Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2019 April 6

Recent AfDs: Today Yesterday

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

< 5 April	7 April >

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. — JJMC89 (T·C) 00:54, 14 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Magnetic field architecture[edit]

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

The article topic, "Magnetic field architecture", is a branded name for what is usually referred to as Electrodynamic suspension. The coverage of the topic is narrowly focused on Greg Henderson and his company Arx Pax. The article fails notability. Any technological information belongs in Electrodynamic suspension, but I can't find description beyond broad statements estimating Magnetic field architecture is somehow cheaper and more efficient. The article is half advertisement, half vague speculation. Forbes72 (talk) 23:38, 6 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2019 April 6. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 23:58, 6 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Architecture-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 07:50, 7 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

delete per nom. The puffery is a red flag that this is merely a vehicle to promote a non-notable commercial product. --mikeu ^talk 13:59, 9 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. — JJMC89 (T·C) 00:53, 14 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Lil' Stevie Wanders[edit]

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

There's two issues with this article. The first, and more straightforward, argument for deletion is that this subject does not meet WP:GNG. The only source I've been able to find online is the same interview cited by the article, hosted on various websites in either English or Italian. Its reliability and independence are questionable, and by itself it certainly does not meet notability guidelines.

More puzzling, however, is that the plot summary for this article appears to be copied almost word for word from Highlander II: The Quickening, with all the character names changed. It seems more than a little improbable that these two films have the same plot. _signed,Rosguill ^talk 23:20, 6 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. _signed,Rosguill ^talk 23:26, 6 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. _signed,Rosguill ^talk 23:26, 6 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 23:33, 6 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 23:33, 6 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Despite having been named slightly differently, the two footnotes are both the same actual source — but it's a WordPress blog, not a notability-making reliable source, and nominator is correct that the only other locatable source is an English translation of the same source, so it doesn't add GNG points at all. And no, the plot description being a copy-paste of a different film's plot description isn't encouraging either — but then again, neither is the fact that the blog interview also fails to contain any other plot description either, thus failing to prove that the creator didn't lift its plot straight from a Highlander movie. The fact that "Ian McKellen as God" in the cast list is not verified by either the blogsource or by the IMDb profile also doesn't fill me with a lot of hope either. None of this is "inherently" notable at all, and some of it is tilting in a very WP:HOAX-like direction — so we would need much, much better sources to deem it notable than have actually been shown. Bearcat (talk) 18:56, 8 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - pretty much what Bearcat said. Looking through this before reading their comment, I came to a similar conclusion. Guettarda (talk) 14:19, 13 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Keep. 331dot (talk) 10:40, 13 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

No Vacancy Lounge[edit]

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

Just a run of the mill local venue in Portland Oregon that opened, then shuttered. It's very typical for eateries and bars to open, then close. It's a routine and this is not notable. Graywalls (talk) 21:51, 6 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Follow-up: I'd like to add comments here as the article greatly increased in bulk since, and only after the AfD was started. Several comments mention number of sources. The article has a lot of name dropping and lots of sources around those names. This is an event venue. It hosts events. Lists of events and people involved to a venue is like airport is to a list of flight numbers and destinations. The policy that is relevant is that organizations are not don't inherit notability "An organization is not notable merely because a notable person or event was associated with it." which would mean that Will Vinton having his celebration of life event; and all the names dropped for names of people in booked events don't pass down their notability to the venue.

deep, but local weekly
very deep, but Lake Oswego Review is a hyperlocal paper with very limited audience Not even distributed in Portland.This will completely fail WP:AUD, because it's hyperlocal.
other local with cited press release. routine coverage
very local and discusses about a coverage in Mercury
"Events Calendar". this doesn't really count as a source

There are even more Willamette Week and Mercury links. These are the two local alternative weeklies here in Portland. Many are just routine announcements and "things to do" type articles of local interest. It's especially more common in the Mercury.

The notable Will Vinton gets three separate references(two of which I have just purged, because they clearly had constructive purpose.) , but the relevance to the notability of the article's venue is basically none. There are three references to Will Vinton, a notable person... but the extent of the venue's mention is merely an address and a name. Animation Magazine covered the event, because it was for Will Vinton, nothing to do with the venue. Having three sources stacked up together accomplishes nothing for doing anything of use on this article other than clutter it.

this is just an event announcement "Vinton’s family said a celebration of life will be held at No Vacancy Lounge at 235 S.W. 1st Avenue in Portland, starting at 3 p.m. Sunday, Oct. 21."
so is this "The family plans to celebrates his life at No Vacancy Lounge in downtown Portland at 3 p.m., Oct. 21. In lieu of flowers, they ask remembrances be sent to the Leukemia & Lymphoma Society."
another event posting All the proceeds from the evening's showings will go to the Leukemia and Lymphoma Society. Tickets are $10. There will also be a celebration of Vinton's life at No Vacancy Lounge on Sunday, Oct. 21.

So the change certainly adds an appearance of well finished article, I don't see that this venue that opened, then closed not long later is really all that notable.

Lots of references are those "flight list" citations for things like like: "No Vacancy's 420 Celebration featuring Ex Mag Select Oil hosts this party at Portland's most ambitious new dance club with electro soul-funk trio ExMag, which only sounds a little bit like a Lonely Island gag. No Vacancy, 235 SW 1st Ave. 8 pm. $4.20. 21+." (cited: calendar).

