Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2018 December 26

Recent AfDs: Today Yesterday

Media Organisations Biography Society Web Games Science Arts Places Indiscern. Not-Sorted

< 25 December	27 December >

Guide to deletion

Purge server cache

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

The result was delete. Sandstein 08:55, 3 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Security Token Offerings[edit]

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

It's a promotional/hype term that's not really used in mainstream sources. "It is expected that security tokens and security token offering will become the next trend in cryptography." WP:TOOSOON and I highly suspect whoever created the article is associated with one of the companies I removed in this edit. Џ 00:07, 27 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Finance-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 08:36, 27 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as WP:NOTPROMOTION and WP:TOOSOON. Coolabahapple (talk) 08:37, 27 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: does not meet notability guidelines; significant RS coverage not found. K.e.coffman (talk) 01:14, 28 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete not enough evidence of significant coverage found to demonstrate notability --DannyS712 (talk) 03:54, 29 December 2018 (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 08:55, 3 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Abjection in Modernity[edit]

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

The article is an essay which applies the psychoanalytical concept of abjection to a series of topics. While interesting, the entire article is synthesized, pairing together a rather arbitrary list of pop culture media (cited to sources that do not mention abjection or otherwise attempt to psychoanalyze the subject) and citations to critical theory textbooks that introduce concepts and (with the sole exception of the Texas Chainsaw Massacre section) do not mention the pop culture elements discussed in this article. The TCM content could potentially be merged into abjection, but I don't see any way to make the rest of the content encyclopedic. Wikipedia is not a place to publish original analysis or research, and ultimately that is what the content of this article is. _signed,Rosguill ^talk 02:24, 20 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Philosophy-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 02:21, 21 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Nosebagbear (talk) 22:50, 26 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as policy is that Wikipedia is not a publisher of original thought. Bakazaka (talk) 23:43, 26 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete based on the policy of WP:ORIGINAL being violated. The essay itself is interesting and worth a thought, but it doesn't belong here on Wikipedia. Rosalina2427 ^{(talk to me)} 21:27, 2 January 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 08:56, 3 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

List of HD DVD releases[edit]

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

WP:INDISCRIMINATE. --wooden superman 13:22, 19 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note that this should probably be speedy deleted under WP:CSD#G4 per Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of HD DVD releases. --wooden superman 16:46, 19 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Indiscriminate, no WP:LISTN. FOARP (talk) 15:45, 19 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, useful and interesting, I can't see how it fits Indiscriminate, and it does no harm (if some readers find it useful, why remove it? When a still good ship is put out to pasture just let it sail. Randy Kryn (talk) 16:15, 19 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Really Randy? Surely you know better than to use WP:USEFUL, WP:INTERESTING and WP:NOHARM as !votes to keep? That's a hat trick of arguments to avoid right there!!! --wooden superman 16:43, 19 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Those, as well as "it doesn't fit indiscriminate" (and thank you for your link to an essay). Randy Kryn (talk) 16:52, 19 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. Bakazaka (talk) 20:48, 19 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. Bakazaka (talk) 20:48, 19 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:NOTCATALOGUE. Ajf773 (talk) 21:24, 19 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete This list has no real basic structure and seems pretty pointless. Govvy (talk) 23:22, 19 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as listcruft that definitely goes against WP:INDISCRIMINATE and WP:NOTCATALOGUE. SNUGGUMS (talk / edits) 02:53, 20 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The page is useful, and not unlike countless other pages on Wikipedia that compile lists of things in a central location. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mercennarius (talk • contribs) 17:44, 20 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

WP:USEFUL isn't a great argument to support retaining an article. Ajf773 (talk) 19:21, 20 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Another link to the same essay not vetted by the community. An article being useful and interesting to Wikipedia readers, while still maintaining an encyclopedic tone, seems like a fine point to make in defense of keeping a page. Randy Kryn (talk) 17:19, 21 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

WP:ONLYESSAY - we might be hitting meta here – The Grid (talk) 17:45, 21 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Policy comes before reader interest. Ajf773 (talk) 20:12, 21 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

So using a subsection of the unvetted essay to say using "only essay" shouldn't be used. A Catch-a-22. Randy Kryn (talk) 04:23, 22 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Randy Kryn: It's pointing out why essays are mentioned and why you should also state your opinion with the discussion. In other words, you shouldn't put the essay as the only reason. There's no catch 22. In fact, the argument provided from a previous AfD in 2007 gives caution that consensus can change. (and most likely explains why it wasn't speedy deleted when recreated in 2016) – The Grid (talk) 14:08, 26 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. – The Grid (talk) 16:56, 21 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete useful or not. this looks like a catalogue more than a valid list. Why can't this be a category?Blue Pumpkin Pie (talk) 22:52, 21 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

We can't have a cateogry as being released on any particular media format is non-defining. --wooden superman 09:19, 24 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep as a valid topic of historical interest, a category would not have the company and release dates. No valid reason for deletion except WP:IDONTLIKEIT Atlantic306 (talk) 21:51, 22 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

This is written like a catalogue. Very valid reason for deletion as it is what Wikipedia is not. Ajf773 (talk) 09:47, 23 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
This is not a valid reason to keep. It's indiscriminate listcruft. It's like having articles on List of 8-track cartridge releases, List of VHS releases, etc, etc. --wooden superman 09:40, 24 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 21:21, 26 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: WP:ILIKEIT and I really want to !vote keep but it's a clear-cut WP:INDISCRIMINATE case. Wikipedia isn't a compendium which lists every publication ever in a given format, you go to the British Library for that. SITH (talk) 23:02, 26 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete clear violation of WP:INDISCRIMINATE, not encyclopediac content --DannyS712 (talk) 03:57, 29 December 2018 (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. Sandstein 08:57, 3 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

List of Criterion Collection DVD and Blu-ray releases[edit]

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

WP:INDISCRIMINATE; WP:NOTCATALOG. See multiple other similar discussions: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of Magnetic Video releases; Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of Arrow Films releases; Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of Artisan Entertainment video releases; Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of Twilight Time releases; Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of Powerhouse Films releases; Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of BBC home video releases, etc, etc. --wooden superman 12:30, 19 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. Holsheimer (talk) 14:15, 19 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Indiscriminate, no WP:LISTN. FOARP (talk) 15:46, 19 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. Bakazaka (talk) 20:49, 19 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:NOTCATALOGUE. Ajf773 (talk) 21:23, 19 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I argue that this is not a non-notable list WP:LISTN. I can find numerous sources on why the criterion collection is a notable label and being part of the collection is a notable event. Also, this list was a featured list candidate.Holsheimer (talk) 11:05, 20 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not saying the collection itself isn't notable, or even that being part of the collection isn't a notable event for the individual film, but the list of releases is nothing more than a product catalogue. --wooden superman 11:43, 20 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Precisely, meeting WP:LISTN isn't about whether the items in the list are notable, it's about whether the list itself is notable. FOARP (talk) 20:22, 20 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

That's exactly what I'm saying. The list itself, the collection, is notable. The Main article has sources on this. There for the list is WP:LISTN Holsheimer (talk) 13:16, 21 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Though Criterion is a boutique video label, the collection carries a significant amount of prestige reminiscent of the National Film Registry. When a film recieves an official Criterion spine number, it joins an elite class of motion pictures respected by notable working filmmakers including Steven Spielberg, Martin Scorsese, Guillermo del Toro, Barry Jenkins, Paul Thomas Anderson, Edgar Wright, Christopher Nolan, and Kathleen Kennedy.[1] The list may need alterations to bring it in line with Wikipedia standards (ie we should remove availability information per WP:NOTCATALOGUE), but it absolutely deserves a page. ~LeiAdeline 22:44, 20 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. This seems a reasonable content fork from the main article. --Killer Moff (talk) 23:55, 20 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I find it difficult to justify saying this article is nothing more than a product catalogue, especially when it includes more than 100 titles that are out of print. Considering the influence The Criterion Collection has in the film industry, both in regards to entertainment and academics, this list is more tantamount to the bibliography or filmography page of a prominent author or filmmaker. Keep the article; work to make it more in line with Wikipedia guidelines. --2601:681:4400:2F50:80AA:2039:803E:B63F (talk) 00:17, 21 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

