< 2 March	4 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; at this point, per WP:SNOW. bd2412 T 23:51, 10 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Michael Lohan Jr.[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

The first AfD of this page was patently flawed. He is not a reality television personality just because he appeared on a few episodes of a one season reality show that starred his other sister and mom. He lacks independent notability for an article on all counts. Nor is his app endeavor of independent notability. Trillfendi (talk) 23:44, 3 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Five years later their reality 'career' is distant and they're a normal everyday citizen, and the parking violation they had is a regular 'New York media megaphone magnification' story that should be between the subject and the state of NY/background check providers. No redirect to any of the other family members, there's no point to this here. Nate • (chatter) 01:47, 4 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 07:29, 4 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 07:29, 4 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 07:29, 4 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Not a notable actor, all is inherited from Lindsay. Reywas92^Talk 00:11, 5 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete not really noted for his own merits, and family connections alone aren't enough to warrant a separate article. Notability isn't inherited. SNUGGUMS (talk / edits) 00:02, 6 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete not a notable person. Reddragon7 (talk) 04:00, 6 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete clearly nowhere near passing WP:NACTOR. Sheldybett (talk) 08:54, 10 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete It is not notable now, nor do I think it will ever will be. Article only exists now thanks to family connections. Cindlevet (talk) 20:28, 10 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, as it clearly fails WP:GNG. Tymon.r Do you have any questions? 20:42, 10 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 draftify. Since this was moved into mainspace mistakenly, WP:SNOW applies. (non-admin closure) Alpha3031 (t • c) 11:45, 4 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Jordan Archer (forward, born 1993)[edit]

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

Footballer who fails NFOOTY and GNG. According to Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Football/Notability#Jordan Archer of Bury (currently on loan at Southport) he has made no appearances in competition between two fully professional teams. Spike 'em (talk) 23:22, 3 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

(I see from history he's been PRODed and AfDed in past so I assume AfD is the way to go) Spike 'em (talk) 09:09, 4 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Draftify. I'm afraid the revival of this article came about because of a clumsy mistake by me saying Jordan Archer had played for Bury, his parent club, in the FA Cup when I knew full well it was Southport, his loan club, who are non-league. Can the article be saved in draft form as it is probable that Jordan will play for Bury when his loan ends? Apologies for the mistake. No Great Shaker (talk) 06:42, 4 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 07:30, 4 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 07:31, 4 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 07:31, 4 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions.CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 07:33, 4 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Draftify - moved into mainspace prematurely given the confusion above, should be draftified. Unsure why @Spike 'em: has gone straight to AFD given we were discussing the article just 12 hours ago; if they had highlighted the issue then we could have been BOLD and sorted it, rather than going through all this bureaucracy. Giant Snowman 09:17, 4 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Because I didn't realise draftifying was an option, so I set the ball rolling on what I thought was needed. As mentioned above I checked and saw that the article had previously been de-PRODed and AfDed in past, so I thought an AfD would be needed. If you could point me to some documentation showing draftifying was an option so I can read up on it that would be very helpful. Spike 'em (talk) 09:45, 4 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Draftify per the above -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 09:33, 4 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) DannyS712 (talk) 00:37, 11 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Untitled Brad Anderson project[edit]

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

WP:TOOSOON article about an unreleased film. As always, Wikipedia does not keep an article about every film that can be minimally sourced as having entered the production pipeline -- with extremely rare exceptions for hypernotable films on the order of the Star Wars franchise, most films are not notable until they have been released, and thereby received reviews from reputable film critics. Just because the director has a WP:BLP does not automatically mean we need to rush-job a premature article the moment he announces that he's working on something new — if you don't even know a title or anything about the plot yet, let alone an actual release date, then just hold your jumpy horses. Bearcat (talk) 22:47, 17 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. Bakazaka (talk) 22:56, 17 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - the film passes notability guidelines. Let's be honest the only reason this is being discussed is that it doesn't have a proper title, but that is not a reason to delete the article. As it passes NFF, it should remain - we'll get a title soon enough, and the page can be moved accordingly. Somethingwickedly (talk) 01:01, 18 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 01:47, 18 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 00:56, 24 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

KeepThere are some good sources here to help show its notability with a notable cast'dorector, and it passes NFILM. Perhaps most importantly is that the fact that principal photography has begun. SIt is a shame that it doesn't have an official title yet, but that isn't a reason to delete supported by any policy. It passes notability guidelines, ergo it should remain. Cindlevet (talk) 23:12, 2 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Randykitty (talk) 23:20, 3 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) DannyS712 (talk) 00:38, 11 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Untitled Drake Doremus film[edit]

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

WP:TOOSOON article about an unreleased film. As always, Wikipedia does not keep an article about every film that can be minimally sourced as having entered the production pipeline -- with extremely rare exceptions for hypernotable films on the order of the Star Wars franchise, most films are not notable until they have been released, and thereby received reviews from reputable film critics, and a small bit of initial casting announcement coverage is not enough to make it a special case yet. Just because the director has a WP:BLP does not automatically mean we need to rush-job a premature article the moment he announces that he's working on something new — if you don't even know a title or anything about the plot yet, let alone an actual release date, then you need to wait until you do know those things before a standalone article becomes warranted. Bearcat (talk) 23:00, 17 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy keep completely absurd rationales. A film doesn’t need to be titled to have an article, it does need to pass WP:NFF, which it does. Seriously, this article has to be deleted because it doesn’t have a title yet? That’s a new one. Also whereas TOOSOON is an essay, meaning it’s not really enforceable, NFF is a guideline. Rusted AutoParts 23:27, 17 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Nope. The core thing that is normally required for a film article is that the film has been released. The "principal photography" test only applies to a very rarefied tier of extremely high profile films on the order of the Star Wars or Marvel franchises, which get a lot more production coverage than usual, and does not automatically apply to every film just because you can single-source the fact that photography has started — even films that have started photography can still fall apart and never actually get released at all. If a film isn't getting a hyperinflated Next-Star-Wars-or-Marvel-film volume of coverage throughout the production process, then the notability test it has to pass to qualify for an article remains that the film has been (or is verifiably close to being) released. Bearcat (talk) 00:03, 18 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

This film has completed principal photography so it’s not falling apart now and is being sold to distributors. This is so misguided of you to think that because it’s untitled and unreleased it fails notability. It has received media coverage. Not every gets the Star Wars/Marvel treatment. Does not mean it doesn’t meet general notability guidelines in addition to NFF. Rusted AutoParts 00:21, 18 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I will ask if those who feel this isn’t warranting mainspace status yet to vote for it to be returned to draftspace. It’ll be a complete waste of time for me if all the time and work I put into assembling this article is tossed away just because it doesn’t have a title or release date yet. Rusted AutoParts 00:22, 18 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - the film passes notability guidelines. Let's be honest the only reason this is being discussed is that it doesn't have a proper title, but that is not a reason to delete the article. As it passes NFF, it should remain - we'll get a title soon enough, and the page can be moved accordingly. Somethingwickedly (talk) 00:58, 18 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 07:26, 18 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 00:56, 24 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Randykitty (talk) 23:19, 3 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of South Korea-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 07:38, 4 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. Sandstein 07:53, 11 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Untitled Noah Baumbach project[edit]

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

WP:TOOSOON article about an unreleased film. As always, Wikipedia does not keep an article about every film that can be minimally sourced as having entered the production pipeline -- with extremely rare exceptions for hypernotable films on the order of the Star Wars franchise, most films are not notable until they have been released, and thereby received reviews from reputable film critics, and a small bit of initial casting announcement coverage is not enough to make it a special case yet. Just because the director has a WP:BLP does not automatically mean we need to rush-job a premature article the moment he announces that he's working on something new — if you don't even know a title or anything about the plot yet, let alone an actual release date, then you need to wait until you do know those things before a standalone article becomes warranted. Bearcat (talk) 23:02, 17 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Userfy or Draftify till it has a title. The film has been in post-production since March 2018, and will be released this year. Baumbach has a habit of not titling his films until very near release. This one has significant enough coverage, but there have been previous films called "Untitled Noah Baumbach Project", so it's best to keep this off mainspace till it has a title. Softlavender (talk) 23:21, 17 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy keep completely absurd rationales. A film doesn’t need to be titled to have an article, it does need to pass WP:NFF, which it does. Seriously, this article has to be deleted because it doesn’t have a title yet? That’s a new one. In addition, TOOSOON is an essay, NFF is a guideline. The core thing that is require for a film article to be in mainspace is if we can source its filming. For this films case it has finished filming and has been bought by Netflix to be aired later this year. It has zero risk to fall apart at this point because the film has been shot. It is waiting for it’s release. The nomination seems to feel every project needs Star Wars tier coverage to exist before its released, and that’s a an unrealistic expectation. As long s we can source the major aspects that it needs to be considered notable, than it should be able to stand as its own article. This employs this ridiculous, unrealistic expectation that every future film article needs Star Wars tier coverage to exist in Wikipedia before its release. What’s more beneficial to the reader: giving them an article about an impending film prior to release? Or withholding it because it’s not Star Wars? Rusted AutoParts 23:26, 17 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Nope. The core thing that is normally required for a film article is that the film has been released. The "principal photography" test only applies to a very rarefied tier of extremely high profile films on the order of the Star Wars or Marvel franchises, which get a lot more production coverage than usual, and does not automatically apply to every film just because you can single-source the fact that photography has started. If a film isn't getting an inflated Next-Star-Wars-or-Marvel-film volume of coverage throughout the production process, then the notability test remains that the film has been (or is verifiably close to being) released. Bearcat (talk) 00:00, 18 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

That is total selectiveness, or cherry picking as you said in another of these discussions. Nowhere in the guideline says the film has to be Star Wars tier covered to meet guidelines. It needs to be reported in (casting news, directing news), and of course filming citations. This has that. It passes the requirements. Rusted AutoParts 00:06, 18 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

If that were the standard that a film had to meet to qualify for an article, then every film that any film director ever even started would always qualify for an article on that exact same basis, because we can always find one source to confirm that production has started on absolutely every film (including many that never got released at all) — which is why that isn't the notability test for films. I'm 100 per cent correct about what the notability test for films is: either they get an outsized volume of production coverage much greater than most films get, or you wait until they're released. Bearcat (talk) 00:12, 18 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

You’re sensationalizing to justify your misguided point, as well as misconstruing just general production with principal production. WP:NFF is clearly if we can’t source its filming it can’t be in mainspace. All these articles you’re attacking are meeting the appripate requirements to exist and they all seem to share the same thing: they are untitled. That’s not a sound reason to decide it’s not notable. Rusted AutoParts 00:17, 18 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not "sensationalizing" anything — it's a plain hard fact that if all we had to do to make a film notable enough for a standalone article was single-source that principal photography had commenced, then every film would always get an article at exactly that point in the timeline even if it never gets released at all. Which is why it's a plain hard fact that our notability criteria for films work exactly the way I said they did: a few especially high profile projects that get a lot more production coverage than normal, like the Star Wars or Marvel films, get to claim notability once principal photography has begun, but the vast majority of films do not get to claim notability until the film is released. That's not me being sensationalist, or misrepresenting anything or being selective: it's the established consensus around how the notability of not-yet-released films works.
And you're also not paying attention if you think I only singled out untitled films, because I also nominated a bunch of unreleased films with titles, or if you think that being untitled was the reason I listed any of the untitled ones. Bearcat (talk) 00:29, 18 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Then you’re just undermining, as you painting it to seem like there’s only one source on the article to prove it’s filming. I’ll include this exact passage from NFF: Films that have not been confirmed by reliable sources to have commenced principal photography should not have their own articles, as budget issues, scripting issues and casting issues can interfere with a project well ahead of its intended filming date'. The assumption should also not be made that because a film is likely to be a high-profile release it will be immune to setbacks—there is no "sure thing" production. Until the start of principal photography, information on the film might be included in articles about its subject material, if available. Sources must be used to confirm the start of principal photography after shooting has begun. Filming had begun and has concluded. Nowhere within the NFF guideline states that the film has to have been released or received a realease date to be notable enough. In my opinion that’s an enforcement of a personal preference in your end. What I posted from NFF is the criteria. Where’s yours coming from? Rusted AutoParts 00:37, 18 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I am not expressing any personal preferences of any sort. I am 100 per cent correct about what the established consensus of Wikipedians is when films come to AFD for debate: the core notability test that a film normally has to pass is that it has been released. A very small elite tier of highly notable films on the order of the Star Wars or Marvel franchises, which generate a lot more production coverage than most films get, can claim special-case notability once principal photography has begun — but not just every film can claim notability on that basis, and the vast majority of films have to wait until they're released. I'm not wrong about this, and I'm not making up my own rules: it's the established consensus of the Wikipedians who participate in film AFDs. It's not enough to just cite the letter of a notability guideline, especially if you're taking it out of context — NFF is part of NFILM, not a standalone statement of its own that can be interpreted indepdendently of the rest of NFILM. Bearcat (talk) 00:52, 18 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The consensus of previous AFDs does not speak for other articles. We may as well toss guidelines out ingeneral if all we should follow is previous AFDs. This entire stance of your is so faulty. 1) TOOSOON is an essay, not an enforceable guideline. 2) a film does not need to be released to receive notability. It can receive traction throughout it's production history. Casting, filming, production details. It all plays hand in hand. To set your standard of it needs Star War notoriety is absurd. NFF and NFILM do not support your claims. AFDs do not dictate the fate of other articles. If you wanna change what the criteria should be, go for it. Don't try and change what it is based off what you think it should be. I have combed through NFILM countless times, and it always has been dependent on when the film entering the filming part of production, not when it is released. Rusted AutoParts 00:59, 18 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Firstly, read WP:ONLYESSAY. For starters, guidelines are also essays, so are not more "enforceable" than essays are: they carry exactly the same weight as each other, and are not dismissable just because they're essays.

