 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure whether these small quotations are enough to "improve" the article. But if so, I can add their information to the article. If these sources are not counted as reliable, I'm ok with deletion. --Canarian (talk) 16:08, 8 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I've put some observations above. Thanks for looking for more sources, but I'm not convinced that we've got what we need to keep the article. GirthSummit _(blether) 16:20, 8 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Animal-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 16:59, 8 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Italy-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 16:59, 8 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete if no better sources found. I guess it's reasonably certain the breed exists, based on the above, but not well enough documented for our use. The text on that German website is in high-falutin' textbook/academic style, so if the original source for that could be found it might well do the trick; had no luck with that though. --Elmidae (talk · contribs) 17:58, 8 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 05:36, 16 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sheldybett (talk) 06:04, 23 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Just a note to whoever reviews this to summarise the above discussion - there is my nomination for deletion on the grounds of poor sourcing, the article's author agreement that the article should be deleted if the sources don't pass muster, and Elmidae's delete vote unless better sources can be found. The author, Elmidae and I have all looked for better sourcing, but drawn blanks. GirthSummit _(blether) 07:23, 27 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. ~ Amory (u • t • c) 16:29, 30 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Stealing Share[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

NN, promotional article. Deleted once in 2006 and recreated in 2010, at time of recreation, several links were added but all have been removed. Most sources are not independent or just passing mentions. Insufficient in-depth coverage in RS. Does not pass WP:NCORP MB 15:30, 8 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 17:02, 8 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 17:03, 8 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Advertising-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 21:25, 8 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as WP:PROMO based on passing mentions and business journal promotional write-ups, including a clear effort to establish company's preferred neologism for the common term "market research". Wikipedia is not a platform for promotion, then or now. Deleted before, delete again. Bakazaka (talk) 21:06, 15 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 05:36, 16 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: fails WP:NCORP. --K.e.coffman (talk) 22:02, 20 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sheldybett (talk) 06:04, 23 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Question for relister @Sheldybett: Why did you relist this AfD for a 2nd time, when there are multiple guideline/policy-based !votes to delete, including the nomination, and no opposition to deletion after two weeks at AfD? Bakazaka (talk) 19:53, 23 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I wouldn't be concerned with the relisting. At this point, the AfD could be closed despite the relisting; however, time is not a precious metric in this case. --User:Ceyockey (talk to me) 23:24, 29 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. MBisanz ^talk 17:11, 30 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Dragoș Mihalcea[edit]

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

Another page that has been around forever of someone that has little to no info (since 2008 for this guy), anyway, the only EL is for the place he dances at. Not sure if that even qualifies for notability at all. From what I can tell this guy isn't exactly notable. Wgolf (talk) 20:00, 9 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Romania-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 20:47, 9 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Dance-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 20:47, 9 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. If you’re the principal dancer of the RSB, you’re the top male ballet dancer in Sweden and in the top 50 or so in the world. Refs here, here, here and here. Mccapra (talk) 23:43, 9 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Okay I was not sure about that, it was a odd case with this guy. Wgolf (talk) 00:07, 10 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment-Also I did find at least one of them prodded on there (though not sure when), so I was really unsure if it was that notable of a place. This might just need to be userfied a bit. Wgolf (talk) 00:08, 10 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 04:28, 16 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 03:21, 23 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Without more sources, I cannot see how this subject passes WP:BIO. A job position does not indicate notability. Skirts⁸⁹ 07:56, 23 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Seems notable enough. Mentioned a couple of times in The Encyclopedia of World Ballet, and there are sources such as [35], [36]. --Michig (talk) 08:56, 30 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. MBisanz ^talk 17:10, 30 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

HotNewHipHop[edit]