It's nothing like a bibliography or filmography page. In those cases, the author or filmmaker actually produced the material in question. Criterion is a licensee of material produced by other companies and individuals. Whilst a list of films produced by a studio is encyclopedic, a list of other people's films that a DVD company has released is not. This is a product catalogue. It's no different from something like List of Sony Music CD releases, or any of the multiple similar lists that have also been deleted. --wooden superman 12:55, 21 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

If you check the contributions and influence section on the main page, or would be familiar with the collection you could know that Criterion has created new restorations, recorded interviews and commentaries, commissioned essays for their releases, besides setting industry standards for releasing home cinema releases. They are not just a simple distributor. I would say it is more in line with something like this: List of works in the Museum of Modern Art Holsheimer (talk) 13:16, 21 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

All of which is worthy of a mention on the Criterion article, or on the article of each film in question. It does not make this list notable, or any less of a catalog. --wooden superman 14:06, 21 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep This is a very useful list for those interested. It may become more useful over time. It can be difficult to find such information, even when the source company maintains a comprehensive website. And the company or their website could disappear anytime. --TLS56 (talk) 01:13, 21 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia isn't here to maintain lists of what products a company has released. Also, see WP:USEFUL. --wooden superman 12:55, 21 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note to closing admin. Three of the "keep" !votes have 8 edits between them. This is the only edit for two of them, and they seem unaware of policies and guidelines. --wooden superman 09:43, 21 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep This is a reference, not a catalog. --Purple Dart (talk) 07:39 , 21 December 2018 (UTC)

Another "keep" !vote with less than 5 edits. Strange. --wooden superman 12:50, 21 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

It isn't "strange" at all. Rather it's an indication that people who want to actually use Wiki as opposed to faffing about protecting arcane rules want to keep the page. There are quite enough examples of useful info being lost due to officious hair splitting without adding some more. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.179.128.41 (talk) 16:07, 22 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

A user with just three edits I don't expect them to understand the difference between a reference and a catalogue. Ajf773 (talk) 20:17, 21 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep This is an important list and I wish the other lists weren't deleted, and if they were going to be deleted I wish for another wikia for studios and their releases, but this list must be kept TVWolf (talk) 15:01, 21 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Why not start one on wikia.com or something. That's a much more appropriate place for WP:LISTCRUFT. This isn't what Wikipedia is for! Also, see WP:ITSIMPORTANT. --wooden superman 15:06, 21 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep This list is both helpful for purchases but also to study a iconic film restorer (normally with the director's help), you could use the website but there are hundreds of out of print releases that aren't on there.Kuzrock (talk) 17:20, 21 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Self-evidently for most cine-philes and collectors this is a keep. The Criterion Collection is a universally respected and prestigious set and the historic list of releases is often referred to by members of that community. I doubt those members sepnd untold time making edits to Wiki and frankly I can't see why that means their views of less importance than those who, quite frankly, I strongly suspect haven't a scooby when it comes to this subject expert though they may in in Wiki barrack room lawyer arguments. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.179.128.41 (talk) 14:16, 22 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Again WP:USEFUL isn't a suitable argument for retention. The purpose of Wikipedia isn't a buyers guide. Ajf773 (talk) 20:17, 21 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep as a valid split fom a notable article so it is clearly a notable list according to the multiple reliable sources in the parent article. This list is different to the other video lists mentioned as it is covered more in rs as a prestige and collectible set rather than run of the mill dvds and blu rays. No valid reason for deletion except WP:IDONTLIKEIT Atlantic306 (talk) 21:32, 22 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Using the official website (www.criterion.com) may be reliable but these are primary sources, just because the parent article is notable does not mean notability for this article is automatically inherited. Also WP:NOTCATALOGUE is the main reason to support deletion ... it's not the job of Wikipedia to list every single release on DVD or Blu-ray from a particular publisher. Ajf773 (talk) 02:10, 23 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

COMMENT There's a whole load of WP:USEFUL and WP:ILIKEIT keep !votes above here. No-one has given even a single decent reason why WP:LISTN is met. Remember, this means showing that the list itself (NOT just the individual items on it) are notable, and showing that this notability is supported by INDEPENDENT (i.e., not Criterion's website!) reliable sources. I get it, you're enthusiastic about old movies - so am I - but that doesn't mean that this list is notable enough for an article. FOARP (talk) 10:21, 24 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed. This whole discussion reads like an example at Wikipedia:Arguments to avoid in deletion discussions. --wooden superman 10:37, 24 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep at least one element of this list - whether the release was issued on Laserdisc and, if yes, what the formats (CAV/CLV) and spine labels were - do not appear to be available as part of Criterion's online catalog, increasing the value of this list above one geared to selling items in their currently-supported formats Ducki3x (talk) 18:00, 24 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The above editor has only four edits to their name, all in 2015, all in just one article. Ajf773 (talk) 09:57, 25 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

And WP:NOTCATALOGUE. Seriously people, you can even keep this list on your own user pages. Just not in the article space. FOARP (talk) 11:33, 25 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

A person's edit history does not validate or invalidate their argument. See WP:ATTP. LeiAdeline (talk) 23:52, 27 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

It's odd that the discussion seems more nominator-specific with the point of voting right at the end. Perhaps WP:AOBF is more direct? – The Grid (talk) 18:03, 31 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Needs more experienced editor input, probably.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 21:21, 26 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Very reasonable split off main article. Nate • (chatter) 00:54, 27 December 2018 (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 Classical guitar#Modern classical guitar. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 23:20, 2 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Modern classical guitar[edit]

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

Mostly-empty content fork of Classical guitar. Nowak Kowalski (talk) 20:59, 26 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Merge into Classical guitar#Modern classical guitar per WP:INT - there is no need for an empty section with a {{main}} link to a three sentence article when such a section can easily harbor said content. ComplexRational (talk) 21:09, 26 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 07:54, 27 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Merge into Classical guitar#Modern classical guitar. Rubbish computer (Talk: Contribs) 22:58, 1 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Merge into Classical guitar#Modern classical guitar. CASSIOPEIA^(talk) 10:33, 2 January 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 08:57, 3 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Abhishek Duhan[edit]

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

Fails WP:GNG and WP:NACTOR. While they have appeared in multiple films, those appearances are relatively minor and at most have gotten passing references. They may eventually become notable, but not right now. Ravensfire (talk) 20:36, 26 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Ravensfire (talk) 20:37, 26 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Ravensfire (talk) 20:37, 26 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - clear WP:GNG and NACTOR failure Spiderone 15:17, 28 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep meets WP:GNG Shringhringshring (talk) 10:35, 30 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete on account of subject failing WP:NACTOR, which demands significant roles in multiple notable films. (Emphasis added.) In Sultan and Teraa Surroor he's not even listed in the cast. He has minor roles in Golmaal Again and How I Felt When I Saw That Girl. On its own WP:GNG (see below) cannot cut it. -The Gnome (talk) 21:07, 1 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Write ups in media: Dainik Jagran (here, in Hindi), Deccan Chronicle (here), The Indian Express (here), Business Standard (here), and Times of India (here). -The Gnome (talk) 21:07, 1 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Probably WP:TOOSOON. Apart from the roles not being significant, the coverage does not appear to be independent, being based on reports received - and it does not appear to be reliable, as it claims that the subject had a role in the film Golmaal Again as well as directing, whereas IMDB lists him only as a compositor. (I know IMDB is not supposed to be reliable, but in this case it appears more reliable than the media coverage.) His name has been added to the Wikipedia article about the film by the same editor who created this article, but without saying which role he played. RebeccaGreen (talk) 07:30, 2 January 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 09:01, 3 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Steven Spieth[edit]