Secondly, AFDs are where inclusion and notability standards get tested and determined or revised — notability guidelines, in fact, often lag behind significant changes in consensus. So in the event of a dichotomy between your perception of what a notability guideline says and the actual results of actual AFD practice, the AFD results take precedence over the guideline statement, not vice versa.

Thirdly, nothing I have said in this discussion represents me trying to impose my own opinion about what the standards should be instead of what they are. I am 100 PER CENT CORRECT about how the notability standards for films work: the core test is that the film has been, or is very close to being, released, and notability during the production process attaches only to an elite tier of highly notable films that generate a lot more coverage during the process than most other films do. Not because I said so, but because established consensus said so. NFILM has never extended automatic permanent notability to every film as soon as principal photography started; for one thing, even films that do start principal photography still don't always invariably ever actually get released at all, and for another, even some films that do get released still don't always actually get over the notability bar: some completed films only ever get screened at a buyer's market, or the "local amateurs" programming stream at the filmmaker's own hometown film festival, without ever actually picking up any commercial distribution at all. So no, the commencement of principal photography is not the notability bar for most films: it's enough for a select few very high profile projects, but not for every film that exists at all — the vast majority of films do have to wait until they're released. This is not my opinion: it's established Wikipedia consensus. Bearcat (talk) 01:19, 18 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

You can keep saying you're "100% correct", I'll still 100% disagree. An article needs reliable sourcing to prove it`s existence and prove it`s notability. These articles have that. The release date criteria is one part of a bigger criteria. To only say that the release date dictates it is so very wrong. We clearly disagree and all this is is us going in circles. If it's determined it can't exist in mainspace whatever, move it to draftspace. Don't do away with so much information that will have to be tracked down all over again. Rusted AutoParts 01:30, 18 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

GNG is not just "count up the footnotes and keep anything that surpasses two" — it also tests for several factors besides the raw number of footnotes present in the article, such as the range and depth of what the coverage represents and the context of what the coverage is being given for. It is simply expected that every film that enters the production process at all can always show a couple of routine sources, such as a casting announcement and/or a blurb confirming that the film has started shooting — so a film does not automatically cross NFF's "additionally, films that have already begun shooting, but have not yet been publicly released (theatres or video), should generally not have their own articles unless the production itself is notable per the notability guidelines" bar just because the article has two or three footnotes in it. If that were all it took, we would always have to keep an article about every single film that ever started principal photography at all, even if it was never actually released. What it takes to get a film past that gate while it's still in the production pipeline is the provision of much more sourcing than most films can routinely show, such as a film that can show dozens of distinct sources rather than just two or three. Bearcat (talk) 01:41, 18 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

You make that quote about footnotes as if I ever said that. I didn’t. I don’t advocate for every single film that has entered principal photography to be made into articles I advocate for the ones that can be tied back to multiple different citatations reporting in different aspects of its development and production. Some never get reported on, most do. And those most are the ones I create articles on. These three you targeted are reliably sourced to verify it’s notability. Target the ones that can’t verify squat. Rusted AutoParts 15:13, 18 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

You are the one who said that a film is notable enough for an article as soon as one source has confirmed that principal photography has begun, ignoring the facts that (a) very few films could ever actually not show that, and (b) even the sources that confirm the commencement of principal photography are almost always either press releases from the producers themselves, or thinly-veiled summary rewrites of them, rather than actual third-party journalism. To get its notability advanced from the standard "once it's been released" to the special "while it's in production", a film requires much, much more, wider and deeper coverage than just the basic routine production announcements that every film can always show. Bearcat (talk) 19:17, 19 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I followed the criteria in NFF. I followed the criteria that a film has to be filming to exist as an article. At no point in the 7-8 years I've been making film articles has the rationale that "it must be released" been applied. Because people can generally agree that the notion a film must have Star Wars coverage in order to exist is unreasonable and comparing two different types of movies. Like I said before, all this is is us talking in circles. We disagree, we'll see where the discussion goes. I wish that before you made these deletion discussions that you considered the WP:ATD:alternate paths other than deletion, like returning to draftspace or making a motion for it to be redirected (yes, i undid your redirection for the Breaking Bad film, doesn't mean a discussion about it being redirected couldn't have taken place), so that the information can actually be preserved as opposed to erased. You may not care, but it actually took time to compile this info. Rusted AutoParts 21:06, 19 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed. Look, I doubt I have many (if any) edits on the articles that were put up for deletion, but I felt compelled to put my view on several discussions across, because I felt they definitely passed notability guidelines today. I do find it very poor form from users when they would rather delete hours of work rather than try to come to another solution as Rusted AutoParts says. You can disagree that these articles should be in the mainspace, sure, but to want them deleted comes across as exceedingly arrogant. Somethingwickedly (talk) 22:06, 19 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Firstly, ATD is hardly a trump card in an AFD discussion: AFD is precisely the forum that's empowered to determine whether deletion, or some other alternative, is the appropriate course of action over disputed content. If I redirect a film to a related topic and you disagree and revert me on it, then AFD is exactly the correct place to go to test for other people's input on whether it's redirectable or deletable or keepable — which is not to say that AFD always has to weigh in before redirection can happen in the first place, but once two editors have disagreed over redirection then an AFD discussion is an appropriate course of action to resolve the dispute.
And by the same token, AFD is exactly where one has to go to get a consensus to move a page from mainspace into draftspace in the first place — it's not a thing any user can just arbitrarily do to any random page (for one thing, if I had tried it you would have reverted me on that too), or a thing that the requested moves process is empowered to even consider, but a thing that requires an AFD discussion to come to a consensus that sandboxing is desirable. ATD certainly covers off the fact that there are more options beyond just "keep" or "delete" that AFD can consider — but it's not an argument against ever having an AFD discussion in the first place, because AFD is very often the most appropriate venue for having the discussion about whether content should be kept or deleted or redirected or draftspaced.

And secondly, the standard WP:NFILM test has never been that any film can always have an article as soon as one source has been added that confirms that filming has started. I can entirely believe that you perceived the notability standards for films that way — you've already made that very clear — but that's never been the consensus position about where the notability bar for films is. As I've stated many times, the vast majority of all films that enter the production pipeline at all can show a blurb in the trade papers announcing that photography has commenced, and a casting announcement or two — with the potential exception of the debut short films of recent film school graduates whom nobody has ever heard of before, as soon as a film director is actually a known quantity every new film they undertake will always have casting and photography announcements show up in the trades. {Even films that completely fell apart and never actually got released, and thus don't qualify to keep articles at all, can usually also show that two or three or four pieces of production coverage happened before the production fell apart!) So the notability test for unreleased films is not, and never has been, that they're fair game for Wikipedia articles as soon as a couple of casting and photography announcements have shown up in the trades — the bar for most films has always been that we can properly source that they either have been or are about to be released to theatres, and to be deemed a special notability case any earlier than that a film has to have received an unusual volume of production coverage that plainly makes it significantly more notable than most other unfinished film projects. I acknowledge that you perceived the cutoff differently than the weight of established consensus did — but that doesn't mean I'm wrong about what the weight of established consensus actually is. Bearcat (talk) 23:41, 19 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

You use a lot of words to just keep repeating what you’ve already said. Are you just looking to have the last word or something? I get your stance, and I’ve said mine. I wasn’t talking about ATD as some “trump card”, I was lamenting that I wished this didn’t immediately become a deletion discussion. But it’s the case now so it doesn’t matter. Again, I’m done talking, let’s wait for the results. Rusted AutoParts 02:12, 20 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - fails our standards for notability of films. Lots of failed projects, non-notable flops, etc. get minor coverage in the trade press, without thus becoming notable. If it is released, and gets some real coverage, then an article can be created. --Orange Mike | Talk 23:49, 17 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

It does not fail the standards at all. It’s verifiably sourced, and has concluded filming, the core requirement for WP:NFF. Rusted AutoParts 23:58, 17 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I will ask if those who feel this isn’t warranting mainspace status yet to vote for it to be returned to draftspace. It’ll be a complete waste of time for me if all the time and work I put into assembling this article is tossed away just because it doesn’t have a title yet. Rusted AutoParts 00:17, 18 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - the film passes notability guidelines. Let's be honest the only reason this is being discussed is that it doesn't have a proper title, but that is not a reason to delete the article. As it passes NFF, it should remain - we'll get a title soon enough, and the page can be moved accordingly. Somethingwickedly (talk) 00:53, 18 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 01:41, 18 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 01:41, 18 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 00:56, 24 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I won’t bother to read the duel going on in the comments, but the fact is this is Too Soon. Point blank. Just because there are casting reports coming out doesn’t mean this is worth keeping right now. Nothing verifiable is known about this project and not one frame has been shot. Trillfendi (talk) 05:04, 24 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Trillfendi: You should’ve read it then. Here’s shots from filming back in March last year. The film has been done filming for quite awhile. This vote worries me as it seems you didn’t even read the article in question. Rusted AutoParts 07:03, 24 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I feel I’m being ignored on this point. It had been filmed, this vote is for a completely inaccurate reason. Rusted AutoParts 07:06, 25 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The film has obviously been shot, a simple Google search shows pictures of Driver & Johansson filming, so does this mean every film article currently in production or due for release for this year has to be deleted until the day of release? Also all the sources of the casting are reliable. What's the point in deleting? Vmars22 (talk) 14:57, 25 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep There is significant coverage of the film in reliable publications, such as The Hollywood Reporter. Moreover, despite what Trillfendi says, principal photography has begun (and indeed finished a year ago) with sources present supporting this. One argument from Softlavender is that it should be draftified as it does not have a title, but that seems a pretty tenuous argument to remove it from the mainspace. The project is from a well-known director and has a well-known cast, so overall I feel it is definitely notable enough to pass NFILM, and should be kept. Cindlevet (talk) 22:23, 2 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Randykitty (talk) 23:18, 3 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Withdrawing my nomination based on the sources offered. (non-admin closure) Jovanmilic97 (talk) 22:40, 5 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Pulling Moves[edit]

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

It fails WP:GNG for lack of significant coverage in reliable secondary sources. My WP:BEFORE brought nothing, except a passing mention on a blog [1]. Thus it also fails WP:TVSERIES as it says "however, the presence or absence of reliable sources is more definitive than the geographic range of the program's audience alone.". The fact it aired on BBC Three means nothing because of that. Jovanmilic97 (talk) 22:26, 3 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 07:40, 4 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Northern Ireland-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 07:40, 4 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per sources [2], [3], [4]. Plenty of passing mentions as well in later articles about actor's subsequent work. In terms of verifiability of airing, all of that can be done here [5]/ . I'm actually sort of surprised by how often it is mentioned in reviews of people's later work. I agree it would be nice to have a more conventional review of the show, but this strikes me as sufficient in the context of knowing the show was on BBC3.matt91486 (talk) 04:03, 5 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as per the multiple reliable sources identified above particularly the first and fourth which have significant content about the series and there is probably more as BBC shows are most often notable regardless of google's algorithms Atlantic306 (talk) 22:20, 5 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was merge to Coil binding. Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 10:50, 11 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Spiral Binding Company Inc[edit]

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

Sounds like a great company, but without any sources to back it up, fails WP:V. Rusf10 (talk) 21:54, 3 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Icewhiz (talk) 22:09, 3 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of New Jersey-related deletion discussions. Icewhiz (talk) 22:09, 3 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Has the nominator satisfied Wikipedia:NEXIST and Wikipedia:BEFORE? Djflem (talk) 10:08, 9 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Does the commentator have any sources or just snide remarks?--Rusf10 (talk) 15:19, 9 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Please assist with evaluating nomination by providing sources found while doing thorough check as outlined in Wikipedia:BEFORE & Wikipedia:NEXIST. Thank-you. Djflem (talk) 16:33, 9 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Selective Merge to Coil binding. Source searches are providing various sources, but not finding significant coverage in those that are independent and reliable. There is some historical significance here. For example, this article states that it was "the first mechanical binding company in the United States." As such, a selective merge is in order, in my opinion, which would serve to improve the suggested merge target article (WP:ATD-M). North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 03:02, 10 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I can barely find any sources on the company which leads me to wonder if some of the facts in the article are even true. If it was really "the first mechanical binding company in the United States" as claimed, I would expect more coverage, which even leads me to question the accuracy of the News 12 story.--Rusf10 (talk) 03:17, 10 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Selective Merge to Coil binding per WP:ATD-M.(founding, patent, spiralelastic, location, manufacture)Djflem (talk) 06:57, 11 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. bd2412 T 23:48, 10 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

STORIS[edit]

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

This is not a notable company, does not meet the requirements of WP:NCORP. No evidence the company has received significant coverage from reliable sources. Rusf10 (talk) 21:43, 3 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Icewhiz (talk) 22:09, 3 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. Icewhiz (talk) 22:09, 3 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of New Jersey-related deletion discussions. Icewhiz (talk) 22:09, 3 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Existing sources are press releases. – Broccoli & Coffee ^{(Oh hai)} 23:33, 3 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Reads like a brochure for the company. scope_creep^Talk 12:08, 9 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no coverage outside of a small industry with few reliable sources. Bearian (talk) 20:32, 9 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: An article originally by WP:SPA User:STORIS, subsequently developed by another WP:SPA. An edit summary of "Updated our Product Summary and added more tradeshows we attend" indicates WP:COI and uncited blather about "highly scalable technology" and "operational efficiencies" is fit for a brochureware site but not here. Searches are not finding better than routine announcement coverage, insufficient for WP:NCORP. AllyD (talk) 09:52, 10 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. Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 10:57, 11 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Kseniya Shoygu[edit]