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

Website does not appear to meet WP: GNG, lack of significant independent coverage in reliable sources. StaticVapor message me! 22:22, 16 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. Icewhiz (talk) 22:24, 16 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. Icewhiz (talk) 22:24, 16 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. It's true that reliable sources do not write about this website, but I'm going with WP:IAR to recommend keeping this article. The HotNewHipHop website gets a lot of traffic and has paid staff attending to it. Traffic is reported as 590,000 sessions per day, or 17.7 million sessions per month.[37] The writing has editorial oversight by Rose Lilah, editor-in-chief. Lilah is considered an expert on the topic, having been quoted in this book about the hip hop sub-genre of trap, and having been invited to speak on a panel about digital strategies in hip hop at SXSW 2018. A great many blogs have discussed this website in depth, comparing them to other hip hop sites and mixtape sites.[38][39][40][41] The very high traffic and the blog discussions indicate to me that the website is important. Binksternet (talk) 18:29, 17 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Random unknown blogs talking about them does not indicate notability, neither does their website being somewhat popular. StaticVapor message me! 20:21, 17 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment These days, "random unknown blogs" help check and move the pulse of journalism; their strong connection to it was acknowledged even 15 years ago in the journalistic community ("Is Blogging A New Form of Journalism?"). And a closer look at the aforementioned websites in Binksternet's comment also indicates some inherent notability. With the decline of print journalism and news media, such blogs may only grow in significance, so they should not be outright dismissed. Additionally, Google appears to index HotNewHipHop in its news search engine, more indication of popularity and readership. Dan56 (talk) 21:06, 17 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The sites linked above are far from notable publications to base notability off of. Google news also uses many sites, not all of them deserving of Wikipedia articles. If anyone can find significant non-passing mentions in reliable sources I have no problem withdrawing the nomination. Upon doing a WP: BEFORE I couldn't find anything. StaticVapor message me! 02:55, 18 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I still think we should keep the article simply because the website is very widely seen in the hip hop music world. This is one of those "Ignore all rules" moments where our standard of notability fails to match the stuff that's important to our readers. The website is important to the readers because of all the web traffic and high Alexa ranking. Our standard should include something like this, but it doesn't, so we as editors can make a judgment call. Binksternet (talk) 05:00, 18 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 03:12, 23 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. While HotNewHipHop is popular and well-regarded within the hip hop community, it doesn't meet the general notability guideline and shouldn't have an article. Without independent reliable sources, it's impossible to write a significant article about HotNewHipHop without violating the verifiability and no original research policies. Wikipedia is not a directory of popular websites, and a subject should not have an article until the necessary sources exist to ensure that the subject can receive a fair and policy-compliant treatment. — Newslinger talk 08:52, 23 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Promotional. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Lubbad85 (talk • contribs)
Delete. No significant media coverage. Fails WP:GNG. --Hiwilms (talk) 09:25, 29 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. ~ Amory (u • t • c) 16:59, 30 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Giants (band)[edit]

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

Article on a non-notable band. Fails the requirements of WP:NBAND and fails WP:GNG. There's a dead blog link and three links to related, minor recording companies; other than that, no coverage anywhere that I could find. RetiredDuke (talk) 22:59, 16 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 04:26, 17 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Minnesota-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 04:28, 17 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Keep have corrected the reference to the WikiProject Music reliable source Absolute Punk review shown here, but more needed so only a weak keep Atlantic306 (talk) 20:10, 21 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 03:12, 23 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I see no WP:RS. The above-mentioned Absolute Punk has no evidence of an editorial process and seems to be accepting submissions from the general public. Fails WP:BAND, WP:GNG and WP:N otherwise.-TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 02:07, 28 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 06:55, 23 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Illinois-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 06:55, 23 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Iowa-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 06:55, 23 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I will trust Wiki Project Music's judgement on Absolutepunk.net since I won't pretend I know the source or its editorial process, but in any case we would need coverage in multiple reliable sources (per WP:GNG) to build an article on. An album review won't tell us the basics about the band itself, like members, history, discography, reception and such. We can only use it to source that the band released an album in 2008 named Old Stories and that the one author thought that it reflected certain characteristics of the band. Not enough coverage, in my opinion. RetiredDuke (talk) 23:15, 28 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I couldn't find any other coverage of the band or their albums. --Michig (talk) 08:43, 30 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) 08:34, 30 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Dungannon and District Motorcycle Club[edit]

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

Fails WP:ORG. There's WP:ROUTINE coverage here and there of a 'District Motorcycle Club' in Ireland, but this org hasn't come close to receiving sustained, in depth coverage in reliable sources. For all the rambling reminiscing (likely original research) that fills the article, I'm not even sure what exactly the club claims to be notable for, other than existing. Dennis Bratland (talk) 02:24, 23 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Northern Ireland-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 02:35, 23 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. Icewhiz (talk) 06:00, 23 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. Icewhiz (talk) 06:00, 23 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 07:32, 23 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: besides there being no evidence of notability or even any news coverage, this is a cut and paste copyvio of this webpage.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Ww2censor (talk • contribs) 10:02, 23 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

It's hard to be certain, but it looks like they copied Wikipedia to their site in 2016. The text was at Wikipedia way back in 2006. Being unsourced and unencyclopedic in tone, we don't want the content anyway. --Dennis Bratland (talk) 21:07, 24 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nominator and argument above by mystery editor. 71.163.163.163 (talk) 19:47, 24 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Fails WP:GNG and WP:ORG. There is not much coverage of this anywhere really. — MarkH21 (talk) 19:48, 25 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 21:09, 30 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Voicemail (TV series)[edit]

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

Fails WP:NWEB. Only coverage I found were a press release and primary sources. – Broccoli & Coffee ^{(Oh hai)} 01:40, 23 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Fails WP:GNG. Article also has no sources whatsoever and hasn't been edited since 2013. The Optimistic One (talk) 01:57, 23 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment and Delete: Bringing up that the article has no inline citations when no one put reflist into the article is not a valid deletion point. It's like asking people to come over and help you paint the house that you haven't built yet.