So I still think this place is quite shaky on the notability ground.Graywalls (talk) 20:01, 11 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I was waiting for a follow up note exactly like this. First of all, there's nothing wrong with me or other editors working to improve an article following a deletion nomination. In fact, this is quite common. Also, no one is suggesting all the citations help to verify notability, but in my opinion they do help provide an overview of the venue's events and other activities. I go back and forth with you way too much, so I'll let other editors take over for now. ---Another Believer _(Talk) 20:04, 11 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Post trim comment: A ton of "things to do" and calendar referenced routine events were added by the article creator after the AfD was created. After manually clearing those cushion fillers, we have one very detailed local coverage in local Lake Oswego(A Portland suburban city of just under 40,000 people), a bunch of coverage in the alternative papers for the Portland area Portland Mercury and Willamette Week in different coverage depth. A look in Portland Mercury shows just how much routine announcements are in that paper. http://dancemusicnw.com/no-vacancy-lounge-portland-redefining-oregon-nightlife/. Graywalls (talk) 07:56, 12 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep (disclaimer: article creator), per sufficient in-depth secondary coverage in multiple reliable sources. There are other sources to incorporate, such as this profile. I'll also see if I can find info in the library system's Oregonian archives, and try to add mention of some of the acts and events hosted. Update: I've added some detail to the history, but the "Reception" section still needs expanding. ---Another Believer _(Talk) 23:23, 6 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Oregon-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 22:31, 6 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. Graywalls (talk) 01:13, 7 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Entertainment-related deletion discussions. Graywalls (talk) 01:13, 7 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Graywalls (talk) 01:13, 7 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. Graywalls (talk) 01:13, 7 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. Graywalls (talk) 01:13, 7 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep The topic seems to have gained some media coverage, especially for their events (when they operated) and when they decided to close. The article needs cleanup though. --Plaxie (talk) 12:52, 7 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Sufficient sourcing on the article.--N Ø 16:57, 8 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@MaranoFan:, if you have a moment. Would you mind having a quick look again? A lot of cushion filler sources made up of calendar listings was removed. Graywalls (talk) 07:58, 12 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for following up with me. Just had a look and I’m satisfied with the current amount of sources as well. There’s some in-depth ones too.—N Ø 12:30, 12 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. There are over two dozen sources (as of this writing) attesting to the notability of this subject. --Kbabej (talk) 23:28, 10 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Kbabej, please do not just count sources; consider WP:REFBOMB: Thirteen sources are just routine event listings like "The 38 Best Things to Do in Portland This Weekend: Oct 26-28" that do not contribute to notability at all. However there are other sources that do go into substantive enough depth here. Reywas92^Talk 18:44, 11 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

comment Reywas92, the article changed a ton from when I AfD it and the time you came across it. JFYI. Graywalls (talk) 19:15, 11 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

AfDs are based on all possible sourcing, not the current state of an article. ---Another Believer _(Talk) 19:21, 11 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Spartaz ^Humbug! 07:23, 14 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

City network[edit]

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

Unreferenced and full of WP:OR. Most of the main Google results are unrelated to this concept, and looking through Google Scholar I don't see any papers that support the term as defined in the article. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 02:28, 23 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 02:31, 23 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 02:31, 23 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Economics-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 02:32, 23 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 02:32, 23 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete or weak delete - In its present state the article isn't really encyclopedia for the reasons King of Hearts mentions, and the concept is too vaguely defined to state much about whether a well-referenced article is even possible. Nonetheless, I do find some mention of the concept, especially Capello 2000. There are more hits for the idea of "world city network", mostly from Peter Taylor (e.g. [1][2]). The concept of interaction between cities is a serious area of academic study, but I can't say this article is describing that. I !vote delete, but without prejudice for recreation if someone takes this same title in a more scholarly direction. MarginalCost (talk) 02:56, 23 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep but source - it's clear this is an academic geographic definition, especially in the context of "world city networks." [3]. SportingFlyer T·C 02:58, 23 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I consider the current content unsalvageable, in the sense that it would take more effort to find a supporting source for each statement present (if it is even possible at all - some of the content may have just been dreamt up by its author) than to take one or two scholarly articles and just write an article from scratch based on that. In its current state it is misleading to readers who would be better served with no article instead. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 03:41, 23 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I disagree. I would need access to the articles in order to source the article so I haven't done it myself, but I think it could be referenced easily. SportingFlyer T·C 03:59, 23 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. SportingFlyer T·C 03:03, 23 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Original research. Ajf773 (talk) 03:58, 23 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The topic is quite notable as entire books are written about it - a selection follows. The rest is then a matter of ordinary editing per WP:IMPERFECT; WP:PRESERVE; WP:ATD; WP:NOTCLEANUP; WP:BEFORE; &c. Andrew D. (talk) 11:03, 23 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

World City Network: A Global Urban Analysis
Cities, Networks, and Global Environmental Governance
International Handbook of Globalization and World Cities
Mexico City in the network of global cities
Commodity Chains and World Cities
City Branding and New Media
The Creative Capital of Cities