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

Unclear notability - does not meet WP:NPROF, creating a (questionably notable?) sporting event does not appear to meet WP:GNG. A WP:BEFORE search shows some passing mentions in English but these are in relation to her father and notability is not inherited. PROD was removed by creator without comment or explanation. Melcous (talk) 21:01, 3 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Russia-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 21:17, 3 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. Icewhiz (talk) 22:12, 3 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 01:22, 5 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - appears to be WP:SPAM. This is a run of the mill performer. Bearian (talk) 20:31, 9 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Kseniya Shoygu = Ksenia Shoygu: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ksenia Shoygu
P.S. There are more transliteration options to create an article:
Kseniâ Šojgu
~~Ksenia Shoygu~~
Kseniya Shojgu
Ksenija Shojgu
~~Kseniya Shoygu~~
Kseniia Shoigu
— Alexey Tourbaevsky, _cheloVechek / ^talk 20:48, 9 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete The Tass source doesn't mention her; heroleague isn't independent; RIA Novosti has about a paragraph of an interview with her, but covers the race, not her, and is considered generally unreliable, as is Sputnik. It's time for salt. BlackcurrantTea (talk) 10:09, 11 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. czar 21:41, 10 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Mahmoud Hassan Al-Halwani[edit]

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

Article is about a player who plays for the youth team of a professional club, but didn't represent the first team before. Also it's a recreation of Mahmoud Hassan Al Halwani, an article about the same player that was previously deleted. Maybe it's a WP:TOOSOON and maybe qualified for speedy deletion per WP:G4. Ben5218 (talk) 19:22, 3 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. Icewhiz (talk) 19:44, 3 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Egypt-related deletion discussions. Icewhiz (talk) 19:44, 3 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 20:14, 3 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions.CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 20:15, 3 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Can't find much on the English name. The Arabic name in the article doesn't match the English name which is another red flag here (The Arabaic reads Mahmoud abd-al-salam - I don't see anything like a Hassan or Al-Halwani). Icewhiz (talk) 07:06, 4 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
- Apparently, the creator of that article just copied-and-pasted the content of another article (Mohamed Abdel Salam (footballer)) into this one just to create it. Ben5218 (talk) 11:05, 4 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - fails WP:GNG and WP:NFOOTBALL. Giant Snowman 10:20, 4 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - failure of WP:GNG and WP:NFOOTBALL Reddragon7 (talk) 04:07, 6 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - failed WP:GNG and WP:NFOOTBALL Leviv ich 18:34, 8 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - or maybe keep... as a good example of a WP:TOOSOON article. Tymon.r Do you have any questions? 20:47, 10 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was merge to You (Kepnes novel). (non-admin closure) Tymon.r Do you have any questions? 20:51, 10 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Guinevere Beck[edit]

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

Fictional character with from what I can tell has no notability at all. Might be a redirect at best. Wgolf (talk) 19:13, 3 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. Icewhiz (talk) 19:42, 3 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. Icewhiz (talk) 19:42, 3 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. Icewhiz (talk) 19:42, 3 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. Icewhiz (talk) 19:42, 3 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect/merge with You (Kepnes novel). Kirbanzo^{(userpage - talk - contribs)} 21:28, 3 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Merge with You (Kepnes novel) - this article is misleading, it has sub-headings that do not have any information beneath them. Vorbee (talk) 08:47, 4 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Merge with You (Kepnes novel) per above. Aoba47 (talk) 21:26, 9 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect and merge This unreferenced does not meet notability guidelines, so iI concur with all other prior votes. Cindlevet (talk) 20:22, 10 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. czar 21:39, 10 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Regé-Jean Page[edit]

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

Does not appear to meet WP:NACTOR. Most of the content is padding. BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 18:27, 3 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Icewhiz (talk) 19:39, 3 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Zimbabwe-related deletion discussions. Icewhiz (talk) 19:39, 3 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. Icewhiz (talk) 19:39, 3 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Clearly fails the WP:GNG and WP:NACTOR. -- LACaliNYC ✉ 22:43, 3 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete does not meet the general notability guidelines.John Pack Lambert (talk) 04:06, 5 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Clear failure of WP:GNG Reddragon7 (talk) 04:09, 6 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Does not meet WP:NACTOR, not notable. MA Javadi (talk) 18:25, 6 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 10:51, 11 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

BLT Architects[edit]

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

Does not meet WP:ORG notability requirements and was created by a WP:COI account. Rusf10 (talk) 17:25, 3 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Please note history which shows article went through the Wikipedia:Articles for creation process and was approved and moved by an non-involved editor, who did not find COI.Djflem (talk) 09:26, 7 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

YOu obviously don't understand that AFC approval has absolutely nothing to do with whether there is a COI or not. Use some common sense. The article was created by User:Bltarchitects. I wonder, what are the chances that it might be someone involved with the firm?--Rusf10 (talk) 20:43, 7 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Please see Wikipedia:Articles for creation and see the history which clearly demonstrates that the non-involved editor User:Sionk created the page, and acknowledge that your claim is false. What you wonder is of little interest.Djflem (talk) 08:29, 8 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Architecture-related deletion discussions. Icewhiz (talk) 17:29, 3 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Icewhiz (talk) 17:29, 3 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Pennsylvania-related deletion discussions. Icewhiz (talk) 17:29, 3 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

KEEP Architectural firm responsible for creation of several major projects.Djflem (talk) 21:15, 4 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. It is apparent that the nominator has not followed procedure as outlined in Wikipedia:BEFORE Djflem (talk) 21:48, 6 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Djflem:, please consider retracting that ridiculous accusation and WP:AGF. As per WP:ORG, "A company, corporation, organization, group, product, or service is notable if it has been the subject of significant coverage in multiple reliable secondary sources that are independent of the subject." This is not the case here. I see one article that may qualify [6] Just about everything else falls under trivial mentions. Also, Philadelphia Inquirer articles alone cannot satisfy notability requirements here since WP:AUD applies. So I will try to assume good faith right now and ask that you please share with us the other sources that you found (currently not included in the article) that you believe should be considered.--Rusf10 (talk) 23:43, 6 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Will consider it if you explain revision history, noting 3 March version, the date of your nomination, and March version and demonstrate improvements made by you to the article (and thus demonstrate good faith), which is part of the policies Wikipedia:NEXIST and Wikipedia:BEFORE. Other wise it would remain "apparent that the nominator has not followed procedure as outlined" in the aforementioned policies, which place the burden of proof on the nominator, and state.

Notability is based on the existence of suitable sources, not on the state of sourcing... The absence of sources or citations in an article (as distinct from the non-existence of sources) does not indicate that a subject is not notable. Notability requires only the existence of suitable independent, reliable sources, not their immediate presence or citation in an article. Editors evaluating notability should consider not only any sources currently named in an article, but also the possibility or existence of notability-indicating sources that are not currently named in the article. Thus, before proposing or nominating an article for deletion, or offering an opinion based on notability in a deletion discussion, editors are strongly encouraged to attempt to find sources for the subject in question and consider the possibility of existent sources if none can be found by a search.

D. Search for additional sources, if the main concern is notability... The minimum search expected is a normal Google search, a Google Books search, a Google News search, and a Google News archive search; Google Scholar is suggested for academic subjects. If you find a lack of sources, you've completed basic due diligence before nominating. However, if a quick search does find sources, this does not always mean an AfD on a sourcing basis is unwarranted. If you spend more time examining the sources and determine that they are insufficient, e.g., because they only contain passing mention of the topic, then an AfD nomination may still be appropriate. If you find that adequate sources do appear to exist, the fact that they are not yet present in the article is not a proper basis for a nomination. Instead, you should consider citing the sources, using the advice in Wikipedia:How to cite sources, or at minimum apply an appropriate template to the page that flags the sourcing concern....

See also Wikipedia:Cherrypicking, so as to avoid it, and please note that preponderance of specific citations for the body of work produced by the firm, which clearly establishes notability, are given inline and are there to verify the list.

"BLT Architects - American Institute of Architects". www.aiaphiladelphia.org. Retrieved 4 March 2019.
Hinkelman, Michael. "2nd-generation architectural firm charts new growth strategy". Retrieved 6 March 2019.
Staff, Casino Style. "Casino Style Magazine - BLT Architects". Casino Style Magazine. Retrieved 4 March 2019.
"Architects Roundtable:BowerLewisThrower". www.stoneworld.com. Retrieved 6 March 2019.
"Bower & Fradley awarded for design of International House". Temple University Libraries. Retrieved 7 March 2019.
"BLT Architects - The Skyscraper Center". www.skyscrapercenter.com. Retrieved 4 March 2019.
"BLT Architects". www.emporis.com. Retrieved 5 March 2019.

Thanks Djflem (talk) 08:09, 7 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Djflem:"demonstrate improvements made by you to the article", I have no idea what you are talking about. In fact, I find most of your rant to be incoherent, but I will address the list of sources you provided.

1. [7] a directory listing- does absolutely nothing for notability
2. [8] A interview, not a secondary source.
3. [9]- not a well-known publication and written like a press release, so I'm not really sure who wrote it.
4. [10]- another directory listing.
5 & 6. [11] [12] -a database.

WP:ORG requires "significant coverage in multiple reliable secondary sources that are independent of the subject." These sources come nowhere close to meeting this.--Rusf10 (talk) 20:37, 7 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep, particularly on the basis it won a major award (under its original name), the AIA Gold Medal, in 1970. I've no reason to doubt a long established architectural firm would meet WP:GNG and WP:NCORP [13]. Whether or not the original author had a COI is irrelevant. My only question would be whether Bower & Fradley are notable, but BLT Architects are not - being an 'architect of record' does not necessarily mean they designed the buildings, they may simply be the executive architects for the designers. Clarification (i.e. proof) at least, would be required. Sionk (talk) 09:03, 8 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Spare me the badgering on every !vote. --Doncram (talk) 06:34, 9 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. czar 21:29, 10 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Rugged Maniac Chicago[edit]

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

non-notable event. COI creator created over two dozen similar articles about other local rugged maniac events. valereee (talk) 17:17, 3 March 2019 (UTC) Also nominating:[reply]

- There is also Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Rugged Maniac Kansas City Reywas92^Talk 22:04, 5 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. Icewhiz (talk) 17:29, 3 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Illinois-related deletion discussions. Icewhiz (talk) 17:29, 3 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete all in Category:Rugged Maniac, including Rob Dickens; may I add those to this nomination? Christ, Rugged Maniac might be notable but articles for each city is clearly promotional, as admitted by the WP:SPA author at User:Jsslee#Notable companies I've done work for:. Reywas92^Talk 00:17, 5 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Reywas92, by all means feel free to add all to this nom, the only reason I didn't nom all was to give other editors a chance to check to see if I was misreading the situation, as I don't sports. valereee (talk) 15:53, 5 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 00:34, 5 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

delete all All of the city articles consist of results and local reporting. There isn't even any significant coverage in the main article or Rob Dickens article. The most notable thing I can find is appearing on Shark Tank and getting a deal from Mark Cuban, but that's WP:ONEEVENT to me.Sandals1 (talk) 22:21, 5 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete all fails WP:GNG.-TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 02:44, 6 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. czar 02:16, 11 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Gaur Niwas[edit]

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

I cannot find any places called Gaur Niwas (roughly translated as "Gaur residence") in Sudhowala, Dehradun, as the article claims. The closest reference I found [14] is about a place in Kullu which is in a different state called Himachal Pradesh. The coordinates 30°19′59″N 77°57′39″E seem to show a road. The pincode 248015 is for Sudhowala. The image attached File:BHS Snowfall on January 27th, 2014.jpg is described as "weather In Gaur niwas" but actually seems to be about some school in the US. As I cannot find any references to such a place, I am nominating it for deletion.-- DreamLinker (talk) 15:32, 3 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Actually I think the article could be about a building/house and seems like the creator wrote it in good faith. There is one source [15] which says "Gaur Niwas Sudhowala: This is a city centre of sudhowala, developed by Pandit Shri Devi Dutt Gaur", although it is not reliable. Unfortunately I cannot find any other good reference for it.--DreamLinker (talk) 15:40, 3 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. DreamLinker (talk) 15:40, 3 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. DreamLinker (talk) 15:41, 3 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete With no references, this article is spam. A similar article, Toolihalan picks up mentions of roads and a school including the name, but there is no evidence that a village of that name exists. Without the threat of deletion of sub-stub-class articles, WP is in danger of becoming a chat list of unverifiable junk. If a reference in a census document appears, then certainly it should stay. Otherwise, out with it. Rhadow (talk) 17:50, 3 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. No evidence that the said village exists. Tried searching with spelling variants "Gaud Niwas", "Gaur Nivas", and "Gaud Nivas", on nic.in and gov.in. utcursch | talk 18:52, 3 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - unsourced, and with no evidence that the village exists it's likely a hoax. Kirbanzo^{(userpage - talk - contribs)} 22:25, 3 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Never been to India and article does not provide sources to show the village exists.--SalmanZ (talk) 21:55, 7 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:V and lack of WP:RS. Bearian (talk) 20:30, 9 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Weak delete The map shows a place called "Mohanpur" but doesn't show "Gaur Niwas" Google searches all appear to be mirrors, Google Books do however seem to show there's a cafe with this name but that probably doesn't meet WP:GEOLAND. A place with a population of over 1 thousand and a stated area would expect to easily be found on Google. Crouch, Swale (talk) 19:37, 10 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. Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 10:51, 11 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Casey Christopher[edit]

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

Non-notable body builder, few if any rs with truly meaningful coverage. Almost all of the sources are completely unreliable and the rest are basically photo galleries. Praxidicae (talk) 18:38, 17 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bodybuilding-related deletion discussions. IntoThinAir (talk) 18:47, 17 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Connecticut-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 02:37, 18 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hi user:Feezo, user:Praxidicae and user:CAPTAIN RAJU

First I would like to thank you for your contribution and correction in the article.