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

Non-notable basketball player who meets neither WP:GNG or WP:NBASKETBALL. Undrafted in NBA, and the leagues he has played in are not amongst those listed in notability criteria. His college career doesn't meet WP:NCOLLATH either. Was deprodded without improvement. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 19:41, 26 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 19:42, 26 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Basketball-related deletion discussions. Bakazaka (talk) 20:07, 26 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bosnia and Herzegovina-related deletion discussions. Bakazaka (talk) 20:07, 26 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Argentina-related deletion discussions. Bakazaka (talk) 20:07, 26 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Rhode Island-related deletion discussions. Bakazaka (talk) 20:07, 26 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Texas-related deletion discussions. Bakazaka (talk) 20:07, 26 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete But the author can try again once Mr. Spieth has established notability as a basketball player.TH1980 (talk) 02:55, 30 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete or redirect to Jordan Spieth#Personal life at his brother's article. Fails WP:GNG with lack of significant coverage in multiple, independent sources. Does not meet WP:NBASKETBALL. Any current independent significant coverage is spawned from his famous brother.—Bagumba (talk) 10:18, 2 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Sandstein 09:14, 3 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Buzan's Book of Genius[edit]

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

User:ParticipantObserver prodded this article as not meeting WP:NBOOK. It was subsequently deprodded by User:Atlantic306, a fact I somehow missed and deleted the article anyway. Having been notified of my mistake, I've restored the article and am bringing it here for a proper AFD. RL0919 (talk) 19:40, 26 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. Bakazaka (talk) 20:08, 26 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Social science-related deletion discussions. Bakazaka (talk) 20:08, 26 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. There are no non-trivial sources here. Not notable as per notability guidelines for books (WP:BK). ParticipantObserver (talk) 14:40, 28 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy redirect. Just realised I could redirect to the videogame. (non-admin closure) SITH (talk) 19:24, 26 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Jon Jarl[edit]

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

Hoax. The book which he apparently is mentioned in contains no mention of a "Jon Jarl". Link to English translation. Four other people by the name "Jon" and permutations thereof are mentioned but they are all historically distinct figures. Furthermore, a character by this name exists in a videogame (1, 2) and there are no mentions of such a historical figure existing in WorldCat, JSTOR, Wiley or Dawesonera. Furthermore, the article claims Jon Jarl was buried in Linkoping Cathedral but the only recorded burial of a "Jon", "John", "Johnathan", "Jonathan" or "Johannes" at that cathedral is John, Duke of Östergötland. It is for these reasons I think this is a hoax. SITH (talk) 19:22, 26 December 2018 (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. -- Scott (talk) 04:34, 3 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Parul Mathur[edit]

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

The subject lacks notability. The article has only one source that itself is way from being enough. A Google search gives no reliable sources. Ktrimi991 (talk) 19:08, 26 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Bakazaka (talk) 20:09, 26 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Bakazaka (talk) 20:09, 26 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Not notable at all. –eggofreason^talk 20:54, 26 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Do not Delete : It is about an IPS officer. She is a known public figure and a role model for females. Her presence on Google can be searched by typing " Parul Mathur IPS". There are many articles , PDFs and videos available on Google on her which prove her notability. Many such references have been added into the article which prove her notability. — Preceding signed comment added by Workmk (talk • contribs)

Delete: fails notability standards. Unfortunately, being a police officer or being a role model doesn't make somebody notable. We need tangible evidence that the person in question has received sustained, in-depth, meaningful coverage from major, reliable sources. That simply isn't the case here. SITH (talk) 23:07, 26 December 2018
Delete per nom and user above Spiderone 11:10, 27 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete SP is not a top post of the police department. WP:NSOLDIER can be referred to compare the notability criteria. Due to the lack of any notable work done by the subject, I suggest deletion. The SP gets WP:ROUTINE press coverage, such articles, PDF, or videos cannot be used to claim notability per WP:GNG--DBig Xrayᗙ 15:52, 2 January 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 09:16, 3 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The Ravyns[edit]

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

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

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

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

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

Can't seem to establish notability for these guys; despite a #49 single in 1984, I don't see really any coverage of the band in RS, or even non-RS. All current sources are 1st party sources. ‡ Єl Cid of ᐺalencia ^ᐐT₳LKᐬ 17:52, 26 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Weak delete. There is a little in the Google News search but probably not enough to show convincing notability. Mostly it is passing mentions or just a little more than that. Presumably if this gets deleted the articles about the albums will be deleted as a matter of course? If so, should they also have the AfD banner added? --DanielRigal (talk) 18:14, 26 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@DanielRigal: - in this case, the albums are sourced only by FB and rateyourmusic, so I would support their deletion as well. What is the nicest way to delete them all together? I'm not aware of how to combine deletion discussions. Thanks ‡ Єl Cid of ᐺalencia ^ᐐT₳LKᐬ 19:12, 26 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure if it is the nicest way but what I have done in the past is to paste the banner onto the other articles and then duplicated and modified the "la" and "Find sources AFD" line in the AfD for each added article. I'll do that now. I won't include the compilation album as that includes other artists who are definitely notable. --DanielRigal (talk) 19:18, 26 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you! That was extremely helpful. ‡ Єl Cid of ᐺalencia ^ᐐT₳LKᐬ 18:42, 27 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. DanielRigal (talk) 18:16, 26 December 2018 (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) CASSIOPEIA^(talk) 10:36, 2 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Elizabeth Elmore[edit]

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

This is a BLP that has had no references since being created. Elmore was in two minor, regional bands in the late 1990s/early 2000s, but there's no indication of either her or the bands meeting WP:GNG. Dgpop (talk) 16:04, 26 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 16:15, 26 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Law-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 16:16, 26 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 16:16, 26 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I think I can support WP:GNG based on just this current source in the article and this.-TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 16:35, 27 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comment The News Gazzete source you posted is just citing what Elmore said, making it primary source. Jovanmilic97 (talk) 17:08, 27 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I found several RS that covered her significantly. I added them to the article and improved it somewhat. It's also important to note that nearly every article about Sarge or the Reputation emphasize Ellmore's contributions to the groups. She passes GNG. Megalibrarygirl (talk) 04:14, 28 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per comments above by Megalibrarygirl. I am perplexed by the nominator's statement that there is no indication that either of the bands meet GNG. They only need to meet GNG or NMUSIC. The Reputation is listed as a good article. Thsmi002 (talk) 12:48, 28 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

When there are zero sources for a BLP after 13 years, that's usually a sign. Nominating this for deletion has finally resulted in a flurry of additions, so success! Dgpop (talk) 15:18, 28 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

What happens sometimes, is that sources exist, but they're hidden behind paywalls. A lot of the info I added to the article I had to get from databases that require a subscription. So sometimes an article can languish for years and not turn up sources on an internet search because the sources are all unavailable to most people. :( Megalibrarygirl (talk) 21:21, 28 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep She certainly meets WP:GNG, with sustained, significant, independent coverage of her in reliable sources, as added by Megalibrarygirl. RebeccaGreen (talk) 07:41, 2 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Keep Elmore was the subject of a profile in the Los Angeles Times, as well as extended mentions in a number of WP:RS spanning a period of several years. In many cases these are more than simply ROUTINE album reviews but provide biographical information. That said, overall, the amount of biographical sourcing could be stronger and this is somewhat on the edge in my opinion. Chetsford (talk) 08:07, 2 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 23:03, 2 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Brad Fregger[edit]

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

Trying to find more sources, I found:

a supporting role in a single episode lasting a half dozen pages in this book. I could consider counting this as if there were two strong sources that more clearly established notability.
An entry in a repository. Directories are not accepted as establishing notability.
a quote in this book.

The article has also clearly been maintained by the subject (using multiple accounts, no less). Ian.thomson (talk) 15:04, 26 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 15:10, 26 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Montana-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 15:10, 26 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 15:11, 26 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: does not meet WP:ANYBIO; significant RS coverage not found. K.e.coffman (talk) 22:34, 28 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete a total of 10 passing mentions in searches, rest is user published content from IMDB, Facebook, etc. Qualitist (talk) 02:42, 31 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 22:44, 2 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Bhuwan Thapaliya[edit]

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

Fails WP:NAUTHOR by a mile or so.