Keep The basic premise of this article is that cities are nodes in transport and communication networks and this defines the purpose and development of the the city. This seems quite self-evident to me, and that it is not OR has been well demonstrated by AndrewD's list of sources. To add to that there is A Study on Globalizing Cities: Theoretical Frameworks and China's Modes, particularly chapter 3 which treats the idea in great detail. Clearly meets WP:GNG. I'm not seeing any specific examples of possible OR from those that are making that claim. Until they do, their argument is just WP:IDONTLIKEIT or vague handwaving. SpinningSpark 20:14, 23 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 21:11, 30 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete and Comments: Not notable concept or idea. I change the unreferenced tag as there is "one" provided. I am all for scholarly subjects on Wikipedia but there needs to be more than a "basic premise" and providing a list (above) written and/or co-written largely by Peter J. Taylor (Department of Geography, Loughborough University) and R. Aranya (Department of Urban Design and Planning ,Trondheim, produced by "Regional Studies" where authors can publish their own work. Other co-authors are B Derudder, F. Witlox, G. Cataland, M Hoyler, and J Huang. These authors repeatedly show up in books printed by Taylor and Francis Group (a part of Informa where authors publish their own work) Urban Research and Practice (the same), and Routledge; part of Taylor and Francis Group. This should raise big red flags that the title is nothing more than neologism. The sources I looked at, including those I could find above and other links (using 13 tabs and following many links) also included "national urban networks", "transportation and communication networks", "trade and finance networks", "intercity networks", "Mississippi and Great Lakes networks", "capacity network", and "infrastructure networks", All of these appear to be considered "nodes" or partitions. A "city network" per the article is also a "node". As far as a geographic definition there is confusion as to what "City network" actually means, as well as what it is part of, considering the other network "nodes". The term network in this context seems to fit many more instances from sources including "city-networks", "city-as-actor networks", "city-as-spaces networks", religious networks, city-regional networks, as well as the above mentioned "world city network", that does have more mention. A minor network can be a "canal network" that is allowing invasive fish to travel from the Mississippi to the Great Lakes. There would also be city to city networks, city to other country networks, and more.

As far as the topic being "quite notable" I do not find that since sources are largely primary, self-published, and questionable, with vagueness and passing mention. We require reliable third-party independent sources. To me, there is too much confusion for the subject to receive an article. Add to this the content "Some urban thinkers have argued..," is unsourced and immediately begs a ^[who?] tag as well as content, "It has been argued that city networks...", and this does present the appearance of original research since I couldn't find them in sources. I followed Mexico City in the Network of Global Cities (link above) and found "network of global cities" but couldn't tie that as related to "city network". The same with City Branding and New Media that discusses "city branding" but nothing tying that to the subject without using synthesis.

Apparently anything dealing with a city, including the city, and most things material and immaterial, form the nodes or partitions (far more than just transport and communication networks), so actually defining (and sourcing) the literal term is maybe close to impossible? Otr500 (talk) 10:30, 5 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Routledge and Taylor & Francis are questionable publishers? First I've heard of it. If those books can't be treated as scholarly RS, we might as well throw out book sources altogether across Wikipedia. But as it happens, the book I've offered in my post above not published by either of those, and the author does not appear in your rather long list of people you want to rule out. SpinningSpark 20:02, 5 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Jovanmilic97 (talk) 21:36, 6 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Spartaz ^Humbug! 07:23, 14 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Monster Skatepark[edit]

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

Fails WP:NORG. Local facility with no claims of notability other than a fire. Rogermx (talk) 21:36, 6 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 22:32, 6 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 22:32, 6 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

keep edited, verified with reliable sources, notability was established in the existing citations. cygnis insignis 01:50, 7 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
- It would seem to me that its only claim to notability would be as an Olympic venue. Are Olympic venues automatically notable? Would like to hear more opinions on this Rogermx (talk) 02:16, 7 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Two options, withdraw your third nomination in around quarter of an hour, one minute after editing another article. recalibrate and use your ability to discriminate real world notability, eg. the references to this facility versus a rationale Removed notability tag - if it ran on a major television network, it is notable. is the first option. The second option is that I begin to advise you on the pros and cons of AfD, and the prerequisites, diligence, propriety, and onus on those whose propose an article is nominated on, seemingly, less than a minutes examination and proceeds to contradict my contribution to the article with the above response. cygnis insignis 03:39, 7 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

- - The vast majority of articles that I have proposed for AfD have been ultimately deleted, so I don't think that I will require any coaching, thank you. The references for this article concern the fire; are we to have articles about every place that burns down simply because it got a lot of local news coverage? Finally, suggest you refresh yourself on WP:NOTBATTLE.
Weak keep I could not see any specific significant coverage but there is wide spread sustained coverage, a bit more the just mentions, from a wide range of sources, most of which on face value seem to have some degree of independence. Aoziwe (talk) 11:35, 7 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Spartaz ^Humbug! 07:24, 14 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Evan Milward[edit]