Casey Christopher is a bodybuilder is a model from Milford, I took this information from his official website. This body builder and model come to my attention when articles about him started publishing in Indian news portals and website.

Its not true that all the links are not-reliable (some of the links might be). Npcnewsonline.com is a reliable source. Muscleandfitness.com is 30+ year old US based magazine. Magzter.com is a well known website in India (for proof, please check alexa rank).

I have also posted link of few photos from alamy.com and gettyinages.ca to show that he actually walk on the ramp on new york fashion week and los angeles fashion week. There could be no other proof of him being on these fashion shows.

If you need more proof then I'll search on internet to find more of it.

I'm new to wikipedia, but before writing my first article, I have read the policies. I know what to write and what not. Just trying to be a writer on wikipedia as it always fascinates me. Poojasharma20 (talk) 09:13, 19 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ~SS49~ {talk} 06:21, 24 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Icewhiz (talk) 11:43, 24 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hi all, I am not getting any response from anyone in this discussion. I want to know what more references I can provide or how can I improve the article or may be style of writing articles. Poojasharma20 (talk) 17:07, 28 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Jovanmilic97 (talk) 15:12, 3 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

delete I know basically nothing about bodybuilding. The problem with this article is I don't see significant independent coverage that meets the GNG. Yes he's walked on the runway as a model and appeared on some bodybuilding magazine covers, but I don't think videos and pictures are enough to show notability or even model would have an article.Sandals1 (talk) 23:23, 5 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hi user:Sandals1,

How can you comment on an article when you know nothing about the topic. You yourself said, you know nothing about bodybuilding. The references I gave was legitimate references. 1. NPC National Championship : ^[1] (Official Scorecard). npcnewsonline.com is an official website of NPC. 2. Arnold Amateur ^[2] So you cannot doubt on these links.

3. About the magazine covers, the references I gave was from a magazine which has a legacy of over 35 year. These links are not unreliable but proof of the actual (hard copy of magazines printed) magazines : -

4. About the fashion show appearance, there is no other proof then photograph. These photos are not morphed or anything, what else on earth be a proof of him being on these fashion shows other than images?

5. And the last, these are the few articles and interviews I found on internet about him (some may or may not be reliable sources):-

If still its not qualify to be notable then please tell me what sources do I need? Just looking for guidance.. Poojasharma20 (talk) 13:56, 6 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete because (1) there is not a single reliable source to prove Notability, and (2) this appears to be too soon in a career only 4 years at most. Bearian (talk) 20:29, 9 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I agree that this appears to be WP:TOOSOON. In his bodybuilding career, he seems to have come equal 10th (with 18 others) in the 2017 Arnold Amateur Class D Men's Physique, and 2nd in the 2017 NPC National Championships Class C Men's Physique. I don't think there are specific notability guidelines for bodybuilders, but I don't think that coming 2nd or 10th in these competitions would give presumed notability. As far as his modelling career goes, WP:NMODEL is contentious, but criterion #1 can be applied: "Has had significant roles in multiple notable films, television shows, stage performances, or other productions", where "multiple notable ... other productions" is understood as multiple notable fashion shows - and there must be reliable sources showing that he had significant roles in multiple fashion shows. Photographs by themselves, or on the photographer's website, are not reliable sources. They need to have been published by reliable sources. This person may well appear in reports of fashion shows in reliable sources in the future, but there is no evidence that he has done so yet. RebeccaGreen (talk) 01:14, 10 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. czar 21:18, 10 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Good Music for All[edit]

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

I can’t find any reliable independent sources to support this article. Fails WP:NCORP. Mccapra (talk) 14:47, 3 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. Icewhiz (talk) 15:52, 3 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Icewhiz (talk) 15:52, 3 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Icewhiz (talk) 15:52, 3 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - fails for lack of WP:RS. Seems to be one of many similar companies. Bearian (talk) 20:38, 9 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails WP:NCORP which has very high standards, and this doesn't even scratch the "if it has been the subject of significant coverage in multiple reliable secondary sources that are independent of the subject" part, not even a bit. Nothing in my searches which is mostly about GOOD Music. Jovanmilic97 (talk) 17:01, 10 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Tymon.r Do you have any questions? 20:41, 10 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. -- Patar knight - ^chat/_{contributions} 02:31, 11 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Global digital broadcast[edit]

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

Short-lived defunct company lacking multiple independent sources to verify notability. Mccapra (talk) 14:39, 3 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. Icewhiz (talk) 15:52, 3 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Icewhiz (talk) 15:52, 3 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. Icewhiz (talk) 15:52, 3 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - no way to verify its existence outside of unreliable, old trade magazines. Bearian (talk) 20:34, 9 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: A WP:SPA article whose Talk page has been indicating unresolved doubts about notability for over a decade. Some brief coverage of the defunct company can still be found (e.g. a blocked link article describing it as a start-up) but neither that not the mentioned nomination for an award amounts to the coverage needed to demonstrate WP:NCORP. AllyD (talk) 09:22, 10 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, fails WP:GNG. Tymon.r Do you have any questions? 22:08, 10 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. Per WP:SNOW. (non-admin closure) Jovanmilic97 (talk) 13:22, 10 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Wendy Moe[edit]

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

Previous edits seem to have been done by the subject themselves Equine-man (talk) 14:09, 3 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. Icewhiz (talk) 15:53, 3 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Advertising-related deletion discussions. Icewhiz (talk) 15:53, 3 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Maryland-related deletion discussions. Icewhiz (talk) 15:53, 3 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. A respectable academic, according to this Google Scholar search. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 17:08, 3 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The Google Scholar results are enough to convince me that WP:NPROF is met. Papaursa (talk) 20:51, 3 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Definitley meets WP:NPROF. Also, if the subject made the article, consider giving them a conflict of interest notice with this template. Kirbanzo^{(userpage - talk - contribs)} 21:30, 3 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Thsmi002 (talk) 03:48, 5 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Meets WP:NPROF. Frequently cited by independent sources. Sdmarathe (talk) 18:28, 5 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Snow keep- Meets WP:PROF as stated above. This nomination fails to cite relevant deletion policy. COI can be dealt with through editing and tagging. Please see (WP:ATD). Thsmi002 (talk) 03:56, 6 March 2019 (UTC)*[reply]
Keep- sources including Google Scholar search show the article meets WP:NPROF Alex-h (talk) 13:20, 6 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - even if she didn't pass the PROF test, based on the Post and NPR sources she passes GNG. Bearian (talk) 20:36, 9 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. bd2412 T 16:24, 10 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Rachel Ryan[edit]

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

No real assertions of notability in article and no reliable sources addresses Ryan's life or career in detail. Just coverage of her relationships with famous actors Michael Keaton and Richard Mulligan. Nobility is not inherited. Fails both GNG and PORNBIO. Wikiuser20102011 (talk) 13:55, 3 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Icewhiz (talk) 14:01, 3 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Ohio-related deletion discussions. Icewhiz (talk) 14:01, 3 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sexuality and gender-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 14:05, 3 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 14:06, 3 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been added to the WikiProject Pornography list of deletions.CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 14:08, 3 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Lacks non-trivial RS coverage to pass WP:BASIC. No claim for passing PORNBIO or any other secondary notability criteria. • Gene93k (talk) 17:00, 3 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: fails WP:BASIC / WP:ENT. --K.e.coffman (talk) 17:35, 3 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete lacks the reliable sources required by the general notability guidelines.John Pack Lambert (talk) 04:05, 5 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete could not find reliable sources. Reddragon7 (talk) 04:15, 6 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, not notable for stand alone article, trivial. Kierzek (talk) 19:11, 6 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Detele, fails WP:NPORN. Tymon.r Do you have any questions? 13:54, 10 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) scope_creep^Talk 02:55, 9 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Round Hill Music[edit]

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

High promotional music publishing article. No real references. Fails WP:ORGIND, WP:CORPDEPTH. scope_creep^Talk 11:35, 24 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. Icewhiz (talk) 11:40, 24 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Icewhiz (talk) 11:40, 24 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. Icewhiz (talk) 11:40, 24 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment @Scope creep: what do you make of the billboard.com sources in light of your claim that this fails WP:ORGIND? Aren't they independent of the subject? Are you counting them as a trade publication? I think this article is particularly hard to square with your nom, since it looks to me like significant (non-routine) coverage. Apparently it even appeared in the print edition. Colin M (talk) 21:32, 24 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Colin M: I think there is difference between notability and depth and independence of coverage. I have no doubt they are notable. I think it is the usual shallow industry sources that are present for any type od industry. I'll check with reliable sources to see what they say about billboard.com and the article in general. I suspect it is RS, but it not enough. scope_creep^Talk 11:55, 25 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

It seems to have editorial oversight. The rest are very poor. scope_creep^Talk 12:22, 25 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Hello All. Thank you for discussing this. Billboard_(magazine) is one of the most respected music publications and has a robust page here that I have linked. They do not repost press releases without editorial comment and oversight. Additionally, the The_Wall_Street_Journal has written about the company several times. In addition, I would ask that you keep in mind that many reputable companies, who readers and the public at large would like to know about, may not have actively been searching out press or even doing "press worthy" things in their past. Round Hill Music owns and actively helps continue the legacy of some of the most well known songs in the history of western recorded music. Were it not for their active work with those songs and and songwriters, many of them would have likely faded into obscurity. If someone is searching for 'who owns Video Killed The Radio Star' for a piece they're writing in school about changes in the music industry, I would like to believe that the Wikipedia community is interested in having them find the answer here. Again, thank you for your time and consideration. Twrch (talk) [[Special:Contribs/(({Twrch))}|contribs]]) has been paid by Round Hill Music. 15:08, 25 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Jovanmilic97 (talk) 11:39, 3 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. This article has been substantially improved since nomination, both in terms of sourcing and promotional tone. References now include in-depth coverage from The Guardian and Billboard magazine, as well as some more routine coverage from other reliable sources. At this point there's no doubt in my mind that WP:GNG has been satisfied. Hats off to Scope creep and Twrch (and IP editor 24.205.92.132) for their quality edits to this article over the last couple weeks. Colin M (talk) 16:20, 4 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Nomination Withdrawn Seems to be genuine and some editing to cleanup the article. scope_creep^Talk 02:54, 9 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. After extended time for discussion, consensus is now clear. bd2412 T 16:18, 10 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Untitled Luca Guadagnino project[edit]

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

WP:TOOSOON article about an unreleased film. As always, Wikipedia does not keep an article about every film that can be single-sourced as having entered the production pipeline -- with extremely rare exceptions for hypernotable films on the order of the Star Wars franchise, most films are not notable until they have been released, and thereby received reviews from reputable film critics. One production announcement is not enough media coverage to make this a special case yet. Just because the director has a WP:BLP does not automatically mean we need to rush-job a premature article the moment he announces that he's working on something new — if you don't even know a title or anything about the plot yet, let alone an actual release date, then you need to wait until you do know those things before a standalone article becomes warranted. Bearcat (talk) 22:44, 17 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. Bakazaka (talk) 22:56, 17 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 01:48, 18 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 00:57, 24 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Lugnuts ^{Fire Walk with Me} 09:00, 24 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Italy-related deletion discussions. J 947 ^{^{^(c)}}, at 18:53, 26 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sheldybett (talk) 09:55, 3 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom it's too soon, sooo many movies get started, even have a cast, but don't actually get made. Reywas92^Talk 00:34, 5 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. WP:TOOSOON. Tymon.r Do you have any questions? 13:51, 10 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. -- Amanda (aka DQ) 12:00, 5 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Colyer Dupont[edit]

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

Unable to find multiple independent and reliable sources. Mccapra (talk) 08:09, 9 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Bakazaka (talk) 08:42, 9 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Bakazaka (talk) 08:42, 9 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete The article does not meet the WP:NACTOR for being undersourced and no significant impact on the person. Sheldybett (talk) 09:09, 9 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ad Orientem (talk) 01:35, 17 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ~SS49~ {talk} 06:07, 24 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Final relist.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, TheSandDoctor ^Talk 07:45, 3 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Several activities that do not provide notability added together still don't provide notability, no substantive sources. Reywas92^Talk 00:36, 5 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. After three relists, no firm agreement has been reached as to what to do with the article. Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 10:52, 11 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Bondita Acharya[edit]