But to your other point, I agree: I cannot find any third-party sources for it either. Markvs88 (talk) 11:44, 23 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. ~SS49~ {talk} 02:06, 23 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. ~SS49~ {talk} 02:06, 23 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. ~SS49~ {talk} 02:06, 23 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. MBisanz ^talk 17:09, 30 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Super Summer[edit]

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

Cannot find WP:RS that is not trivial or routine for this Christian summer camp. Tacyarg (talk) 01:34, 23 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Religion-related deletion discussions. Tacyarg (talk) 01:56, 23 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep--I looked for third party sources, here is what I found. This subject is notable because it received in-depth treatment from multiple third-party sources: Book 1, book 2, news video 1, news video 2, newspaper 1 (last page of the pdf at the bottom). --Epiphyllumlover (talk) 01:57, 23 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 02:38, 23 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Oklahoma-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 02:38, 23 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Louisiana-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 02:39, 23 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Georgia (U.S. state)-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 02:41, 23 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Arkansas-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 02:41, 23 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Montana-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 02:41, 23 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Missouri-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 02:41, 23 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Kansas-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 02:41, 23 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Alabama-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 02:42, 23 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Illinois-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 02:42, 23 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Mississippi-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 02:42, 23 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Indiana-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 02:42, 23 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Ohio-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 02:43, 23 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 02:43, 23 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Tennessee-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 02:43, 23 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Texas-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 02:43, 23 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep the article needs improvement with proper referencing but as shown in last comment it does have reliable sources coverage in books and news outlets so should remain IMHO Atlantic306 (talk) 14:35, 23 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Comment -- This appears to be the summer camp programme of a major denomination, apparently held on multiple sites. The present article is a poor one, but that implies that it should be improved, not deleted. Peterkingiron (talk) 17:13, 24 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) 08:29, 30 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Allan Medina[edit]

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

Old article for a actor with little notability. He only has seem to do a few really low budget unknown films (don't even think any of them have pages) Wgolf (talk) 00:57, 23 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 01:04, 23 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 01:05, 23 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Florida-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 01:05, 23 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Fails WP:NACTOR by a wide margin. Clarityfiend (talk) 02:45, 23 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete A WP:BEFORE found no RS of the subject in acting. Fails WP:NACTOR. CASSIOPEIA^(talk) 11:12, 23 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete total lack of reliable sources.John Pack Lambert (talk) 01:18, 24 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete ditto as stated above Lubbad85 (talk) 01:08, 27 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 Mr Joe B. Carvalho. I'll close the TfD as well ~ Amory (u • t • c) 16:38, 30 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Samir Tewari[edit]

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

Director with just one film, falls under too soon if ever. (which if deleted the template for him should be deleted) Wgolf (talk) 00:46, 23 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 00:51, 23 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 00:52, 23 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 00:52, 23 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Non notable film director who only produce one film. Fails WP:DIRECTOR and WP:TOOSOON. CASSIOPEIA^(talk) 11:16, 23 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Comment-BTW I put the template up for deletion as well yesterday (figured that I might as well given the fact there is just one entry. At least it isn't only red link entries) Wgolf (talk) 15:01, 23 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Non notable, just one film? isn't this too early? QueerEcofeminist^{"cite! even if you fight"!!!} [they/them/their] 17:24, 23 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Mr Joe B. Carvalho per common sense. The film is notable and the director of that film is obviously a valid redirect at least. --Michig (talk) 08:26, 30 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect as a categorized ((R from person)) to Mr Joe B. Carvalho per WP:ATD-R (policy). Subject does not meet the basic notability guideline for people or can be assumed notable under WP:CREATIVE, but subject is mentioned as director in Mr Joe B. Carvalho, and as such the article title nominated for deletion here is a valid search term that would be accepted if it had been requested at Wikipedia:Articles for creation/Redirects. Sam Sailor 16:20, 30 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. MBisanz ^talk 17:09, 30 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Villa Elena Hotel[edit]

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

I am not sure that this hotel meets WP:NCORP or WP:GNG. I found and added an interview with the owner in Hospitality.net, but am not sure if this is a reliable source. Tacyarg (talk) 00:39, 23 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Russia-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 00:54, 23 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Ukraine-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 00:54, 23 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 00:54, 23 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Architecture-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 07:23, 23 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Looks like a pretty historic, notable building to me. -- Necrothesp (talk) 14:54, 27 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Historic, notable, spectacular. Look at picture in https://villaelenahotel.ru/, linked in article. --Doncram (talk) 04:05, 29 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. Looking spectacular and historic may not be enough to justify an encyclopedia article. Coverage seems to be hard to come by, but The Guardian states that it is "Crimea’s first 5-star hotel" ([42]). --Michig (talk) 08:23, 30 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Alternative search term:

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

Keep, I have added a source or two and started the infobox, we had a photo on Commons. A five-star hotel, especially in a building with a long history, almost always has received coverage in reliable sources. Here it is not so much that coverage is hard to come by, there is plenty if you use my alt. search above for "Вилла Елена" Ялте, it is that English language sources are hard to come by. Perhaps Ymblanter could help? Sam Sailor 16:02, 30 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
This is a listed building, which in this case pretty much means keep. I added the sources. There must be more sources around, I will see what I can do.--Ymblanter (talk) 16:41, 30 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

And needs to be renamed to Villa Elena or Villa Yelena, notable as a historic building and not as a hotel.--Ymblanter (talk) 16:50, 30 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.