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

Played 13 WP:NFOOTY games in 2008 in the second-tier USL First Division. Outside of that, he has played only in the semi-professional Canadian Soccer League. Search results return no significant coverage to meet WP:GNG, just routine game reports. Leviv ich 20:25, 6 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Leviv ich 20:26, 6 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. Leviv ich 20:26, 6 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. Leviv ich 20:26, 6 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Leviv ich 20:26, 6 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. Leviv ich 20:26, 6 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Ontario-related deletion discussions. Leviv ich 20:27, 6 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Leviv ich 20:32, 6 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The article clearly passes the criteria of notability as stated in the Football/Fully professional leagues list. Shotgun pete 8:41, 6 April 2019 (UTC)
Delete. nom consulted me. Clearly fails GNG. After college tried his luck in the minor leagues - failed. There's no significant coverage here. NFOOTY merely creates a presumption of notability, but in the absence of sources it is not sufficient. This guy is from the internet age in an English speaking country - sources should be trivial to find online were he notable - they simply do not exist, and those asserting NFOOTY should pony up with a few in-depth reliable independent sources.Icewhiz (talk) 07:34, 7 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Article passes the criteria of notability according to WP:NFOOTBALL under the rule of Players who have played, and managers who have managed in a competitive game between two teams from fully-professional leagues, will generally be regarded as notable. See a list of fully professional leagues kept by WikiProject Football. Shotgun pete 3:19, 7 April 2019 (UTC)
Per Wikipedia:Notability (sports) - "This guideline is used to help evaluate whether or not a sports person or sports league/organization (amateur or professional) is likely to meet the general notability guideline, and thus merit an article in Wikipedia. The article must provide reliable sources showing that the subject meets the general notability guideline or the sport specific criteria set forth below. - ergo this is only a presumption of notability, and sources demonstrating GNG must still be provided if there is a challenge - in this case the existence of such sources is challenged.Icewhiz (talk) 15:23, 7 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
The article provides primary sources from the official Rochester Rhinos website a team from the USL First Division (a league accepted by the wikipedia community as fully professional). Shotgun pete 3:31, 7 April 2019 (UTC)
It's not a question of whether the player played in the USL First Division, it's that even though he played in the USL First Division, he is still not notable, because there is no significant coverage sufficient to meet GNG. It's a WP:42 issue: there is nothing from which we can write an article about this player. This article stub, written in 2008 (11 years ago!), will always remain an article stub, because no RSes are writing anything about this player. Therefore, it should be deleted. Leviv ich 15:48, 7 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
It's a question of if the article fulfills the criteria used to determine notability. This article passes because according to WP:NFOOTBALL rules this player has played in a competitive game between two teams from a fully-professional league, and will generally be regarded as notable, and its supported by a primary source. Any editor who's had any involvement or experience in these particular discussions regarding association football has witnessed multiple cases of similar articles passing notability based on that rule, because the consensus within the Football community have accepted those two primary rules used in WP:NFOOTBALL. Therefore, it should be kept. Shotgun pete 6:31, 7 April 2019 (UTC)
English speaking country. Internet age. All the newspapers are online - if its so easy - it so be trivial finding 3-4 in-depth sources establishing SIGCOV here. Sourcing for this guy simply doesn't exist. Icewhiz (talk) 18:39, 7 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I find your Ad hominem and impressions about me amusing. I'm assuming your ignorant about the pillars of wikipedia, or don't have much of an argument if you resort to an Ad hominem. That's fine I forgive your ignorance therefore I believe the article should be kept based on the traditional consensus reached by the Football community and the statement used in Wikipedia:Notability (sports) that: The article must provide reliable sources showing that the subject meets the general notability guideline or the sport specific criteria set forth below. The sport specific criteria being: Players who have played, and managers who have managed in a competitive game between two teams from fully-professional leagues, will generally be regarded as notable. See a list of fully professional leagues kept by WikiProject Football. Shotgun pete 7:10, 7 April 2019 (UTC)
Keep – 13 appearances means he clearly passes WP:NFOOTY. 21.colinthompson (talk) 22:54, 7 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - meets WP:NFOOTBALL by some way; needs improving, not deleting. Giant Snowman 07:41, 8 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Comment – Just noting that the entire article is written and sourced from PR from his teams. As it stands, this article is purely promotional. We are literally advertising this player based on press releases from his employer. If this were an article about a cell phone or an automobile instead of a football player, would we keep it? I have found no other coverage beyond game reports and such, so I'm not sure it's possible to improve this article. Leviv ich 17:46, 10 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. — JJMC89 (T·C) 00:51, 14 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Eoin Lynch[edit]

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

No WP:NFOOTY games (SW) as he has played only in the USL PDL (2002–2004, 2010) and League of Ireland First Division (2005-2009, and possibly currently unless that's a different player with the same name). Neither league is listed at WP:FPL. Search results return routine game reports; no significant coverage to meet WP:GNG. Leviv ich 20:16, 6 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Leviv ich 20:18, 6 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. Leviv ich 20:18, 6 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Ireland-related deletion discussions. Leviv ich 20:18, 6 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Leviv ich 20:18, 6 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Maine-related deletion discussions. Leviv ich 20:18, 6 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Massachusetts-related deletion discussions. Leviv ich 20:18, 6 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Rhode Island-related deletion discussions. Leviv ich 20:18, 6 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions.CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 20:20, 6 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. nom consulted me. Fails GNG and probably NFOOTY as well. A few local sources does not GNG make. Icewhiz (talk) 07:32, 7 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete – the Premier Development League is semi-professional at best, so thus fails NFOOTY and GNG. 21.colinthompson (talk) 22:58, 7 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - fails WP:GNG and WP:NFOOTBALL. Giant Snowman 07:39, 8 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. TonyBallioni (talk) 19:38, 13 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Eldzhey[edit]

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

Despite having multiple articles in other projects, this person doesn't appear to meet WP:NMUSIC as almost all sources are passing mentions or not in depth coverage. Praxidicae (talk) 18:52, 6 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 19:23, 6 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Russia-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 19:24, 6 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 19:24, 6 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Unless there are Cyrillic sources which don't show up in my searches, as the nom says, doesn't appear to meet WP:MUSICBIO, and not enough in-depth coverage in independent reliable sources to show they pass WP:GNG. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 13:36, 7 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete unsourced, and not WP:GNG Lubbad85 (☎) 01:59, 13 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. Nom is CU blocked and there is clearly something fishy going on here on both side. No prejudice against speedy renomination. TonyBallioni (talk) 19:38, 13 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

John Lee Dumas[edit]

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

promotional article, questionable notability BodegaBiscuit (talk) 16:40, 30 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 16:55, 30 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Puerto Rico-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 17:02, 30 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Maine-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 17:37, 30 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 17:37, 30 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - self promotional article from subject of dubious notability. Much of the sourcing is weak and not subject-focused.50.245.177.163 (talk) 19:28, 2 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep- Dumas podcasts have received 70 million downloads with 1 million monthly listens. He has widely covered in all major high tier news sources including Forbes, Huffing Post, Inc Mag, Entrepreneur, Fast Company and several others. He is one of the prominent name for podcasting, my vote is definitely a keep for him.177.58.244.85 (talk) 20:39, 3 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: The above IP user 177 added new references to the article which seem to satisfy the notability criteria. The article has now around 20 references and a google search shows more. Dumas has been covered in Inc.com, Forbes and Entrepreneur (magazine) etc which are reliable sources. See [4] [5] [6] [7] [8] [9] [10].