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

I see not a single non-trivial mention over RSes about the subject. Got sparse media-coverage after being subject of a rape/assault-threat; (which though utterly condemn-able) falls under BLP1E at best and thus, disallows an article. ∯WBG^converse 13:08, 9 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. ∯WBG^converse 13:09, 9 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Bakazaka (talk) 19:11, 9 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I agree. Very poor referencing. scope_creep^Talk 13:01, 10 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ad Orientem (talk) 01:33, 17 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ~SS49~ {talk} 06:07, 24 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Final relist.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, TheSandDoctor ^Talk 07:45, 3 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I am looking for and adding more references to the article. RebeccaGreen (talk) 01:51, 10 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I have added references from reliable sources and more information about her work. RebeccaGreen (talk) 03:05, 10 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
~~Keep meets WP:GNG with RebeccaGreen's work... Thanks.~~ Hninthuzar (talk) 12:06, 10 March 2019 (UTC)Sock !votes are struck.[reply]
Keep - GNG satisfied with RebeccaGreen's usual high quality source work. Nosebagbear (talk) 12:57, 10 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Comment-Rubbish sourcing; give me a day to defend. ∯WBG^converse 19:33, 10 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Comment This was the last relisting, and even without the struck vote, it would likely be closed as no consensus, defaulting to keep - so you just delete the closure?!?!?! Arguing for changes in closure policy in the edit summary when you, the nominator, remove a closure by an uninvolved editor, is disruptive - not the reasonable closure. If you disagree with the result, appeal it or renominate it after a suitable period. RebeccaGreen (talk) 23:00, 10 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I'd missed that that had happened - it's wildly inappropriate. It's a literal involved. @RebeccaGreen: is entirely right - without the sock !vote, it's an NC. RebeccaGreen, the logical route seems to be to ask an admin to take a look at the close, now that it's had some complication built in. Thoughts? Nosebagbear (talk) 23:06, 10 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I don't give a flying fuck about the exact policies; dumb NAC-adventures shall be reverted. Bringing sources (and !votes) on the last day without giving the nominator a scope to defend can be effectively weaponized to game the system. And, fourth relists do happen. ∯WBG^converse 05:20, 11 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. -- Amanda (aka DQ) 12:00, 5 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Chaudhary Ghulam Hussain[edit]

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

Subject does not appear to meet relevant notability guidelines and lacks non-trivial coverage from independent reliable sources. Steps were taken to locate sources WP:BEFORE this nomination, but were not successful. Saqib (talk) 14:17, 9 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. 14:24, 9 February 2019 (UTC) ―Matthew J. Long -Talk-^☖ 14:24, 9 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Journalism-related deletion discussions. 14:24, 9 February 2019 (UTC) ―Matthew J. Long -Talk-^☖ 14:24, 9 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. 14:24, 9 February 2019 (UTC) ―Matthew J. Long -Talk-^☖ 14:24, 9 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. 14:24, 9 February 2019 (UTC) ―Matthew J. Long -Talk-^☖ 14:24, 9 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. 14:24, 9 February 2019 (UTC) ―Matthew J. Long -Talk-^☖ 14:24, 9 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Every journalist who exists in the world is not automatically notable enough for a Wikipedia article just because his existence verifies in staff profiles on the self-published websites of his own employers — the notability test for inclusion in Wikipedia is his being the subject of reliable source coverage in sources he isn't affiliated with, such as other media outlets he doesn't work for doing journalism about him. But the only source here that comes even close to such a thing is a 15-word blurb of the "this is happening, the end" variety, which is not substantive enough to get him over WP:GNG all by itself as the article's only non-primary source. Bearcat (talk) 17:49, 11 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ad Orientem (talk) 01:31, 17 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ~SS49~ {talk} 06:06, 24 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Final relist.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, TheSandDoctor ^Talk 07:45, 3 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. per above. Fails WP:GNG. ―MattLongCT -Talk-^☖ 14:54, 3 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. -- Amanda (aka DQ) 11:59, 5 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Ancel Edwin[edit]

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

Non notable musician. Does not seem to qualify for WP:N due to the lack of any decent references. Jupitus Smart 16:58, 9 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Jupitus Smart 16:58, 9 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Jupitus Smart 16:58, 9 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Despite Edwin being active since 1984, this is the first I have heard of this musician. He has yet to establish major notability outside India.TH1980 (talk) 21:26, 12 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ad Orientem (talk) 01:22, 17 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ~SS49~ {talk} 06:06, 24 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Final relist.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, TheSandDoctor ^Talk 07:45, 3 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as there seems to be no mentions in any media. This is strange for someone who is active since 1984. While there could be a chance that coverage is available in non-English sources (Malayalam), it is unlikely. A notable musician would generally have some coverage in the English language media in India.--DreamLinker (talk) 17:49, 3 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Michig (talk) 08:27, 10 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Baby Eye Taylor[edit]

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

Despite cleaning up the article, the subject fails WP:GNG and WP:MUSICBIO. I was only able to find two reliable sources but they do not discuss the subject in detail. This source is an announcement about his collaboration with Lil Scrappy. The second source talks about the degree he earned at North Carolina A&T. I thought he has won or been nominated for the LEA awards but after a closer look, that isn't the case. Versace1608 ^{Wanna Talk?} 17:52, 16 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Versace1608 ^{Wanna Talk?} 17:56, 16 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Versace1608 ^{Wanna Talk?} 17:56, 16 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, have any of his recordings charted? Atlantic306 (talk) 00:30, 17 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Atlantic306: None of his records charted. He is based in the U.S and not Liberia. The latter country does not have an official music chart. He has a song with Lil Scrappy but that did not chart on Billboard. Versace1608 ^{Wanna Talk?} 00:36, 17 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete thanks, in that case I'm voting delete as it seems WP:TOOSOON with a lack of coverage such as reviews, for example there is no bio or reviews of him on AllMusic, Atlantic306 (talk) 12:49, 17 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ad Orientem (talk) 00:17, 24 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, TheSandDoctor ^Talk 07:38, 3 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Africa-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 09:17, 3 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete No career to speak of. Trillfendi (talk) 18:20, 3 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. czar 21:14, 10 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Raine chawla[edit]

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

No significant coverage in reliable sources and no evidence of satisfying WP:NACTOR. GSS (talk|c|em) 17:29, 16 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. GSS (talk|c|em) 17:30, 16 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. GSS (talk|c|em) 17:30, 16 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Bakazaka (talk) 18:48, 16 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete A WP:BEFORE could not find reliable sources indication of pass WP:GNG and WP:NACTOR. CASSIOPEIA^(talk) 05:11, 20 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ad Orientem (talk) 00:17, 24 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, TheSandDoctor ^Talk 07:38, 3 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Fails both WP:GNG for lack of significant coverage in reliable sources (was able to find nothing) and WP:NACTOR for lack of multiple significant roles. Jovanmilic97 (talk) 13:25, 10 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. czar 21:10, 10 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Gerald Deskin[edit]

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

Notability questioned via tag since May 2015. Both online and offline source searches ("Gerald+Deskin" Google, Books, WorldCat) only seem to turn up sources published by Deskin, not about him, save for an obituary in a local newspaper. There's little indication that the book he co-authored had a major impact on its field and, conjoined with the lack of major reviews, means he appears to fail WP:NAUTHOR. SITH (talk) 11:51, 16 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. ~Ruyaba~ {talk} 13:27, 16 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. ~Ruyaba~ {talk} 13:27, 16 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. ~Ruyaba~ {talk} 13:27, 16 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete lack of secondary coverage to show notability.John Pack Lambert (talk) 15:31, 16 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ad Orientem (talk) 00:29, 24 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, TheSandDoctor ^Talk 07:37, 3 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I did find this [16] but that is certainly not enough to cover WP:BIO which requires "significant coverage in multiple published secondary sources that are reliable, intellectually independent of each other, and independent of the subject". Jovanmilic97 (talk) 13:27, 10 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. WP:REFUND applies. There is clear consensus that this shouldn't be an article at Wikipedia, in its current state. What is rather unclear is what to do about it. There is no discussion regarding PC78's proposal, for or against. Therefore I seriously considered re-directing. However, given the awkward naming of the article, it seems unlikely that any editor wishing to create a viable article on the subject would know to look for a re-direct, and much under which "title" to look under. Therefore I judge consensus by strength of arguments to be outright delete, but I will gladly restore to user space of any editor in good standing who makes such request. 78.26 _{(spin me / revolutions)} 14:26, 11 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Untitled Santosh Srinivas film[edit]

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

WP:TOOSOON article about an unreleased film. As always, Wikipedia does not keep an article about every film that can be minimally sourced as having entered the production pipeline -- with extremely rare exceptions for hypernotable films on the order of the Star Wars franchise, most films are not notable until they have been released, and thereby received reviews from reputable film critics, and a small bit of initial casting announcement coverage is not enough to make it a special case yet. Just because the director has a WP:BLP does not automatically mean we need to rush-job a premature article the moment he announces that he's working on something new — if you don't even know a title or anything about the plot yet, let alone an actual release date, then you need to wait until you do know those things before a standalone article becomes warranted. Bearcat (talk) 23:03, 17 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2019 February 17. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 23:19, 17 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 01:35, 18 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 01:36, 18 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 00:54, 24 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Lugnuts ^{Fire Walk with Me} 09:01, 24 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, TheSandDoctor ^Talk 07:37, 3 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Santosh Srinivas or move to Draft:Untitled Santosh Srinivas film. Why rush to delete an article that may only end up being recreated later? There are better ways to deal with this sort of thing. PC78 (talk) 22:26, 4 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:HAMMER Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 10:58, 11 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) 08:30, 10 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Montequila Robinson[edit]

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

Contested PROD. Non notable individual (WP:GNG, WP:BLP1E) KH-1 (talk) 07:24, 3 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 09:19, 3 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Crime-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 09:19, 3 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Illinois-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 09:19, 3 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 09:20, 3 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Not close to passing SIGCOV. Some 50 GHITs, and running down them doesn't lead to any really good sources. 2 Years for 3 pounds of pot - got a mention in crime blotters. Has (allegedly - not sure of sourcing - is linked in article) a maybe notable brother - Mark White (model) - but that's WP:NOTINHERITED. Icewhiz (talk) 10:27, 3 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - doesn't come close to meeting WP:CRIME, and WP:GNG is also not met. One incident with pretty scanty press coverage, nothing in-depth. --bonadea contributions talk 19:28, 3 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete brief news cycle for crossing state lines carrying illegal substance. Fails WP:NCRIME.E.M.Gregory (talk) 01:21, 4 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:BLP1E. The only even-marginally WP:RS sources on Google are the same 3 locally-focused news sources that already appear in this article, which all repeat basically the same information: a relatively trivial incident (didn't even manage to cross state lines) in August 2017 resulting in a plea of not guilty in February 2018. The news sites didn't even pick up on this story until the plea, and never covered what became of it afterwards; so not even the local media thought it was interesting anymore. --Closeapple (talk) 10:32, 4 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
For what it's worth, from the Odyssey Portal some courts in California use for court records: Superior Court of California, County of San Mateo, case 17-NF-012047-A: switched plea on 2018-04-03, nolo contendere to the felony (HS11360(a)(3) Unlawful Transportation or Sale of Marijuana With Prior, To Minor, or Interstate), misdemeanor dismissed as part of plea deal; sentenced to 45 days in jail + 3 years probation (ending 2021-04-03), $500 in fees. Still can't find any news coverage of the plea/sentencing, so still not even the local media cared. --Closeapple (talk) 03:11, 6 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Wikipedia is not a newspaper, even less the suburban weekly's crime roundup section.John Pack Lambert (talk) 04:04, 5 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
delete Obvious case of WP:BLP1E with a lack of significant coverage.Sandals1 (talk) 22:25, 5 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:BLP1E, lacking the significant coverage needed to meet WP:GNG --DannyS712 (talk) 22:44, 5 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete clearly fails WP:GNG Reddragon7 (talk) 04:22, 6 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) Tymon.r Do you have any questions? 13:48, 10 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Mallory Jansen[edit]

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

Does not meet the requirement for WP:NACTOR. No third party coverage of the actress. Tyw7 (🗣️ Talk) — If (reply) then (ping me) 04:21, 3 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Tyw7 (🗣️ Talk) — If (reply) then (ping me) 04:22, 3 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Tyw7 (🗣️ Talk) — If (reply) then (ping me) 04:22, 3 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Science fiction-related deletion discussions. Tyw7 (🗣️ Talk) — If (reply) then (ping me) 04:22, 3 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. Tyw7 (🗣️ Talk) — If (reply) then (ping me) 04:22, 3 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Billed in the main cast of a two-season American TV series automatically clinches a keep for me. Average actor article with good enough detail to pass GNG for me. Nate • (chatter) 08:19, 3 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. While she has had recurring roles in shows, I can't see them as "significant" re WP:ENT besides Galavant. Doctorhawkes (talk) 09:13, 3 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Mrschimpf, she was not a main cast on Agents of SHIELD, if that is what you meant. INIX: Never Tear Us Apart does not seem to be a significant role as well, the plot only name drops her once and is listed only by 10th in the cast order (plus it is a miniseries so it acts more like a TV movie). I see this as a blatant WP:TOOSOON for now. Will try to look for sources in case she may pass WP:GNG because the references in the article do not establish that at all. Also the Daily Mail and IMDB references needs to be removed both. For now leaning to delete.
- Comment I indeed meant her role in Galavant; generally in my long time here, we've never deleted one actor's article where they've had a lead role in a Western primetime series on a major broadcast network (excepting obvious bombs where they indeed never worked 'in this town' again); the recurring role on SHIELD more than adds additional N, along with their supporting role in Shooter. We have a lot of actors that have careers filled with supporting roles with a lead/recurring here and there, and it's not anyone's fault when writers aren't writing about them; we just have to dig deeper for more sources. Again, we don't need a deep personal drive into someone in a BLP, just enough to describe their most important roles and a basic bio of them. Nate • (chatter) 21:17, 3 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. If she has "no third party coverage", I'd like to know what you call this, this, or this (all from the first page of search results). Series regular on one show, significant recurring role in another clearly gets her over WP:NACTOR. Pretty straightforward. Frickeg (talk) 06:46, 4 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Frickeg, requirement one says "Has had significant roles in multiple notable films, television shows, stage performances, or other productions." But none of her roles could be considered major. --Tyw7 (🗣️ Talk) — If (reply) then (ping me) 14:05, 4 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
One is a series regular role on a show on a major US network, another a significant recurring role where she played the main villain of the season. I fail to see how these could not be considered "significant" under the terms of NACTOR. Even if they weren't, the coverage is still more than sufficient to get her over GNG. Frickeg (talk) 20:16, 4 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as has reliable sources coverage as shown in this discussion and so passes WP:GNG and some of her roles have been significant in the context of the notable multiple television series concerned, so WP:NACTOR is also passed, thanks Atlantic306 (talk) 18:12, 7 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Sufficient significant roles in major series. --Michig (talk) 08:36, 10 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) Tymon.r Do you have any questions? 13:49, 10 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Ed Foley Sr.[edit]