Obviously, the first of the two current references is dis-countable as self-described PR-stuff. I've no idea about the cut-paste review; contained therein. Also, the second reference is one of his published books!

Now, after a due WP:BEFORE, I managed to find this trivial name-mention as a young poet along with several others which basically demonstrates that it's too soon.

I also located another interview at Kathmandu tribune. It is not only dis-countable per WP:INTERVIEW (the nutshell suffices for our purpose) but also for COI issues stemming from the fact that he is a writer in the paper.

So many reasons to not have the article. ∯WBG^converse 15:02, 26 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Nepal-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 15:11, 26 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Poetry-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 15:11, 26 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Economics-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 15:12, 26 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

deleteNot seeing any notability at this time, some RS might change that.Slatersteven (talk) 19:56, 26 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. Bakazaka (talk) 20:12, 26 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete No notability at all. BlueD954 (talk) 07:20, 27 December 2018 (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 09:26, 3 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Akshara (2019 film)[edit]

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

Fails WP:NFILM and the last paragraph of W:NFF. Fails GNG by a mile or so, with typical spam-coverage.

The first ref is itself classified under news-gossip and is typical PR-feed.

The second ref is unreliable courtesy this (owned by a producer; scratching each other's back.......un-doubtably a gossip-site).

The third ref is unreliable; no known editorial policy.

From this TOI piece (which I located after a due WP:BEFORE search), the film seems to be in the very-initial stages. ∯WBG^converse 14:49, 26 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 15:12, 26 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 15:13, 26 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Meets notability guidelines and wbg is doing personal attack. Azkord (talk) 15:28, 26 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

No he isn't. Don't cast aspersions. SITH (talk) 23:09, 26 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, I am having trouble even establishing this has in fact began filming.Slatersteven (talk) 19:58, 26 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete My WP:BEFORE found the Times of India article (which is likely a reliable source) and lots of celebrity-blog sites (which are not reliable sources). One drive-by mention in a Times of India article is not enough to sustain notability. No evidence of this being an attack. FOARP (talk) 22:13, 26 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: WP:CRYSTALBALL. Unless there is major media coverage, pre-emptive articles are not necessary. SITH (talk) 23:09, 26 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per delete votes above Spiderone 11:11, 27 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete fails WP:NFILM and WP:GNG. GSS (talk|c|em) 15:27, 27 December 2018 (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, 3 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Captain (2019 film)[edit]

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

Fails WP:NFILM and the last paragraph of W:NFF. Fails GNG by a mile or so, with typical routine trivial entertainment-spam-coverage.

The second-ref self-describes itself to be a gossip-zine. And, the spam-quotient of the third-reference is self-explanatory from it's literary style.

Some more routine-trivial coverage (first song has been released, first look has been released, film-shooting is about to commence) which smacks of PR-stuff have been added.

Since that does not satisfy NFILM in any manner, I suppose that the creator is making a case for GNG. In that case, it may be prudential to note that GNG demands significant (addresses the topic directly and in detail) coverage in reliable sources that are independent (advertising, press releases are not considered independent) of the subject. ∯WBG^converse 14:41, 26 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Just an personal attack and all the sources provided are independent and reliable sources. And it meets notability. Azkord (talk) 14:43, 26 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 15:13, 26 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Nepal-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 15:14, 26 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

delete see wp:crystal.Slatersteven (talk) 19:56, 26 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Wikipedia isn't a crystal ball. We don't yet know if the film will meet film notability criteria because the fulfilment of said criteria usually come after the release. Sure, if it's the next Avengers movie then go ahead, but that's because there's so much media coverage already that the film passes general notability guidelines, which supersedes subject-specific notability guidelines. The same can't be said for this film. SITH (talk) 23:12, 26 December 2018 (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 10:07, 3 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Thomas Baldwin (cricketer)[edit]

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

Biography which fails to meet WP:GNG, WP:ATHLETE or WP:NCRIC. Very limited biographical information from Haygarth - essentially we know a name existed on what is implied to be a set of scorecards from the 1760s and nothing else - the external link mentions a single scorecard from 1764. The matches are not considered to be first-class cricket, despite the article's claims - Surrey played its first first-class match in 1773, Chertsey its only FC match in 1778 and there is no suggestion that Baldwin played for either in FC cricket. There is no reference to Baldwin on ether CricketArchive or CricInfo. PROD originally contested on the grounds that there "some dispute about the status of these cricketers" - presumably on the basis that there is a claim on the article page that the match that was played in is considered first-class. The fact that CricketArchive - which is reliable for scorecards - does not have Baldwin in its database makes it clear that this is not the case. Without anything other than a name on what appears to be a single scorecard there's very little hope that the article will ever be a suitable topic for a biographical article. Blue Square Thing (talk) 14:18, 26 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 15:18, 26 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Cricket-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 15:18, 26 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 15:18, 26 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Also fails WP:BASIC and WP:ANYBIO. Has some brief mentions, but there is no significant coverage otherwise, and it is unlikely there will any, given that he is an 18th century figure. —Madrenergic^talk 17:01, 26 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom, and per similar articles and issues raised at the Cricket Project. Lugnuts ^{Fire Walk with Me} 18:15, 26 December 2018 (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 10:07, 3 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

William Barker (Nottingham cricketer)[edit]

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

Biography which fails to meet WP:GNG, WP:ATHLETE or WP:NCRIC. Very limited biographical information from CricketArchive or Haygarth - essentially we know a name existed on a set of scorecards from 1789-1792 and nothing else. The matches are not considered to be a first-class cricket match, despite the article's claims - Nottingham played its first first-class match in 1826. PROD originally contested on the grounds that there "some dispute about the status of these cricketers" - presumably on the basis that there is a claim on the article page that the match that was played in is considered first-class. CricketArchive - which is reliable for scorecards - makes it clear that this is not the case and there is no mention of the player on CricInfo. Without anything other than a name on a set of scorecards there's very little hope that the article will ever be a suitable topic for a biographical article. Blue Square Thing (talk) 14:02, 26 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I am also nominating the following related pages because the situation is almost identical:

Blue Square Thing (talk) 14:09, 26 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 15:18, 26 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 15:18, 26 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Cricket-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 15:18, 26 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 15:18, 26 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom, and per similar articles and issues raised at the Cricket Project. Lugnuts ^{Fire Walk with Me} 18:15, 26 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Per nom. StickyWicket (talk) 14:33, 27 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete both - unless Barker is connected to Barker's Ground (I have an inkling that he might, but no tangible sources). If all we have is score card records - it doesn't rise to WP:GNG. Icewhiz (talk) 17:12, 27 December 2018 (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 10:09, 3 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Bellchambers (Surrey cricketer)[edit]

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

Biography which fails to meet WP:GNG, WP:ATHLETE or WP:NCRIC. Very limited biographical information from CricketArchive or Haygarth - essentially we know a surname existed on a single scorecard from 1768 and nothing else. The match is not considered to be a first-class cricket match, despite the article's claims, and the match was played by Caterham and Westerham not by Surrey. PROD originally contested on the grounds that there "some dispute about the status of these cricketers" - presumably on the basis that there is a claim on the article page that the match that was played in is considered first-class. CricketArchive - which is reliable for scorecards - makes it clear that this is not the case and there is no mention of the player on CricInfo. Without anything other than a surname and a single entry on a scorecard there's very little hope that the article will ever be a suitable topic for a biographical article. Blue Square Thing (talk) 13:38, 26 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I am also nominating the following related pages because each has also played one match which is not actually first-class and in each case only a surname is known. Each was also a contest PROD in the same circumstances:

Blue Square Thing (talk) 13:49, 26 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Happy holidays~! ^{Babymissfortune} 13:54, 26 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Cricket-related deletion discussions. Happy holidays~! ^{Babymissfortune} 13:54, 26 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. Happy holidays~! ^{Babymissfortune} 13:55, 26 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 15:19, 26 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom, and per similar articles and issues raised at the Cricket Project. Lugnuts ^{Fire Walk with Me} 18:15, 26 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. If we know nothing about this individual besides appearance in scorecards - then we're lacking INDEPTH SIGCOV.Icewhiz (talk) 17:14, 27 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete- No actual biographical information, and we don't even know these people's first names. The articles are also full of WP:OR: guesses as to the players' approximate birth dates and feeble attempts at manufacturing notability with all that "few players were mentioned by name back then" stuff. Reyk _YO! 18:52, 28 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Per nom. I'm not sure how these have been able to sneak under the strict CRIN criteria for so long. StickyWicket (talk) 19:50, 31 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 22:39, 2 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

World Forum for Ethics in Business[edit]

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

Just like Sri Sri Ayurveda, this is one of many initiatives set up by Ravi Shankar (spiritual leader), and similarly, I was unable to find any reliable sources that would make this one pass WP:NCORP. — kashmīrī ^TALK 13:19, 26 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 13:44, 26 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 13:45, 26 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Belgium-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 13:45, 26 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Fails WP:ORG and WP:GNG. A lot of press releases and primary sources, no significant coverage by secondary sources. —Madrenergic^talk 16:29, 30 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Fails WP:ORG. Article exists largely to promote the subject as is the case with many such Guru/Cult inc. The subject lacks significant independent coverage in reliable media. A bunch of press releases and WP:ROUTINE articles do not impart notability. --DBig Xrayᗙ 15:09, 2 January 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. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 14:48, 2 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Steppenwolf: The X-Creatures Project[edit]

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

Fails WP:GNG. Dead non-notable browser game from a developer with questionable notability. Topic lacks significant coverage from reliable, independent sources. Both sources currently in the articles are primary and don't contribute to its notability. The1337gamer (talk) 12:50, 26 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Video games-related deletion discussions. The1337gamer (talk) 12:51, 26 December 2018 (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. A redirect was suggested, and seems reasonable, but there's clear consensus to delete, so I'll go along with that. If anybody wants to create a redirect on their own, there's nothing to prevent you from doing so. -- RoySmith (talk) 15:17, 3 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Savannah Phillips[edit]

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

I hate to nominate this because it is one of the first articles created by a recently registered user, but the subject is a 7-year-old child whose parents are both private citizens. She happens to be related to notable people but leads an entirely private life, as the article itself notes. The biography section is a joke. There is no significant coverage by reputable sources. BBC, The Guardian, Telegraph and similar media merely report her existence, unsurprising given that she is only fifteenth in the line of succession (soon to drop lower) and that her parents clearly want her out of the spotlight. The only thing known about her is that she attends family gatherings. That is not particularly extraordinary for a seven-year-old. Unlike her royal second cousins (George, Charlotte and Louis), she holds no title and is not expected to ever have any constitutional or public role. This feels like Obama girls again. We do not need this article. Surtsicna (talk) 12:43, 26 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 13:14, 26 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 13:14, 26 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep subject is a great grandchild of the Queen of England so she will get some coverage in RS. She is the first Canadian in line for the throne (though unlikely to get it). I would not expect a huge biography section for a seven year old. Alternatively a mini bio somewhere would be appropriate but should that be under her father or mother's page? Legacypac (talk) 15:57, 26 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
- "Some coverage" is not enough to establish notability. What we need is "significant coverage". Reliable sources do not provide it because she does not have, nor is she likely to ever have, any public role and because her parents are both private citizens. Being an untitled great-great-grandchild of Elizabeth II is not much different than being an untitled child of Angelina Jolie or Barrack Obama; you get some coverage, but not significant coverage, in reputable sources and more in tabloids. The articles about her parents contain all the relevant information: her name, date of birth, and place in the line of succession. That's it, one sentence. That she was photographed somewhere or that she went to church for Christmas and a wedding is not biographical or encyclopedic information. It's a diary entry. Surtsicna (talk) 16:39, 26 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

She is not an untitled great-great-grandchild of Elizabeth II. She is an untitled great-grandchild of Elizabeth II. That doesn't matter, but we should be accurate. Robert McClenon (talk) 19:35, 26 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The subject is not a great grandchild of the Queen of England. She's the great grandchild of the Queen of the United Kingdom & the other Commonwealth realms. Check up the 1707 Act of Unions & the 1800 Act of Union (for examples). GoodDay (talk) 17:12, 26 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The exact title of her great-grandmother does not matter for this purpose, and England is part of one of her domains. So what? Robert McClenon (talk) 19:35, 26 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Didn't you say above that we should be accurate even when it does not matter? haha :D Surtsicna (talk) 23:47, 26 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The consensus formed five years ago was to redirect to her father, Peter Phillips, (4 !votes, I believe, as against 1 for her mother, and 0 for keep). Administrators can read the discussion at Talk: Savannah Phillips (3), where it was recently moved and speedily deleted, along the the prior article's considerable pre-redirect history. It would seem courteous to ping participants in that discussion, since their consensus has been overriden (and deleted, to boot). I think the article now under discussion cites the same 8 sources as the previously redirected one, plus 3 new ones (one of which is the aforementioned photo caption). --Worldbruce (talk) 17:23, 26 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Being the great grand child of the Queen of the United Kingdom, doesn't automatically mean ya get a Wikipedia bio article. GoodDay (talk) 17:15, 26 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Comment and Apology - I had not been aware that there had been history in the redirect or the redirect talk page. I will try to remember to look behind redirects when promoting drafts. Can the redirect talk page be restored for copying to the talk page of the article in question? Robert McClenon (talk) 19:35, 26 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - It appears that the key issue has to do with what constitutes significant coverage for purpose of general notability. Robert McClenon (talk) 19:35, 26 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Question - What policies and guidelines are applicable beyond general notability guidelines and the guideline about minors? Can we identify all of the applicable policies and guidelines? I have not, for instance, found a guideline having to do with royal families. Robert McClenon (talk) 19:35, 26 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
- Why do we need a guideline having to do with royal families? Little Savannah Phillips is not royal. She is not a princess, not a "Royal Highness". She is the 7-year-old daughter of two private citizens. Surtsicna (talk) 20:26, 26 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Satisfies GNG. CoolSkittle (talk) 19:51, 26 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
- No, it does not, since there is no significant coverage. The only time reputable sources were interested in her was when she was born, which is true for any celebrity's child. Surtsicna (talk) 19:55, 26 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete – Being a gt-gd-child of Queen Elizabeth II does not in-and-of-itself establish Savannah Phillips' notability; neither does the media's interest in her birth into a highly publicized family. While she may in the future do things that make her "worthy of notice", she has not yet done so. Drdpw (talk) 20:39, 26 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to her father, Peter Phillips. As the subject grows up, if she does things that bring her significant press coverage (even for just being a socialite), the article can be re-created at that time. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 03:48, 27 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to father, per Metropolitan90's suggestion and WP:INVALIDBIO, as there's content about her there already. Fails WP:NOTINHERITED. Succession to the British throne#Current line of succession demonstrates that the children of minor royals do not have articles about them unless they are notable for other reasons. Curb Safe Charmer (talk) 12:11, 27 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to her father, Peter Phillips, per above. If the only coverage is her birth, that's WP:BLP1E. Catrìona (talk) 17:55, 27 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Miserably fails notability guidelines. The subject is an untitled distant relative of a royalty with no significant coverage. The subject clearly does not pass WP:NOTINHERITED. -AuthorAuthor (talk) 05:46, 29 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete notability is based on current coverage and not presumed future coverage and current coverage is not enough to show notability.John Pack Lambert (talk) 14:51, 31 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete The equivalent would be the children of Gerald David Lascelles, great grand children to George V who get a mention in their father's article but no redirect. Cabayi (talk) 16:56, 31 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Though she is likely to get her article in the future, it's a case of inherited notability at the moment. A stand-alone article is not suitable. However, she can be discussed/mentioned briefly in related topics with Wikipedia entries. Dial911 (talk) 01:34, 1 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - There are solid common-sense arguments being presented for Keep, and solid common-sense arguments being presented for Delete or Redirect. That is why I asked above for arguments based on policies and guidelines. The arguments for deletion or redirection are being presented with great certainty, as if there is a basis for them other than common sense (which cuts both ways), but the only policy argument that I see is general notability, and she has been the subject of continued coverage, not just about her birth, but in the context of her family. That is why I had asked if there was a guideline about royal families, and am told dismissively that there isn't an issue; however, the fact that she doesn't have a title, unlike some of her cousins, doesn't change what family she is in a branch of. Maybe a guideline on royal families that states what members are and are not notable might be useful. As it is, however, the only policy-based argument that I see is [[WP:GNG|general notability}}, and it does appear that that is met. Therefore:
Keep Robert McClenon (talk) 18:56, 1 January 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. Clear consensus for deletion. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 14:11, 2 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Aviation YouTube Channels[edit]