The nominator's history is also shows their account is an undisclosed Paid account promoting Jordan Harbinger and they randomly nominated a few articles for deletion to build up a so called credibility. Another user has already reported them to WP:ANI and they made a point that the first vote from the IP 50 above is actually nom's IP with which they are double voting. [11] The article they are promoting is already UPE infested. I doubt this was a good faith nomination of an otherwise OK article of a notable figure. This AFD should be dumped as WP:SNOW and UPE violation. --43.245.9.90 (talk) 09:27, 4 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - forbes, inc and entrepreneur alone are not sources with sufficient editorial oversight to create notability on Wikipedia, especially as the above linked sources are contributor pieces, not staff writers. In other words, those pieces are written by marketers and bloggers and not journalists. I acknowledge that sources like these are often used to fill out details in an article such as this but we should not rely on these types of sources entirely for notability, especially with respect to WP:BLP. Thus, WP:SNOW doesn’t apply here. There is a genuine question surrounding subject’s notability.

I cannot comment on the good faith argument above, but I do wonder/speculate whether more than one person in this discussion might have an undisclosed COI with the subject of the article. 2600:387:6:80F:0:0:0:1E (talk) 16:51, 4 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Taken to AfD by a new editor, defended/attacked by a slew of IPs... What is going on here?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Randykitty (talk) 18:40, 6 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - This piece seems non-notable and puffery from accounts that likely have an undisclosed COI (or perhaps everyone's just so passionate about this one for another reason). I am not, and I do not see sources that are significant enough (and have enough real editorial oversight, as mentioned above) to justify an article as opposed to subject's inclusion on, for example, a list. Additionally, I agree, this situation is unusual. I've been editing for a few years and this is indeed an uncommon occurrence. And yes, I realize the irony of making this comment as an IP, but I am in the habit of editing "anonymously" for various reasons.38.140.129.42 (talk) 19:50, 8 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep- Dumas is a major figure in the industry and definitely qualifies similar to Jordan Harbinger, whom nominator has updated the page. All major news sources lists him and is often covered frequently.115.178.100.18 (talk) 17:48, 10 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - If subject "is a major figure in the industry and definitely qualifies" then adequate sources should be cited. The above claim that "all major news sources lists him" doesn't at all seem to agree with the sources listed in the article, most of which are contributor pieces or bloggy/clickfarm stuff. If subject is indeed covered frequently by all major news sources," then where are THOSE citations and sources and why are they absent in this article? I think we may need more editors here to get proper consensus. Further, I have trouble believing there is no COI here given the types of comments (including the nominator). Further, pointing to another article that in itself might also not be notable or meet guidelines is not a defense for THIS article nor its subject. I’m happy to look at Jordan Harbinger as well, but to say 'one woman’s article isn’t good therefore this guy’s article should stay' is a race to the bottom for Wikipedia and it's a race none of us who have dedicated so much time to the project want to run. 76.234.230.37 (talk) 20:14, 10 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. — JJMC89 (T·C) 00:49, 14 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Fs123[edit]

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

Prod removed, some random person's github project meets no criteria for inclusion. Praxidicae (talk) 18:38, 6 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The article was improved as per the suggestions for improvement in terms of adding sources and speaking to notability which is why the PROD template was removed. Would love a constructive discussion around any further issues which need to be addressed. Cheesy123456789 (talk) 14:46, 7 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 19:26, 6 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 19:26, 6 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Looks like a classic case of WP:TOOSOON. Pavlor (talk) 05:18, 8 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. The three references provided do not help to establish notability. I couldn't find any suitable references to add. Axl ¤ [Talk] 12:22, 13 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete sourcing is not sufficient to establish notability. Arguments for it being less bad than it used to be are not arguments to keep. TonyBallioni (talk) 19:36, 13 April 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. TonyBallioni (talk) 19:35, 13 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Vincenzo Arciresi[edit]

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

WP:BLP of a politician who served on a suburban municipal council and as a school board trustee, but was unsuccessful every time he actually ran for any political office that passes WP:NPOL. Some routine coverage of municipal election campaigns is simply expected to always exist in the local media, so that type of coverage does not secure the notability of a school board trustee or a ward councillor in a suburb -- NPOL's "global city" criterion for city councillors attaches only to people who actually sat on Montreal City Council proper, not to people who sat on the pre-merger town councils of places that were separate suburbs of Montreal at the time the person actually held office, but then failed to get elected to the citywide council after the merger. But the referencing shown here is entirely within the range of the merely expected, consisting mainly of routine local campaign coverage, and is not enough to demonstrate that he's significantly more notable than most other people who held offices that fall below the automatic NPOL bar. Bearcat (talk) 18:33, 6 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. Bearcat (talk) 18:34, 6 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Quebec-related deletion discussions. Bearcat (talk) 18:34, 6 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Italy-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 19:30, 6 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect to Strawberry Flower. TonyBallioni (talk) 19:34, 13 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Pikmin Dance[edit]