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

Non-notable college athlete. Fails WP:NCOLLATH and WP:GNG. – Muboshgu (talk) 01:44, 3 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. – Muboshgu (talk) 01:45, 3 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of American football-related deletion discussions. – Muboshgu (talk) 01:45, 3 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. He did receive coverage in The Boston Globe, but I've not yet found enough to satisfy WP:GNG. See, e.g., here and here. Cbl62 (talk) 02:03, 3 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Cbl62, I have a newspapers.com account and looked there. I was unimpressed. It's WP:ROUTINE coverage. – Muboshgu (talk) 02:06, 3 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Whether or not the coverage is routine, it is not sufficient to pass the GNG bar. A google search did turn up this, but it's from the BC student newspaper, so it is not regarded as "independent". Waiting to see what others may find. Cbl62 (talk) 05:57, 3 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Massachusetts-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 02:14, 3 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

keep those two feature articles look anything but routine to me...--Paul McDonald (talk) 16:52, 3 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Paulmcdonald, I think we have very different definitions of "routine" and "significant coverage". Two short, game-action based articles from the same publication don't clear GNG. – Muboshgu (talk) 19:06, 3 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
- I use the definition in WP:GNG which states "If a topic has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject, it is presumed to be suitable for a stand-alone article or list." WP:ROUTINE does not apply because it is about "events" and not "people"-- what did you have in mind?--Paul McDonald (talk) 01:04, 4 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep received significant coverage in McKee, Don (April 16, 1989). "King of Diamonds, Fields and Courts". The Philadelphia Inquirer. in addition to coverage during his playing career - Hirolovesswords (talk) 19:03, 3 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Hirolovesswords, it's very hard to assess what you've added if it's all offline. – Muboshgu (talk) 19:07, 3 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Here are links to the article cited above by Hirolovesswords: part 1/part 2.

delete Doesn't meet the notability standards for any sport and coverage is typical sports reporting for his career. As for the Philadelphia Inquirer article it's a local coverage story (Cherry Hill is a Philly suburb) that focuses on the family's three boys who were all good athletes. Can't inherit notability from his kids. The coverage is typical of local coverage that you'd expect for a division I quarterback and game reporting.Sandals1 (talk) 23:11, 5 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I'm persuaded that there is sufficient depth of coverage in the Boston Globe and Philadelphia Inquirer article (major metropolitan newspapers) to surpass the GNG bar. Cbl62 (talk) 02:05, 6 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per WP:SIGCOV that continued long after his playing years: Boston Herald 24 Nov 1993, by Jonas Kalish, Ed Foley's son shines, " Foley finished his college career with 1,916 passing yards - 15th on BC's all-time list - and nine touchdown passes. He was the Eagles' No.1 quarterback for most of 1964 and 1965 while BC went a combined 11-7. The Foleys attend nearly all of BC's games, and have watched their son..." [[New York Daily News, 13 December 1998, by Mike Lupica, FOR FOLEYS, GIFT OF LIFE / WITH NEW KIDNEY, MOM'S HOME FOR THE HOLIDAYS, "They had been a couple of years apart at Woburn High School and so they really met at a place called the Eagle's Nest at Boston College on a February afternoon in 1966. Ed Foley was a senior, the star quarterback of coach Jim Miller's football team..." a detailed profile of Foley and his family. Much more in news archive searches. E.M.Gregory (talk) 18:01, 7 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Meets WP:GNG and WP:BASIC, per Cbl62, Hirolovesswords, and E.M.Gregory. Ejgreen77 (talk) 03:18, 8 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Sandstein 09:49, 10 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Joey Daser[edit]

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

No significant independent coverage in reliable sources, has mostly acted in advertisements. Does not meet WP:GNG, WP:NBIO. _signed,Rosguill ^talk 01:05, 3 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Kbabej (talk) 01:09, 3 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Germany-related deletion discussions. Kbabej (talk) 01:10, 3 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. A few commercials does not meet WP:NACTOR category 1, 2, or 3. The coverage is also unreliable. --Kbabej (talk) 01:16, 3 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
[17] [18] film clips, no commercials — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2003:D8:8BDB:9500:652E:932D:EE9B:84AF (talk) 11:12, 3 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Do note that I wrote mostly, not exclusively. You've provided primary source evidence of Daser's work, but I don't see any secondary source coverage indicating that it's notable. _signed,Rosguill ^talk 20:24, 3 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Definitely fails the WP:GNG and WP:NACTOR. -- LACaliNYC ✉ 22:45, 3 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Sandstein 09:33, 10 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Josephine Wayne[edit]

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

Notability is not inherited. The subject has done nothing other than be married to someone who was notable. None of the sources focus on her as the subject. She is only mentioned in passing as the wife of an actor. Kbabej (talk) 00:58, 3 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Kbabej (talk) 00:59, 3 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. Kbabej (talk) 01:02, 3 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 02:15, 3 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete -- a NN wife of a notable actor. Peterkingiron (talk) 16:42, 3 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Searching Newspapers.com, I find that in 1996 received an honor from Cardinal Mahony for charity, but I don't find anything specific about that work. She was an officer of a local adoption service in the early 1950s as well, but is only mentioned in passing. There are a lot of additional hits, but it isn't clear that they are about her or show her to be encyclopedic beyond 1E. I might have missed something and I'd be open to evidence that she is encyclopedic. Smmurphy^(Talk) 01:30, 5 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. No valid rationale for deletion offered. Sandstein 09:33, 10 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Shahab-6[edit]

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

Shahab-6 was name coined by late 1990s media reports for theoretical Iranian IRBM/ICBM project [19] Extrapolaris (talk) 00:33, 24 February 2019 (UTC)Vahe Demirjian[reply]

Automated comment: This AfD cannot be processed correctly because of an issue with the header. Please make sure the header has only 1 article, and doesn't have any HTML encoded characters.—^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 00:36, 24 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2019 February 24. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 00:53, 24 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Iran-related deletion discussions. 01:09, 24 February 2019 (UTC) Eastmain (talk • contribs) 01:09, 24 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. 01:09, 24 February 2019 (UTC) Eastmain (talk • contribs) 01:09, 24 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. It may not exist, but the possibility that it exists is discussed by reliable sources. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 01:25, 24 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. It may or may not exist (as a paper project or otherwise) - but it is discussed in sources, easily meeting WP:GNG. We have hypothetical weapon system pages when they are notable (and in this case - it isn't clear this is hypothetical). Icewhiz (talk) 15:55, 24 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: The article seems unsound and based essentially on supposition 10+ year ago. The very weak cites are from 2000 and 2007 - if this was a real active long-range ballistic missile project there should be more recent solid cites. Taking the existing cites in turn:

[1]: If you do a search for Shahab on the google books version of this cite, no mention of Shahab-6 is shown, only Shahab-3.[20] So this cite seems unsound.

[2]: Again google books search shows no mention of Shahab-6, only Shahab-3.[21]

[3]: Looking at the content this was written in 2000, despite the webpage saying an update was made in 2016. The newest ref given is 2000. So this is in fact really an older cite than that [1] and [2].

Rwendland (talk) 17:44, 24 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Many more refs out there - e.g. this book from 2014 has an entry on Shahab-6, or this from 2009, and was in a congressional hearing in 2015. (not that new sources are required).Icewhiz (talk) 18:54, 24 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Also - in regards to 1 and 2 above, if you search Shahab-6 (and not just Shahab which swamps you with all the over Shahabs and gbooks only shows 5 pages) - Shahab-6 appears in both links above - a section in each.Icewhiz (talk) 18:58, 24 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry I missed the two Shahab-6 mentions in [1], but they are not definite about its current existence. #1 says in 2007 "intended to accomplish", and #2 says "may also be developing larger designs ... Shahab-6". On the new possible cites you mention [4] (2013) says "thought to be in development", [5] (2009) says "it is unknown whether ... Shahab-6 has been tested or constructed", and [6] full govinfo.gov version here does not in fact mention "Shahab-6" despite google's indexing and just mentions "Shahab" once. So I am still of the view that there is no WP:RS that asserts it definitely exists, so this is at a supposition/speculation/possible-plan level. Rwendland (talk) 12:36, 28 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Whether the project exists currently, or in fact - if it existed at all - has no bearing on its notability. e.g. see Aereon Dynairship or Project Habakkuk for notable projects that went no where. WP:NOTTEMPORARY - what matters is whether we have WP:SIGCOV. Icewhiz (talk) 12:55, 28 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Looking to policy, I do not believe the cites pass the "significant coverage" criteria of general notability policy WP:SIGCOV - essentially multiple sources that discuss the topic directly and in detail, not passing mentions or briefly, are required. All but one of the cites only give passing/brief mentions, and it is very doubtful that the one non-brief FAS website article (no peer-review) passes WP:RS criteria. Unfortunately there does not seem to be specific guidance on military equipment: WP:MILNG only deals with events, people and units, but a piece of military equipment does not have inherent notability. Rwendland (talk) 16:04, 28 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Jovanmilic97 (talk) 00:57, 3 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. There is more than enough book coverage for an article. It doesn't matter that this may turn out to be entirely speculation. The speculation itself has become notable. That books are still talking about it in the 201Xs shows it wasn't just a brief wild claim in the 1990s. SpinningSpark 00:44, 4 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete per clear consensus. Michig (talk) 08:40, 10 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Howard Edelstein[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

Clear failure of WP:CORP and thus is promotion. Six references: 1, 3, 4. These three are not independent sources, being, for example, interview sources of the CEO himself. Ref 2 I can't read, but is only being used to cite "Warburg Pincus made Edelstein CEO of NYFIX, a newly invested portfolio company." References 5 & 6 do not contain comment on the subject and so do not support Wikipedia-notability. Could the article have been redirect? "He is currently the CEO of BioCatch, a start-up technology company." BioCatch is not notable, so no. At the AfD, but the nominator and one !voter provided solid textbook reasons for deletion.

In the previous AfD there was a unanimous consensus to delete. A subsequent anonymous request for REFUND should not have been entertained, both the editor and rationale for undeletion needs to be in record. Do they have better sources??? --SmokeyJoe (talk) 00:41, 3 March 2019 (UTC) SmokeyJoe (talk) 00:41, 3 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 00:52, 3 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 00:52, 3 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Finance-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 00:52, 3 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 00:52, 3 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. He is towards the end of his career now and there are still no material indpendent secondary significant RS in which Edelstein is the subject. There are refernces in "trade magazines", but these are primary sources where his companies would have paid for a BIO written by him - E.g. Global Custodian. For a Wall St. figure to get nothing more than name checks in the main US RS financial papers (e.g. WSJ), is a sign of non-notability. Almost none of the companies that he was associated with are notable, and he was not even a full partner of Warburg-Pincus or of Advent (a lesser PE firm than WP). He is trying to use WP as an important plank is building his notaility; however it should be the other way around. Britishfinance (talk) 01:35, 3 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment An editor had restored some unsourced and/or WP:PROMO content from primary sources about the subject (e.g. "he successfully expanded the firm’s retail bond trading business into the institutional market"); there are also many refs that do not mention the subject but are used to support claims about him; will try to remove from time to time to restore the de-PROMO'ed version we had [22] for the Deletion Review conducted after the WP:REFUND post the 1st AfD on 14 February 2019. Britishfinance (talk) 01:44, 3 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. All sources corporate blurb. Xxanthippe (talk) 01:40, 3 March 2019 (UTC).[reply]
Keep. (Article author). The article was reduced to nothing by overly aggressive and erroneous "trimming." I have restored RS citations and associated content that was removed from the article at the time of the first AfD. Sources and text can be discussed on the article talk page. Please refrain from speculation or disparagement of the the subject of a BLP, even one that is AfD. SPECIFICO talk 01:43, 3 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
- @SmokeyJoe: The Notability test for an individual is not WP:CORP. It is WP:BASIC. SPECIFICO talk 01:51, 3 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, grossly inadequate sourcing. Also, don't write BLPs in a way indistinguishable from paid-for vanity pages if you don't want them to be accused of paying you to write paid-for vanity pages on Wikipedia. —Cryptic 02:12, 3 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - it does not seem this subject has made an encyclopedic level of impact on their field enough to meet WP:ANYBIO or WP:GNG notability guidelines. It seems to violate WP:NOTPROMO/WP:NOTRESUME and has the hallmarks of having a WP:COI origin. From the first time I encountered this page, it struck me as more of an online "resume" (especially if you read early versions soon after creation) with a gratuitous Quotes section, Biography section that incorporates intimate levels of detail and informal/emotional language, and sources which are mix of corporate PR, paid profiles, or sourced to obscure, niche, or offline publications which few un-connected article writers would have access to. -- Netoholic @ 04:22, 3 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Agree with everyone else above. Does not pass WP:GNG. SportingFlyer T·C 07:02, 3 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete A fair bit of odd sourcing that read like fake footnotes ("Legends" what is this, a book, a TV show, a game of charades?). Some blatant press handouts and promotialism.Slatersteven (talk) 18:30, 3 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Led to a WP:RSN discussion concerning SPS sources, and apparent beliefs that corporate press releases regarding the notability of a corporate head are valid for claims praising the person beyond bare biographical details. Collect (talk) 12:15, 6 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - run of the mill business person. Bearian (talk) 20:39, 9 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. No valid rationale for deletion offered. Sandstein 09:32, 10 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Shahab-5[edit]