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

The limit of 5000 subscribers that was set by the creator seems fishy, as a channel with the name similar to the creator just crosses it at 7k. That said, this list is not at all complete, and needs better criteria for inclusion, or shouldn't exist. No other category specific youtube lists are present on wikipedia. Daiyusha (talk) 11:44, 26 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Aviation-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 13:18, 26 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 13:18, 26 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Not a notable topic.--Pontificalibus 13:58, 26 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Wikipedia is WP:NOTDIRECTORY. —Madrenergic^talk 17:06, 26 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Subject fails WP:N. Capitals00 (talk) 08:44, 28 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete None of the subjects listed here are notable. funplussmart (talk) 18:34, 29 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Directory of non-notable youtube channels with no sources Danski454 (talk) 19:35, 30 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete As per WP:NOTDIRECTORY. CASSIOPEIA^(talk) 10:40, 2 January 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. Fenix down (talk) 19:21, 1 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Bangkhuntien F.C.[edit]

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

No claim or evidence of notability, nor of meeting the standards of WP:FOOTYN. The claims it does make are contradictory, a professional club in an amateur league. Disputed PROD. Cabayi (talk) 09:13, 26 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. Cabayi (talk) 09:13, 26 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Thailand-related deletion discussions. Cabayi (talk) 09:14, 26 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: Bangkhuntien F.C. was appeared in SMMTV Sport Channel. It is national sports news of thailand. https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCZDHVHL4kw9gTBhy9kZs6VA and this is SMMTV Official website https://www.smmsport.com/. This company is affiliated group of Siamsport http://www.siamsport.co.th/contact. Aquaelfin (talk) 12:05, 26 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Do any of those 3 links actually mention Bangkhuntien? Cabayi (talk) 13:24, 26 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The programming Aquaelfin is referring to are the first two references currently in the article. --Paul_012 (talk) 14:12, 26 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I define new WP:FOOTYN. I think don't true for old definition of WP:FOOTYN. It is fixed national cups such as Thai FA Cup, Chinese FA Cup, Emperor's Cup and etc. to determine Notability of Football club. It doesn't true because a lot of clubs don't join any national level of the league structure in countries can play national cups. especially knock-out national cups. You must fixed national league structure in countries and don't fixed national cups. Aquaelfin (talk) 4:13, 28 December 2018 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 13:18, 26 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions.CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 13:33, 26 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 15:19, 26 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Fails WP:RS, WP:IS, WP:GNG and WP:FOOTYN. The 3 sources in the article [2], [3] and [4] and the sources above [5] [6], and [7] have not demonstrated the core requirements of contain claimed need to be verified by independent, reliable sources to claimed subject notability, as sources are not independent and reliable]]. Any sport specific notability guidelines (or any Wikipedia guidelines) is NOT defined by an individual but by discussions and consensus agreements. CASSIOPEIA^(talk) 08:00, 28 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete If they complete in an amateur league I highly doubt the club is professional. Fails WP:FOOTYN. Govvy (talk) 14:59, 28 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Amateur teams of Amateur league, which there is team history, have team wiki articles. Amateur teams of Amateur league don't team history in public news. they haven't wiki articles. Aquaelfin (talk) 17:11, 28 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Wikipedia notability requirements are not defined by if a page has a history section or not. CASSIOPEIA^(talk) 17:31, 28 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Wikipedia notability is wrong defination. It is fixed national cups more than team in national level of the league structure. knock-out national cups such as FA Cup is joined by non-Amateur and non-Professional teams. It's call Out of league teams such as Traill International School in 2018 Thai FA Cup. Do you think this team has wiki article more than Amateur team ? Aquaelfin (talk) 17:49, 28 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as per WP:FOOTYN, or redirect to 2018 Thailand Amateur League Bangkok Metropolitan Region.Onel5969 ^{TT me} 16:09, 28 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Professional status is irrelevant, but it clearly fails WP:GNG. SportingFlyer talk 17:17, 28 December 2018 (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. – Joe (talk) 08:12, 2 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Isima Odeh[edit]

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

Subject not notable, doesn't fly WP:GNG or any other. Mahveotm (talk) 07:38, 26 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Nigeria-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 13:37, 26 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 15:25, 26 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I !voted delete in this afd several months ago but the nominator was a sockpuppet so I withdrew the !vote. The subject still does not seem to meet the GNG. Hrodvarsson (talk) 01:02, 28 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Poor quality sources given (puff pieces, interviews and tweets?), and a search does not reveal significant coverage in RS. Article created by a sock, which appears to be a problem with many biographical articles on Nigeria. Hzh (talk) 11:37, 31 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:G5—which can't apply as a speedy due to the number of discrete editors that article has had—but the principle most certainly does. In any case, the total dearth of persistent and sustained coverage in reliable sources wholly fails WP:ANYBIO. ——SerialNumber54129 14:26, 31 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect to List of lost films. -- RoySmith (talk) 15:18, 3 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Kajal Lata[edit]

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

The cited source contains two sentences about the film. Searches of the usual Google types (including by Bengali-script name), EBSCO, Gale, JSTOR, ProQuest, and Questia, found two results for this Kajal Lata. (There's also an Indian film by the name, and a TV serial.) The first mention of the Bangladeshi film is upon the death of the director, in a list of his films,[8], the second mention is on a list of 300 films, the last remaining copies of which were evidently destroyed in a fire.[9] Doesn't pass WP:GNG or WP:FILM. Worldbruce (talk) 06:52, 26 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. Worldbruce (talk) 06:52, 26 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bangladesh-related deletion discussions. Worldbruce (talk) 06:53, 26 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to List of lost films. There's enough information for that.--Auric talk 16:10, 26 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect as above without deleting first in the slim possibility that there may be future coverage, thanks Atlantic306 (talk) 21:59, 29 December 2018 (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. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 14:42, 2 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Marc Priestley[edit]

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

This person does not meet notability. The article references were all his own work not second hand confirmations. It looks like self promotion and an online CV. I checked for other citations in RSs but what I could see were only a couple of media articles in low grade sources that were about something else anyway, where Marc Priestly only gets a side mention. Roger 8 Roger (talk) 06:49, 26 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Journalism-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 13:39, 26 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 13:39, 26 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 13:39, 26 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete a non-notable TV presenter and speaker.John Pack Lambert (talk) 14:54, 28 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy deleted per WP:G4. Sir Sputnik (talk) 14:50, 26 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Sidd Chaudhuri (basketballer)[edit]