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

So a rare song from the game Pikmin or rather not from Pikmin but a song using that theme. It has no refs, either a redirect to Pikmin or the band that did it might be the best if not deleted. Wgolf (talk) 18:13, 6 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 18:22, 6 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 18:22, 6 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Japan-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 18:23, 6 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - I cant find anything remotely reliable when it comes to sourcing. No way it meets the WP:GNG. Sergecross73 msg me 18:50, 6 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per the nominator and Sergecross73. If there is a redirect, it would probably be best to redirect to the band article. Aoba47 (talk) 20:41, 6 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Strawberry Flower per Bakazaka's comment below. Aoba47 (talk) 20:46, 8 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Strawberry Flower. The single is called "Pikmin Dance" but the songs are actually just different dance remixes of Ai no uta. This release is already covered in the Strawberry Flower article, there's no sourced material here to merge anywhere, and there's no equivalent Japanese Wikipedia article for this single from which to draw sourcing. Since the title is a plausible search term, a redirect makes sense as an alternative to deletion. Bakazaka (talk) 05:58, 7 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. There really aren't strong policy arguments on either side here, so I feel a close of "keep" wouldn't really be correct given that some legitimate issues were raised, but there also isn't a consensus to delete. TonyBallioni (talk) 19:34, 13 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

International Phonetic Alphabet chart for English dialects[edit]

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

@Nardog: has suggested nuking it (see this discussion). I agree with the point that he's made, that picking one accent per country is arbitrary. There also are other problems, such as traditional transcription vs. sufficiently narrow phonetic transcription (see RP) and unnecessary discrepancies between transcriptions of different accents. For instance, there's zero need to differentiate between [o̯] and [ʊ̯] when it comes to the ending points of diphthongs. [e̯] vs. [ɪ̯] seems to me to be an overkill as well.

The South African row is an abomination. It mixes up broad, general and cultivated vowels without a single indication which is which. The Welsh row should be removed as it's inappropriate for the Cardiff accent and (less so) for a number of other accents. For instance, it shows NURSE as unrounded when in fact it is rounded and fronted in the south.

To me that article is just superfluous. Australian English phonology, English phonology, General American, New Zealand English phonology, Received Pronunciation and South African English phonology are all good articles that convey sufficient information for our readers. If not, we can always improve them. Kbb2 (ex. Mr KEBAB) (talk) 11:37, 30 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Language-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 11:41, 30 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I'll just repeat what I said on the talk (a different section from the one the nominator mentioned): No dialect or even idiolect is as stable as the chart makes it out to be. Every realization, even of the same phoneme, even in the same phonetic environment, is not exactly the same as another. So the chart as it stands presents an unrealistic level of phonetic detail. But if we made the chart completely phonemic, that wouldn't allow for much comparison between varieties. But if we decided to make it less narrow, we wouldn't possibly be able to agree on how much detail to include [or maintain the same level of narrowness across accents]. So I find the premise of the article quite implausible in the first place. Nardog (talk) 11:56, 30 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I agree that it's an inconsistent and overly narrow mess, but we should have a one-stop resource for people who want to compare the diaphonemic IPA transcription to other dialects, particularly those that might be present in dictionaries. — Æµ§œš¹ _{[lɛts b̥iː pʰəˈlaɪˀt]} 18:00, 30 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment But which column represents a variety of English as it's transcribed in any given dictionary? The Australian and New Zealand columns aren't examples of that. As far as I know, neither system is actually used in any dictionary. We already have Help:IPA/Conventions for English and we can expand English phonology so that it covers more varieties than just RP, GA and General Australian. How many? I guess 3 more (let's say those would be General NZE, General SAE and Standard Scottish English) wouldn't hurt anyone. Kbb2 (ex. Mr KEBAB) (talk) 18:25, 30 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
- @Aeusoes1: in case he didn't see the reply. Kbb2 (ex. Mr KEBAB) (talk) 18:21, 6 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
keep, it’s useful to have such an article, and issues can be improved instead of deleting the entire article. Umimmak (talk) 20:52, 31 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Randykitty (talk) 17:58, 6 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. I'm not following the noms argument for deletion. If pages like Australian English phonology are acceptable, then a comparison between such pages is also acceptable. The article seems to be well sourced, despite the claims of OR, and such comparisons are certainly notable. Book sources discussing the subject include Variations in the Phonologies of Different English Varieties and New Zealand English which includes a chart comparing four different English varieties. The rest of the complaints come under cleanup, which AFD is not. SpinningSpark 00:14, 7 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I also don't follow the arguments for deletion. The nom mentions English phonology as a good article, and yet it also "picks one accent per country" to show the vowel phonemes. And the nom also suggests adding other standard or general varieties to that article, so what is the problem with having them here? If there are problems with the variety chosen to represent each country, or with the phonetic representation of certain phonemes for some varieties (or even of mixing of varieties), that is a question of improving the article, not deleting it. And yes, as well as sources for each variety of English, there are sources which compare them - it is definitely a notable topic. I think having a chart comparing the phonetic realisations of the consonant diaphonemes would also be useful, rather than a single chart and lots of footnotes, but again that is a matter of improvement. RebeccaGreen (talk) 16:46, 13 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. TonyBallioni (talk) 19:32, 13 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Chris Summers (kicker)[edit]