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

Shahab-5 coined by late 1990s media reports for a hypothetical Iranian IRBM/ICBM project due to reports of North Korean rocket tech being transferred to Iran (https://www.nti.org/media/pdfs/design_characteristics_iran_missiles_3.pdf?_=1360355163?_=1360355163) Extrapolaris (talk) 20:07, 24 February 2019 (UTC)Vahe Demirjian[reply]

Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2019 February 24. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 20:32, 24 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. Icewhiz (talk) 21:14, 24 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Iran-related deletion discussions. Icewhiz (talk) 21:14, 24 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Paper projects may be notable too, and it is not clear this is just paper. Meets GNG - [23], [24], [25] Icewhiz (talk) 21:19, 24 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ~SS49~ {talk} 00:38, 3 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. The article cites two sources, both of which seem reliable and have reasonable coverage. I can see dozens of book sources that cover this missile, all by different authors, and some as recent as 2013. I won't bother to list them, Icewhiz has already linked a few, and you only have to click on the gbooks link to find the rest. I'm not seeing what policy-based reason for deletion is being put forward here – "coined by late 1990s media reports" isn't a valid rationale. SpinningSpark 00:32, 4 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Sandstein 09:32, 10 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Sonia Mackwani[edit]

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

Has not received substantial coverage in reliable sources to meet WP:BIO. SmartSE (talk) 18:42, 24 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 22:43, 24 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 22:43, 24 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 22:44, 24 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 22:44, 24 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Insufficient coverage for a person. Fails WP:BIO. --Hiwilms (talk) 18:23, 25 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I found few things that make her notable: National People's Awards Karmaveer Puraskaar, Author of 3 notable books, founder of a non-profit organization that helps poor children. What else you need to justify her notability why you want to delete this page? SamSamK (talk) 08:49, 26 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think Karmaveer Puraskaar qualifies as a "well-known and significant award" per WP:ANYBIO. I don't see evidence that any of the 3 books she's written are notable. And I'm aware of no Wikipedia policy that says that founding a non-profit confers notability. What we need above all else to establish notability is significant coverage in reliable, independent sources. Colin M (talk) 16:34, 4 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ~SS49~ {talk} 00:37, 3 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as failing WP:SIGCOV. Some sources cited in the article looked potentially reliable, but only mentioned the subject in passing as the author of a film's script. I couldn't find any better sources. Possibly a case of WP:TOOSOON. Colin M (talk) 16:40, 4 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Weak delete None of the sources included in the article are independent, reliable and significant coverage (some are one or the other, but not all at once), and I could not find other sources (eg reviews of her books, articles about her rather than interviews). Possibly WP:TOOSOON. RebeccaGreen (talk) 03:47, 10 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. ansh 666 08:40, 9 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Paul Niel[edit]

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

Less than three passing mentions. No WP:SIGCOV doesn't satisfy notability guidelines WP:CREATIVE Lapablo (talk) 18:18, 24 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 22:50, 24 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Austria-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 22:50, 24 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Hong Kong-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 22:51, 24 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - The subject is a well known public figure in Hong Kong and has significant coverage from reliable sources including South China Morning Post, Hong Kong's leading newspaper, which meets WP:SIGCOV. Meohpol (talk) 20:29, 1 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, Passes WP:GNG, It appears to be notable as i found more than 5 in-depth aritcles, not just mentions. [26], [27],[28],[29],[30],[31] Legion X (talk) 21:22, 1 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ~SS49~ {talk} 00:37, 3 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Has enough coverage and meets WP:GNG. MA Javadi (talk) 18:29, 6 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Sandstein 09:30, 10 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Aida Mahiani[edit]

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

One single film role and no coverage, fails WP:NACTOR. Praxidicae (talk) 15:29, 24 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Icewhiz (talk) 15:57, 24 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Iran-related deletion discussions. Icewhiz (talk) 15:57, 24 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 12:39, 26 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ~SS49~ {talk} 00:35, 3 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete does not pass WP:NACTOR or WP:GNG, only has one known role in an unreleased film, thanks Atlantic306 (talk) 21:05, 6 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. czar 03:33, 10 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Thrive Cafe[edit]

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

possibly non-notable restaurant valereee (talk) 14:59, 24 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Food and drink-related deletion discussions. Sheldybett (talk) 15:05, 24 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Sheldybett (talk) 15:05, 24 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Washington-related deletion discussions. Sheldybett (talk) 15:05, 24 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete No indication of notability, generic local restaurant with routine local news and blog links about vegetarian eating more broadly. Reywas92^Talk 21:49, 24 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ~SS49~ {talk} 00:34, 3 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per comments above by Reywas92. Mccapra (talk) 17:29, 3 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Sandstein 09:29, 10 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

IJIS Institute[edit]

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

Online and offline source searches show that the sources available which give significant coverage are all affiliated and those which are independent give only passing mentions which do not meet the requisite depth of coverage for organisations. SITH (talk) 12:50, 24 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 13:02, 24 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Virginia-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 13:02, 24 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Crime-related deletion discussions. Icewhiz (talk) 13:43, 24 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ~SS49~ {talk} 00:33, 3 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete My search found no significant independent coverage of this institute. The article's only reference is to the institute's own web page. Papaursa (talk) 00:55, 9 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Sandstein 09:29, 10 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Doug McGuff[edit]

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

Non-notable. Has (partly) written one book. Is a weightlifter (but no evidence of notability as such) and a doctor (but no evidence of what type of doctor, qualification, etc). Article was prodded soon after creation; prod removed with comment "Added references", but in fact this is just a link to his book. Emeraude (talk) 12:26, 24 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 13:07, 24 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. Icewhiz (talk) 13:40, 24 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bodybuilding-related deletion discussions. Icewhiz (talk) 13:40, 24 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ~SS49~ {talk} 00:32, 3 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I haven’t been able to find any reliable independent sources. Mccapra (talk) 17:35, 3 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was soft delete. WP:REFUND applies. Xymmax ^{So let it be written} _{So let it be done} 07:22, 10 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Energy Institute (UT-Austin)[edit]

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

no third party evidence of separate notability -- our general policy is to include this within the university article DGG ( talk ) 08:00, 17 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 08:50, 17 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Texas-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 08:50, 17 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - this is one of three or four possibly notable energy law academic centers in the United States. I'd like to see more input. Bearian (talk) 01:25, 22 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ~SS49~ {talk} 06:10, 24 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ~SS49~ {talk} 00:30, 3 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. czar 03:29, 10 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Women's Extreme Wrestling[edit]

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

Appears to fail WP: CORP (WP:ORGIN). Could not find coverage in reliable sources. StaticVapor message me! 05:37, 24 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Wrestling-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 07:03, 24 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Pennsylvania-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 07:04, 24 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 07:17, 24 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 07:18, 24 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 07:18, 24 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Fails WP:GNG, I can't even find a passing mention on a RS - Galatz גאליץ ^{שיחה Talk} 18:40, 25 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ~SS49~ {talk} 00:29, 3 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete won't pass GNG now or in the future, small little promotion that never got anywhere. Pinguinn 🐧 05:44, 3 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. Sandstein 09:27, 10 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Shahabuddin Nagari[edit]

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

Doesn't meets the criteria of Creative professionals. Such a large article without notable sources seems a point of interest. ~Moheen ^{(keep talking)} 00:22, 17 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bangladesh-related deletion discussions. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 01:13, 17 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 01:13, 17 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. The article already includes a link to a review of his book Midnight Locomotive and other Poems. It might be helpful to check for Bengali-language references. I don't know how significant the awards are, but if either award is notable, it would be good if someone could create an article for the award. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 01:28, 17 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Poetry-related deletion discussions. Icewhiz (talk) 13:04, 17 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ―Abelmoschus Esculentus (talk • contribs) 04:18, 24 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ~SS49~ {talk} 00:28, 3 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I haven't searched Bengali-language sources, but there's an entry for him in: Monu Islam, ed. (2001). Who's Who in Bangladesh 2000. Centre for Bangladesh Culture. p. 163. Unlike the Marquis Who's Who, there's no indication that this one accepted self-nominations or subject-submitted data. Its preface says, "We have taken the help of some biographical volumes published previously in Bangla and English for the compilation of this book." It covers only a few hundred people, so indicates that at the time he was considered a noteworthy writer. According to The Independent Yearbook, Bangladesh he received an Atish Dipankar Gold Medal in 1997. We don't have an article about the award, but it's probably notable. Every year newspapers report on who is receiving it. In addition to the review mentioned by Eastmain,[32] there's a brief English review of his The Black Cat and Other Poems.[33] In 2017, he was in the news as a murder suspect.[34][35][36] --Worldbruce (talk) 21:18, 3 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. czar 03:27, 10 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

M8l8th[edit]

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

Two references to the "Encyclopedia Metallum", neither of which actually says anything at all about this band, and a third reference mentioning how the lead singer got arrested for multiple assaults do not look like they combine for a notability argument. Doesn't pass WP:BAND, no evidence of having been signed by a major music label, no charted songs, no entry on the Russian Wikipedia. A loose necktie (talk) 03:56, 24 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. ―Abelmoschus Esculentus (talk • contribs) 04:19, 24 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. ―Abelmoschus Esculentus (talk • contribs) 04:19, 24 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Russia-related deletion discussions. ―Abelmoschus Esculentus (talk • contribs) 04:19, 24 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Their professed genre, National Socialist (Neo-Nazi) Black Metal, gets a fair amount of news coverage for the obvious reasons, with the bigger bands discussed prominently. The fact that this band has not been noticed in coverage of their very "notable" genre says something about their own notability. I can find nothing about this band beyond self-promotional listings and social media. When searching, note that the third character in their name is a lower-case L, not the number 1. ---DOOMSDAYER520 (Talk|Contribs) 14:56, 26 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ~SS49~ {talk} 00:27, 3 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as per both comments above. Hughesdarren (talk) 05:13, 4 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Agreed it doesn't pass WP:BAND. Actaudio (talk) 23:34, 5 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Xymmax ^{So let it be written} _{So let it be done} 07:18, 10 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Herose[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

Appears to fail WP:CORPDEPTH. Most of the sources are not about the company, but the type of product the company offers, and not their brand exclusively. SITH (talk) 09:23, 17 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Icewhiz (talk) 13:02, 17 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. Icewhiz (talk) 13:02, 17 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Singapore-related deletion discussions. Icewhiz (talk) 13:02, 17 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 03:16, 24 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ~SS49~ {talk} 00:27, 3 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: fails WP:NCORP / WP:CORPDEPTH. --K.e.coffman (talk) 03:37, 10 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was soft delete. WP:REFUND applies. Sandstein 09:21, 10 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Jerry Williams (singer-songwriter)[edit]

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

I do not believe this individual meets WP:NBIO as I can find no substantial coverage of her in reliable independent sources. The article is unsourced. An article Jerry Williams (British singer) has already been PRODed and deleted as non-notable. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 13:58, 17 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Icewhiz (talk) 16:27, 17 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. Icewhiz (talk) 16:27, 17 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

There's some coverage (Music Week, The Sunday Times and local coverage), sources such as these are possibly just enough but would be better to wait until notability is more clearly established. The article lacks reliable sources so would need improvement - is it suitable to be moved to draft namespace? Peter James (talk) 18:16, 17 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: This is something I've been wondering about recently - does a musician pass WP:MUSICBIO if there are reliable sources promoting them as the "next big thing", but their career subsequently goes nowhere and there are no sources after that? In this case, it might just be WP:TOOSOON and perhaps it's better to draftify this until Ms. Williams' debut album comes out and we can see if it makes an impact, but I've found examples that fit my description. Richard3120 (talk) 18:58, 17 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 03:06, 24 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ~SS49~ {talk} 00:27, 3 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. czar 03:27, 10 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Muse Art Gallery[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

Fails WP:GNG and WP:NCORP. No WP:RS Of the refs that aren't deadlinks, none rise above a press release. Also, WP:COI. See also Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Kaali Sudheer (2nd nomination) Theredproject (talk) 16:57, 17 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Museums and libraries-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 17:51, 17 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Arts-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 17:51, 17 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 17:51, 17 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Also, with all due regrets, Hyderabad is not an internatiomal-level art scene. Bearian (talk) 01:20, 22 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 03:05, 24 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