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

Subject not sufficiently notable as does not meet WP:NBASKETBALL or WP:GNG Boneymau (talk) 05:50, 26 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Basketball-related deletion discussions. Boneymau (talk) 05:50, 26 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. Boneymau (talk) 05:50, 26 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Cannot see how the subject comes anywhere near WP:NBASKETBALL or WP:GNG. Aoziwe (talk) 11:19, 26 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I'm going to tag this for speedy deletion - it was deleted in August following an AfD discussion at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Sidd Chaudhuri (basketball). Sidd Chaudhuri and Sidd Chaudhuri (basketball) are create protected after repeated recreations since then, and this article was created by a new editor who made 9 borderline constructive minor edits, created this as a draft, and moved it into mainspace as soon as they were autoconfirmed... --bonadea contributions talk 11:32, 26 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Supported. I should have tweaked to that too. The old title, ie, (basketball), showed up on copy and mirror sites! And, salt the new title too. Aoziwe (talk) 11:44, 26 December 2018 (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. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 14:37, 2 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Jude Feranmi Kolawole[edit]

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

Does not meet WP:NPOL / WP:ANYBIO; significant RS coverage not found. Created by Special:Contributions/Enioladaniel with few other contributions outside this topic. K.e.coffman (talk) 05:28, 26 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Nigeria-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 13:41, 26 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 15:27, 26 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. K.e.coffman (talk) 05:52, 27 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Being the founder and CEO of an organization is not an automatic Wikipedia inclusion freebie in and of itself — it can get a person into Wikipedia if they can be shown to have received enough reliable source coverage to clear WP:GNG for it, but it does not guarantee a Wikipedia article to everybody who ever founded or led an organization. But the references here are not reliable source coverage about him for the purposes of invoking GNG — there's a mix of primary sources, glancing namechecks of his existence in media coverage that isn't about him, Q&A interviews in which he's speaking about himself rather than being discussed or analyzed in the third person, and inherently unreliable blogs. None of this is enough. Bearcat (talk) 18:44, 1 January 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. – Joe (talk) 08:12, 2 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Archie Schiller[edit]

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

Biographical article on a seven year old boy who has life-threatening congenital disease who has gained media attention by being named the "co-captain" of the Australian cricket team organised by the Make-A-Wish Foundation. Other cases of articles on Make-A-Wish children have been deleted in the past include Master Chandan and Erik Ness. As with those cases, this should be deleted due to WP:BLP1E. – Ianblair23 (talk) 05:21, 26 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Cricket-related deletion discussions. – Ianblair23 (talk) 05:21, 26 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. – Ianblair23 (talk) 05:21, 26 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. – Ianblair23 (talk) 05:21, 26 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Keep i am oppose to nominator view. First of all article has enough references and it doesn't matter what but he is playing as co-captain. Azkord (talk) 05:52, 26 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Archie was technically named in the Test Squad, and therefore by definition is a professional cricketer. He is officially also captain of a national team. In addition, Archie does deserve this due to his brave efforts. Aussiespinnersfanpage (talk) 07:12, 26 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Clearly a case of WP:BLP1E. Claims that he should meet the criteria as a national cricketer are obviously spurious. Doctorhawkes (talk) 07:19, 26 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as BLP1E per nom - even if technical argument of being a "professional cricketer" were accepted, this still falls under what Wikipedia is not. Yeti Hunter (talk) 07:25, 26 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Textbook case of WP:BLP1E. Lugnuts ^{Fire Walk with Me} 07:25, 26 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:BLP1E, or maybe redirect to the relevant series with a note on there mentioning it briefly. Joseph2302 (talk) 09:07, 26 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no need for a redirect here, but obviously can be mentioned on the article about the series. There's simply no need for a standalone article at this point. If notability continues and becomes wider then there might be a case for an article of some kind, but not yet. Blue Square Thing (talk) 09:44, 26 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Merge and redirect to Indian cricket team in Australia in 2018–19. Not notable in its own right. Single event, not news, and not sustained. Also technically fails WP:NCRICKET I suggest. Yes, while the subject has been named in the team, has not played in a game. BUT does deserve, and require (ie co-captain), a due weight sentence in the article about the relevant game. Aoziwe (talk) 10:53, 26 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. As sad as this kids plight is, he simply doesn't qualify for an article under WP:BLP1E. Someone above has said his inclusion makes him a professional sportsman - it doesn't, just how an honorary doctorate in medicine doesn't make you an expert in brain surgery! I also recall Hampshire County Cricket Club including a terminal ill chap as their 12th man a few years ago. He didn't get an article. StickyWicket (talk) 11:04, 26 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete-The kid's plight is unfortunate but the nominator is spot-on.∯WBG^converse 15:07, 26 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete has not actually played in a top-level match (and many Test cricketers were technically amateurs). Unfortunately he is notable for being sick, not for being a cricketer. Spike 'em (talk) 00:34, 27 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete honorary captains are just inherently non-notable. Same pretty much goes for virtually everyone getting Make a Wish foundation honors. This is clearly not at all an encyclopedic article.John Pack Lambert (talk) 14:07, 28 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:BLP1E, no evidence of notability / coverage for anything other than that 1 event --DannyS712 (talk) 04:03, 29 December 2018 (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. A merge was suggested, but had little support, and some good arguments why a merge would not be a good idea. -- RoySmith (talk) 15:20, 3 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

List of Dexter's Laboratory characters[edit]

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

The previous AfD closed as no consensus. Thus, I would like to add new information supporting deletion: a similar article has been deleted by AfD before (in June 2011, under the title List of characters in Dexter's Laboratory). That version had many of the problems in the current article: it was unsourced and lacks real-world background beyond basic casting information. However, this version no longer includes any of the one-off characters and the character descriptions are not very "extensive". In the previous nomination, @Paper Luigi reported that after "extensive research", the secondary characters were found to fail WP:LISTN. –LaundryPizza03 (d c̄) 02:17, 26 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. Bakazaka (talk) 03:33, 26 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. Bakazaka (talk) 03:33, 26 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Comics and animation-related deletion discussions. Bakazaka (talk) 03:33, 26 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. Bakazaka (talk) 03:33, 26 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Bakazaka (talk) 03:33, 26 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Any content of value can be added to the main article, Dexter's Laboratory. Ktrimi991 (talk) 18:14, 26 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete for reasons I brought up in the previous nominations. There's a place on the Internet for just about every character and any little detail about the series, but Wikipedia is not that place. Paper Luigi ^{T • C} 22:07, 26 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - fails WP:LISTN; any worthwhile content can be merged to the main article Spiderone 11:20, 27 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep or merge, this is a typical split-off article from a notable television series article. Obviously the characters of a series need to be described in order to have comprehensive coverage of that series, so the only options are to keep as a stand-alone list or to merge to the series article (which has no section for the series' characters at present), not to delete outright. postdlf (talk) 00:48, 2 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
- Merging in this case does not provide the main article with any content it does not already have. Character descriptions for main characters are just summaries of information already found in Dexter's Laboratory. Additional information not mentioned in the main article but mentioned in the character list is trivial, pertaining to only one or a few episodes of the series. Paper Luigi ^{T • C} 11:22, 2 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  - The whole point of having separate sections in any article is to lay out information on each element of a topic organized for the ease of readers, so they don't have to extract or piece it together from an undifferentiated mass of content. The question of detail (as well as of organization) is one for the scalpel of editing, not the sledgehammer of deletion. postdlf (talk) 15:28, 2 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Merge, better to merge the characters article into the main series article than to delete it. Hansen Sebastian^Talk 05:07, 2 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
- See my other comment above. Paper Luigi ^{T • C} 11:22, 2 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Per Paper Luigi. A merge of cruft is still... cruft. This is better off on Wikia._{ZXCVBNM (TALK)} 05:38, 3 January 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 as lacking sufficient indicia of notability. No prejudice against restoring to draft space, or future recreation if additional and more in-depth coverage arises. bd2412 T 01:54, 3 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Dan Bourchier[edit]