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

Fails WP:NGRIDIRON and WP:NCOLLATH. Reywas92^Talk 06:51, 30 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 06:54, 30 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of American football-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 06:55, 30 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Indiana-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 06:55, 30 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete the only stories I can find on him specifically are from the university student newspaper and from his local hometown sports section. Everything else appears to be game coverage or blurbs expected of any college football player. Fails WP:NCOLLATH, WP:GRIDIRON. SportingFlyer T·C 07:34, 30 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Placekicker whose streak of 111 extra points converted ranks third in Big Ten Conference history and whose 110 points scored in 2007 ranks third in Purdue program history. Passes WP:GNG with significant coverage in multiple reliable, independent sources. Examples include: (1) "Summers can hold head high", Journal and Courier, Dec 2007; (2) "Statewide honor comes as surprise to kicker", The Indianapolis Star, 2005; (3) "Purdue kicker makes changes", Journal and Courier, Aug. 2007; (4) "Purdue kicker Summers is deeply rooted in New Albany", News and Tribune, Aug 2008; (5) "Still kicking after rough season, Summers stays starter despite freshman foibles", The Journal Gazette, April 7, 2007 (643 words, at NewsLibrary.com); (6) "Summers gives kicking the boot"; The Indianapolis Star, 2009. A search of ESPN.com also pulls multiple results, including an article about his making 56 of 56 extra point attempts in 2007, but full articles from the 2006-2008 time period appear to be not retrievable. Cbl62 (talk) 13:10, 30 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Coverage uncovered by Cbl62 shows enough to pass WP:GNG. It needs to be added to the article, nice job!--Paul McDonald (talk) 13:35, 30 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Meets WP:GNG and WP:BASIC, per Cbl62's sources. Ejgreen77 (talk) 20:39, 1 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Does not meet WP:NCOLLATH. Non notable athlete. ~Leny Tee55~ 10:08, 5 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep – Has received enough coverage in independent, reliable sources to meet WP:BASIC. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 11:25, 6 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Randykitty (talk) 17:53, 6 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Cbr above shows the sourcing which shows that Chris Summers passes WP:GNG. The streak is a big deal too. THEFlint Shrubwood (talk) 03:12, 10 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Cbl62, his record in college and the sources allow him to pass WP:GNG. James-the-Charizard (talk) 22:23, 11 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. TonyBallioni (talk) 19:31, 13 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Osmodrama[edit]

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

Appears to be WP:OR related only to Berlin-based artist Wolfgang Georgsdorf, and his Smeller (installation) and not to any known genre of art. The title "Osmodrama" also looks like Georgsdorf's creation. If there is any sourced information contained here not in the Smeller (installation) article it could be moved there. In ictu oculi (talk) 08:59, 23 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Greece-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 10:09, 23 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - Google doesn't want to search on Osmodrama and offers me a different keyword, which in itself indicates a lack of mention out there. On being told that I really want to search on Osmodrama, it finds a Kickstarter listing in German and a listing in Russian. The German listing was publicizing a festival of the technology. So my conclusion is that the title is not notable. I said, in declining the page when it was a draft, that it read promotionally, but I was not sure what it was promoting. The answer appears to be that it is promoting the technology. This raises the question of whether the proponent has a conflict of interest, and this quacks like promotion of a technology. Robert McClenon (talk) 14:46, 23 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - After search, no evidence of notability of the term or of the genre, and the genre appears to be made up. Robert McClenon (talk) 14:48, 23 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Arts-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 07:09, 25 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Language-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 07:09, 25 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep There are three reliable sources in German, Deutsche Welle, Süddeutsche Zeitung and Die Zeit. Two of them refer to Osmodrama as a festival, DW as an artform. I'd suggest that while Osmaodrama was a neologism coined by Georgsdorf, it is now used by reliable sources to discuss and analyze the concept, WP:NEO no longer applies. My preference would be that the article focuses on the festival. 13:13, 25 March 2019 (UTC) Vexations (talk) 20:49, 26 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Natg 19 (talk) 00:48, 30 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete There is not really wide coverage. For example, in the abovementioned German sources: a) The DW piece is just one so far as I can tell (in both German and English [12], [13] language versions), actually a self-presentation; b) The SZ piece is again only one [14]; c) In Die Zeit, just two articles. All these, and probably many more, are not beyond expected coverage for an artistic project, in the sense of giving some basic info about what is going on around this weekend. In other words, the "increasing number of reports on Osmodrama" per se is not something unusual for public events, any public event. ——Chalk19 (talk) 15:27, 4 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Chalk19 Why would you characterize the article in DW as "a self-presentation". It was written by Michelle Ostwald, an editor at DW. I think that's an independent source.

Also, the article in die Zeit, which you refer to as "not beyond expected coverage" and "some basic info about what is going on around this weekend", is a substantial (1698 word) article, not simply a rehashed press release that we might consider routine coverage as described inWP:ROUTINE. Vexations (talk) 21:07, 4 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Vexations: 1) Because it is an article that reproduces things said by Christophe Laudamiel and Wolfgang Georgsdorf ("He describes it …", " “It has nothing to do with magic,” he says …", "“The first attempts at creating a scent cinema go back to 1906,” the artist recounts" etc.), i.e. it is an interview in the form of an article, thus a self-presentation actually. 2) I didn't say that it is a press release, but it is the covarage from any media what is usually expected for any artistic project, event etc that is public. There is nothing exeptional in that, as it is, per se. ——Chalk19 (talk) 07:03, 9 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Randykitty (talk) 16:51, 6 April 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 17:07, 13 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Troy Nelson[edit]