KEEP This article doesn't really I have reliable sources though it does passes some WP:GNG I mean to say in some territories this library isn't International but is it only International libraries have the place on Wikipedia? then we need to submit half of the libraries to WP:AFD MrZINE | talk 21:33, 2 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Confirmed sockpuppet account. – The Grid (talk) 21:27, 5 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Does not satisfy the notability guidelines. The refernces are all dead links, press release, or unmistakable advertising. Breaking sticks (talk) 23:31, 2 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ~SS49~ {talk} 00:26, 3 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletion discussions. –MJL ‐Talk‐^☖ 00:38, 3 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. –MJL ‐Talk‐^☖ 00:38, 3 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete could not find adequate RS to establish notability.ThatMontrealIP (talk) 08:19, 6 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete References fail the criteria for establishing notability, topic fails GNG and WP:NCORP. HighKing⁺⁺ 15:28, 6 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Xymmax ^{So let it be written} _{So let it be done} 07:04, 10 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The Mark & Brian Show[edit]

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

Article about a radio program, not properly referenced as notable. WP:NMEDIA does not confer an automatic notability freebie on radio programs just because they're stated as having been syndicated to more than just one station -- the notability test for radio programs is the reception of reliable source media coverage in sources independent of the show's own self-published web presence. But the only references here are self-published ones -- one host's résumé and the other host's new podcast -- and the article has been tagged for referencing problems since 2009 without improvement. Bearcat (talk) 20:29, 17 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Radio-related deletion discussions. Bakazaka (talk) 22:49, 17 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. Bakazaka (talk) 22:49, 17 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Alabama-related deletion discussions. Bakazaka (talk) 22:49, 17 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. Bakazaka (talk) 22:49, 17 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep and fix - I haven't paid much attention to this article since creating it as a virtual stub ten years ago. This nationally-syndicated show received a NAB Marconi Award so the subject matter is notable, but I agree that the references need some work. Adding this to my to-do list ... Engineer Bob (talk) 16:49, 19 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 00:58, 24 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I've finished some initial cleanup work which hopefully addresses both notability and lack of references. Engineer Bob (talk) 01:54, 28 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ~SS49~ {talk} 00:17, 3 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep—seems OK, esp. with Bob's improvements. Gaelan 💬✏️ 00:45, 4 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was soft delete. WP:REFUND applies. Xymmax ^{So let it be written} _{So let it be done} 07:01, 10 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

London Recruits (film)[edit]

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

WP:TOOSOON article about a film which appears to have stalled in the production pipeline. This was first created in 2015 when the film's initial planning was announced, but as of today there's still no evidence that it's ever actually been released at all -- even its IMDb page lists it as "Status: Filming" as of October 2017, with no updates since. And while there's one footnote that represents genuine reliable source coverage about the film, all of the other footnotes here are either primary sources or coverage about individual people who were associated with the group that the film is about, without saying anything at all about the film as a film. As always, we do not keep an article about every film that can be single-sourced as entering the production pipeline -- with rare exceptions for really high-profile projects that get a lot more coverage than the norm (e.g. the Star Wars franchise), we do not maintain articles about films until those films are actually released. So no prejudice against recreation in the future if and when this film actually comes out, but as long as it remains unreleased there's not nearly enough sourcing about the film present here to deem it a special case. Bearcat (talk) 21:16, 17 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. Bakazaka (talk) 22:51, 17 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 02:19, 18 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 00:58, 24 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ~SS49~ {talk} 00:17, 3 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was soft delete. WP:REFUND applies. Xymmax ^{So let it be written} _{So let it be done} 07:00, 10 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The Unknown Tour[edit]

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

WP:TOOSOON article about an as yet unreleased documentary film. As always, we do not create an article about every film that can technically be sourced as having entered the production pipeline -- with some rare exceptions for highly visible films that generate a lot more coverage than the norm (i.e. films on the meganotable order of the Star Wars franchise), we do not start or maintain an article about a film until we can source an exact confirmed release date. But there's no indication that this has been released at all, the sources present here are blogs rather than reliable sources, and the page creator has a username that's strongly suggestive of conflict of interest editing when you compare it to the names listed in the "produced by" field in the infobox. So no prejudice against recreation in the future if this ever actually gets released and gets real critical reviews, but nothing stated or sourced here constitutes a credible reason why it would already qualify for an article today. Bearcat (talk) 21:32, 17 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. Bakazaka (talk) 22:52, 17 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 02:10, 18 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 00:58, 24 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ~SS49~ {talk} 00:16, 3 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. Sandstein 09:20, 10 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Billion Dollar Bully[edit]

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

WP:TOOSOON article about a still-unreleased film. As always, films are not automatically deemed notable under WP:NFILM just because one or two sources attest that their production is underway -- with rare exceptions for meganotable films on the order of the Star Wars franchise that get a lot of coverage throughout the process, the notability test for most films is that they have been released and started to garner attention from film critics. This still hasn't passed that test, however: even its own self-published website still says that it is "currently being viewed by various film industry professionals to determine the best path for distribution", with no firm release date confirmed at all. But most of the references here are about the lawsuit that the film is profiling, not about the film as a film -- and while there are also a few sources about the film as a film, there aren't enough of those to earn it the Star Wars treatment. No prejudice against recreation in the future if and when the film actually premieres and gets critical attention, but there's no evidence that this film has received enough coverage yet to already be deemed a special case over and above most other unreleased films. Bearcat (talk) 21:42, 17 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. Bakazaka (talk) 22:54, 17 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 01:54, 18 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 00:58, 24 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ~SS49~ {talk} 00:16, 3 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as per nomination.TH1980 (talk) 05:25, 3 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete because it cannot truly be assessed to anything until the film is released.White Siddiqah (talk) 13:54, 3 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. The following looks like significant coverage in multiple reliable, independent sources (?) to me:

Bond, Paul (August 12, 2015). "Yelp Accused of Mob-Like Behavior in Upcoming Documentary". The Hollywood Reporter. Retrieved March 10, 2019.
Chamlee, Virginia (July 21, 2016). "An Exclusive Look at 'Billion Dollar Bully', a Film About Yelp". Eater. Retrieved March 10, 2019.
Henne, B. G. (August 13, 2015). "Yelp gets a zero-star review in new documentary". A.V. Club. Retrieved March 10, 2019.
Lazzaro, Sage (March 26, 2015). "Yelp 'Extremely Concerned' About What Investigative Documentary Will Reveal". Observer. Retrieved March 10, 2019.
Shah, Khushbu (March 19, 2015). "Yelp Under Fire in Upcoming Documentary 'Billion Dollar Bully'". Eater. Retrieved March 10, 2019.
Wilson, Tiffany (March 21, 2015). "Yelp accused of unethical business practices in documentary". ABC7 San Francisco. Retrieved March 10, 2019.
Zara, Christopher (March 11, 2015). "Yelp The Movie: San Francisco Filmmaker Takes On 'Billion Dollar Bully'". International Business Times. Retrieved March 10, 2019.

Didn't count the refs from the article too. Agreed that most of the refs in the current version's last section are irrelevant to this topic's notability (and can likely be removed). This film has generated TV appearances and responses even prior to its release, which would be the noteworthy element in this case. (not watching, please ((ping))) czar 03:24, 10 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep as meeting the GNG, although I admit I'd be happier if those 2015 stories were more recent. Still documentaries often are slow in the making, especially if the story has not fully played out. I speculate here that they may be waiting to see how the lawsuit plays out. None of this, of course, has any bearing on whether the guideline is met. Xymmax ^{So let it be written} _{So let it be done} 06:59, 10 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. While there is coverage, it's either announcements that the film is going to be made, or one dated just before the crowdfunding campaign started. If it never got finished/released, would it be considered worthy of an encyclopedia article solely because of this coverage? I doubt it. Maybe a brief summary in the Yelp article (it's already mentioned there) would suffice until there's more of a basis for an article. --Michig (talk) 07:55, 10 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was merge to Miranda July#Other film work. Sandstein 09:20, 10 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Untitled Miranda July project[edit]

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

WP:TOOSOON article about an unreleased film. As always, Wikipedia does not keep an article about every film that can be minimally sourced as having entered the production pipeline -- with extremely rare exceptions for hypernotable films on the order of the Star Wars franchise, most films are not notable until they have been released, and thereby received reviews from reputable film critics, and a small bit of initial casting announcement coverage is not enough to make it a special case yet. Just because the director has a WP:BLP does not automatically mean we need to rush-job a premature article the moment she announces that she's working on something new — if you don't even know a title or anything about the plot yet, let alone an actual release date, then you need to wait until you do know those things before a standalone article becomes warranted. Bearcat (talk) 23:01, 17 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - the film passes notability guidelines. Let's be honest the only reason this is being discussed is that it doesn't have a proper title, but that is not a reason to delete the article. As it passes NFF, it should remain - we'll get a title soon enough, and the page can be moved accordingly. Somethingwickedly (talk) 01:02, 18 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

NFF is not automatically passed by every not yet released film that can show one or more sources — virtually every film that enters the production pipeline at all can always show a couple of casting announcements and a "shooting has commenced" piece in the film industry trade papers like Variety or Deadline or The Hollywood Reporter or Playback. For a film that hasn't been released yet to become notable enough for inclusion while it's still in the production pipeline, it has to generate a lot more coverage than most films get — something close to the Star Wars/Marvel/James Bond level of coverage. The ability to show just any sourcing at all is not automatically always enough, because very few films could ever actually not show two or three or four sources during the production process. Bearcat (talk) 19:00, 19 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 01:43, 18 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 01:43, 18 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 00:53, 24 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ~SS49~ {talk} 00:14, 3 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Merge by default to Miranda July#Other film work. Expand summary style proportionate to the source material. czar 03:06, 10 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Merge per Czar above. I intended to !keep, but on review of the sourcing I don't see that there is actual confirmation from a reliable source that principal photography has begun. The source in the article actually states that production is set to begin in May 2018, which was still in the future when the source was written. This is explicitly addressed, and ruled out, in WP:NFF. A very quick search failed to reveal proper confirmation, although perhaps someone w/ access to industry sources could do better. Still, it the absence of any suggestion the project has stalled, the merger is an appropriate resolution. Xymmax ^{So let it be written} _{So let it be done} 06:41, 10 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was merge to Ken Sakamura. (non-admin closure) Jovanmilic97 (talk) 00:23, 10 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Ubiquitous Communicator[edit]

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

Tagged for notability since October 2009. The only mentions of the device are either passing or mere function descriptions. Source searches (1, 2 turn up little in the way of major reviews or other significant coverage, leading me to conclude this probably fails WP:NPRODUCT. Opting for AfD over PROD to allow those better versed in Japanese to analyse the quality of the coverage in the Japanese sources, however those that I did find via machine translation did not look promising. SITH (talk) 11:57, 16 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. ~Ruyaba~ {talk} 13:24, 16 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. ~Ruyaba~ {talk} 13:24, 16 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep/Merge with Ken Sakamura: Although there is the corresponding Japanese article, it too cites no sources. I'm guessing this is essentially of historical interest. Ken Sakamura is one of the most prominent computer scientists in Japan and so the device does deserve some mentioning in Wikipedia. But perhaps not as a standalone article. (I don't think the deletion is needed here). -- Taku (talk) 00:35, 18 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ad Orientem (talk) 00:21, 24 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ~SS49~ {talk} 00:13, 3 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Merge/Delete as above—it gets some passing mentions, but not enough for GNG. Maybe someday a historian will write about its role in developing the smartphone, but for now there isn't enough. Maybe we should drop a message at jpwiki's embassy and see if they can find anything? Gaelan 💬✏️ 00:30, 4 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. (non-admin closure) Tymon.r Do you have any questions? 20:15, 10 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The Hype Bros[edit]

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

I don't see any notability here. Some far more notable tag teams like the Awesome Truth, Miz and Mizdow, CM Punk and Kofi Kingston, R-truth and Kofi Kingston, Heath Slater and Rhyno, Sasha Banks and Bailey etc, doesn't exist. THE NEW ImmortalWizard(chat) 18:48, 16 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Wrestling-related deletion discussions. Bakazaka (talk) 18:51, 16 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

keep - simply because another article doesn't exist isn't a deletion criteria. Seems notable enough to me. Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 20:01, 16 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

There seems to be no specific notability guidelines in WP:PW. However, these guys did not even win any tag titles or did anything memorable. THE NEW ImmortalWizard(chat) 21:34, 16 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by nominator The lead does not explain why they are notable. Let's ne honest, they have not done anything significant relative to other tag team pages. Just because the team existed doesn't mean it should be kept. It's just too small of a team which should have it's own separate page. All of the stuff is mentioned in the respective wrestlers' talk pages and this page adds nothing different or unique. Not even merging is required because there are no addition content as I've said. THE NEW ImmortalWizard/(chat) 22:02, 16 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The quality of the article is not what a deletion discussion is for. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 09:26, 21 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I am not saying it should be deleted because of bad quality. This page has nothing special and the History section is the same as parts of the careers of Zack Ryder and Mojo Rawley. Like other tag teams, they don't have any major accomplishments or gimmicks, and I don't believe they have notable receptions and significant coverage as a unit. THE NEW ImmortalWizard(chat) 13:23, 21 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ad Orientem (talk) 00:15, 24 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

keep - This seems good enough to me, especially since they won a tag team battle royale, and Mojo won the Andre the Giant Memorial Battle Royale at Wrestlemania 33. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.174.148.156 (talk • contribs)
Delete Other stuff doesn’t exist isn’t deletion criteria, but I still don’t see general notability met here. Trillfendi (talk) 21:58, 24 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ~SS49~ {talk} 00:12, 3 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 20:49, 3 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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