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

Not all journalists are notable. I don't see what makes this person pass WP:BIO. A very minor award ("scoop of the year" award at the NT Media Awards [10]), no in-depth coverage of her work, just a few mention in passing and short professional bios in non-independent places, like his former workplaces etc. Just having a career doesn't make one encyclopedic. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 11:00, 12 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Journalism-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 13:03, 12 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 13:03, 12 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 13:04, 12 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - easily satisfies WP:NBIO. As sourced in the article, Bourchier has held prominent television roles as reporter and correspondent at Sky News, as top-rating [11] breakfast radio presenter in major city and as presenter of primetime news bulletin, and won a media award in 2013. He has been the subject of news articles/interviews about his personal and professional life, which a simple G search would turn up, that are (despite the nominator's claim) independent of his current/former workplace [12] [13]. The article is well sourced. The nomination is quite bizarre, calling the NT Media Awards "very minor" and saying there is no coverage of "her" work despite Mr Bourchier being male (and I'm hoping that is a simple error and not relevant to the fact Bourchier is openly gay). NB. I am the article creator -- Whats new?^(talk) 22:45, 12 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
- Interviews are bad sources, and I stand by what I wrote in the op nomination, except the her/his copypaste typo. This journalist seems to have a fine, but non-encyclopedic career, and yes, NT Media Awards are very minor (if they weren't, we would have an article on them by now...). --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 04:17, 14 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 07:32, 19 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom; references are either passing mentions or not independent, fails GNG. Uninvited Company 20:52, 20 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

How are [14] [15] passing or non-independent? -- Whats new?^(talk) 21:18, 20 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

As I noted above, interviews are low quality sources. You chose to ignore this, and asked again what is the problem with them. Well, don't worry, I can direct you to WP:INTERVIEW time and time again. What the subject says about themselves is not very reliable nor neutral. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 11:17, 26 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

INTERVIEW is an essay, not a policy or guideline. Bourchier meets the GNG -- Whats new?^(talk) 12:34, 26 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 01:28, 26 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Meets WP:GNG, with coverage including the SMH article, an NT News Lifestyle feature years after he left the NT News, a RIOT ACT article [16], and others. He doesn't yet meet WP:JOURNALIST, but as he does meet WP:GNG, that's not necessary. RebeccaGreen (talk) 05:42, 26 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
- Since you linked only the RIOT ACT article, I will review this: the subject is mention in passing in two paragraphs in the article. This is not in-depth coverage, so it does not help with GNG. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 11:17, 26 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Of the other two I mentioned, one (the NT News feature) is already in the article. It is not a "professional bio", nor a mention in passing; it is definitely in-depth. I actually meant the Canberra Times article, rather than the Sydney Morning Herald article, both of which another editor linked to above. The Canberra Times includes quotes from the subject, but it is not an interview - it also includes comments and information about him. Two paragraphs in the RIOT ACT source is not "in passing". As the editor below has noted, the subject has received more non-routine coverage more often than most journalists. RebeccaGreen (talk) 12:27, 26 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Weak delete Most of the coverage seems to be by the subject or routine marketing of the subject. However, the subject does seem to be the non routine subject of coverage more often than most journalists. I suggest WP:TOOSOON, and if the trend continues may well be notable in their own right in the future. Aoziwe (talk) 11:36, 26 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete – fails WP:SIGCOV; almost all coverage (of which there is little) is WP:ROUTINE or passing mentions. I'd support a redirect to 666 ABC Canberra. ––Redditaddict69 ^(talk) ^(contribs) 20:28, 1 January 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. – Joe (talk) 08:10, 2 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Gundersen National Child Protection Training Center[edit]

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

Completely unreferenced. Promotional. Rathfelder (talk) 20:20, 12 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 06:38, 14 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 06:38, 14 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 07:24, 19 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 01:27, 26 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete no evidence of significant coverage necessary for establishing notability --DannyS712 (talk) 04:01, 29 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete does not even attempt to assert notability. —Madrenergic^talk 16:17, 30 December 2018 (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. – Joe (talk) 08:09, 2 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Walter Blythe[edit]

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

Notability concerns Shaneymike (talk) 17:23, 19 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy keep - passes WP:NFICTION due to being a major character in a famous book, Anne of Green Gables. Kirbanzo (talk) 17:53, 19 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. Bakazaka (talk) 20:33, 19 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. Bakazaka (talk) 20:33, 19 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comment @Kirbanzo:. There's no good way of saying this so I'll just say it: the 'policy' you just linked to (WP:NFICTION) literally says there's no specific policy for fiction and especially doesn't include anything that justifies keeping an article simply because it's about a major character in a well-known book. I'm leaning towards a straight redirect to Anne of Green Gables for this one but haven't decided. There's some literary characters whose impact on culture is strong enough that it is easy to find coverage in reliable sources other than the book in which they were introduced about them and those are clear candidates for articles (e.g., Heathcliff from Wuthering Heights), is there any evidence that Walter Blythe is that kind of character? Is there discussion of him in literary criticism/theory? I can't see any at present but I'm not fussed to jump to a conclusion. FOARP (talk) 22:11, 19 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Yes, there is discussion of him in literary criticism: “Walter’s Closet.” Canadian Children’s Literature / Littérature canadienne pour la jeunesse 94 (Summer 1999): 7–20; Emmett, Hilary ' "Mute misery": Speaking the unspeakable in L. M. Montgomery's Anne books.', in Holly Blackford, ed, 100 Years of Anne with an “e” (2009): 81-104 [17]; ' L. M. Montgomery and War ed. by Andrea McKenzie and Jane Ledwell (review)', Adrienne Kertzer, Children's Literature Association Quarterly, Johns Hopkins University Press Volume 43, Number 1, Spring 2018 pp. 107-109, and the book itself too [18]; 'Review: The Blythes are Quoted, by L.M. Montgomery', The Globe and Mail [19]. RebeccaGreen (talk) 04:49, 20 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 01:16, 26 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per RebeccaGreen FOARP (talk) 22:25, 26 December 2018 (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. – Joe (talk) 08:08, 2 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Tronica[edit]

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

Fails WP:GNG and WP:NCORP due to no claim of notability. One source is a passing mention, making the article only rely on a single source that seems to be not that reliable. WP:BEFORE failed to bring up anything of note. Kirbanzo (talk) 17:50, 19 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Video games-related deletion discussions. Bakazaka (talk) 20:32, 19 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Bakazaka (talk) 20:32, 19 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The US ITC had some case related to the company and if I'm reading it right the discussion indicates the company may have infringed on Texas Instruments's patents. --Izno (talk) 00:17, 20 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 01:14, 26 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: does not meet WP:NCORP; significant RS coverage not found. K.e.coffman (talk) 03:30, 28 December 2018 (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. – Joe (talk) 08:08, 2 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Doon Business School[edit]

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

For-profit educational institution with no independent RS. Fails WP:NORG. Also, the creator may have a COI. Citrivescence (talk) 00:11, 26 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. Citrivescence (talk) 00:15, 26 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Citrivescence (talk) 00:15, 26 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. Happy holidays~! ^{Babymissfortune} 02:15, 26 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Govt. Permissions do not make any institution notable.2402:8100:3847:A9DC:356A:DA5F:DC63:9C09 (talk) 02:29, 26 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - clear WP:GNG failure Spiderone 15:16, 28 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete not enough evidence of notability --DannyS712 (talk) 03:59, 29 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails WP:GNG with no clear sources of notability. Snowycats (talk) 22:55, 1 January 2019
Keep there are relevant evidence of notability, you should check external links before deleting the article now who will be responsible to create article again. --Summit Bisht (talk) 10:43, 7 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

(UTC)

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. – Joe (talk) 08:05, 2 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

SRH Clothing[edit]

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

Subject lacks notability and significant coverage in reliable sources. Meatsgains^(talk) 01:59, 19 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fashion-related deletion discussions. Bakazaka (talk) 01:59, 19 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Bakazaka (talk) 01:59, 19 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. Bakazaka (talk) 01:59, 19 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Jovanmilic97 (talk) 00:08, 26 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I found a couple of name-checks in Billboard, but no in-depth reliable source coverage to demonstrate that the company meets WP:GNG or WP:ORG. PohranicniStraze (talk) 00:53, 26 December 2018 (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.