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

Fails WP:MUSICBIO and I believe even WP:GNG; I can find no indication of notability. It appears this article was created only as an example of self-promotion. postdlf (talk) 16:38, 6 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. postdlf (talk) 16:46, 6 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Wisconsin-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 17:15, 6 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 17:15, 6 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 17:16, 6 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Tennessee-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 17:17, 6 April 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 17:43, 13 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Taye Balogun[edit]

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

Director/producer who falls under too soon, so far just one film (which does not have a Wikipedia article either) Wgolf (talk) 15:57, 6 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 16:28, 6 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Nigeria-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 16:28, 6 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 16:28, 6 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Photography-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 16:29, 6 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect to Nelson DeMille#John Corey series. (non-admin closure) Jovanmilic97 (talk) 18:59, 13 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

John Corey[edit]

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

Fictional character with no indication of notability, no explanation of real-world significance, almost no real-world context, no sources beyond one of the books he appears in. There are some Newsday articles mentioning the character in connection with a planned TV project, but they don't rise to the level of establishing notability. Huon (talk) 15:46, 6 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 15:48, 6 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 15:48, 6 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Change !vote to Redirect to Nelson_DeMille#John_Corey_series as suggested by Aoba47. Delete. Reads like a promotional piece. Fails WP:GNG. -AuthorAuthor (talk) 19:17, 6 April 2019 (UTC) -AuthorAuthor (talk) 01:34, 7 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Nelson_DeMille#John_Corey_series where the books and character are already mentioned. Aoba47 (talk) 21:38, 6 April 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 17:52, 13 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Matthew Morrisey[edit]

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

Deprodded. Non-notable unelected politician, promotional. He's a SAIT graduate, ladies and gentlemen! Ribbet32 (talk) 15:30, 6 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 15:49, 6 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 15:49, 6 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. People do not get Wikipedia articles just for being candidates in elections they haven't won — to already qualify for an article today, he would have to either (a) already have preexisting notability for other reasons that would already have gotten him a Wikipedia article anyway, or (b) be referenceable to such an unusual explosion of media coverage, far beyond the merely expected volume and range of coverage that every candidate always gets, that he would have a credible claim to being special. No prejudice against recreation on or after election day if he wins the seat, but nothing here constitutes a reason why he would already be eligible to have an article today. Bearcat (talk) 18:46, 6 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails WP:NPOL and WP:GNG. In general I feel as though more articles like this are going to start popping up given that its an election year in Canada and its a pretty big municipal election year in the US. Best, GPL93 (talk) 12:29, 8 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as per Bearcat. Madg2011 (talk) 01:45, 11 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. TonyBallioni (talk) 19:30, 13 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Jack Sullivan (football club managing director)[edit]

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

Non-notable snot-nosed pornography heir. Light tabloid coverage of some of his tweets, because his dad co-owns West Ham football team. Bring back Daz Sampson (talk) 15:12, 6 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Journalism-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 15:50, 6 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 15:50, 6 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 15:50, 6 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 15:50, 6 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions.CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 15:53, 6 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - The subject of a BBC series - [15], as well as coverage outside the series - [16], [17]. Quite a bit of coverage per google-news. Icewhiz (talk) 07:29, 7 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep – Teenage heir to a porn empire runs professional women's football team... that's notable. So much so that BBC did a documentary about this, and the documentary gets coverage in independent media. A newspaper gave him a column, and that column gets coverage in independent media. The article passes my favorite essay test WP:42: we can write a good article about this person based on the significant coverage. Meets WP:GNG, so keep. Related query: West Ham United Women play in an WP:FPL-listed league, so does that mean its managing director meets WP:NFOOTY? Leviv ich 16:10, 7 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
No. Dougal18 (talk) 20:03, 7 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - meets GNG. Article needs renaming, and nominator needs to tone down their description... Giant Snowman 07:38, 8 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) Dusti ^{*Let's talk!*} 16:08, 13 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Sabrina Gonzalez Pasterski[edit]

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

Simply building an airplane with help at an early age isn't notable. Additionally, Stephen Hawking only cited her twice. See https://www.snopes.com/fact-check/sabrina-pasterski-physics-girl/ Her discoveries in physics aren't widely cited. Chris3991m (talk) 15:04, 6 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Illinois-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 15:51, 6 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 15:51, 6 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 15:51, 6 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Poland-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 15:52, 6 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Massachusetts-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 15:52, 6 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: Indeed, the subject isn't going to clear WP:PROF with her resume to date, and indeed, building an airplane at a young age isn't of itself notable. But what the nom seems to be ignoring is the fundamental notability question: does the subject have enough significant coverage in multiple reliable sources to pass the GNG? I think she does, whether or not her CV twigs any SNGs. Ravenswing 17:35, 6 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I'm not fully convinced, but I did add some balance to the article. Chris3991m (talk) 19:46, 6 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: Since the last attempt to delete this page, it has had over 1 Million page views, has been translated into 10 additional languages around the world, with daily page views in English reaching 85,000 on a good day. Besides that, significant coverage in multiple reliable sources to pass GNG. Her first book was apparently launched into orbit by Space X in February and Space Israel will land it on the Moon next week along with a digital copy of the entire Wikipedia site as it existed in mid-December 2018. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 172.58.139.88 (talk) 04:00, 7 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Any sources? You seem to have a WP:COI with Sabrina's Wikipedia page... Chris3991m (talk) 11:48, 7 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: The IP's edited the page a couple times, but what leads you to conclude there's a COI in play? Ravenswing 18:41, 8 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Most of this is CV stuff and primary sources. However, there are a few sources that likely qualify as reliable sources, though the depth-of-coverage piece is questionable. The Chicago Tribune articles certainly meets the criteria for a reliable source counting toward notability. The multiple "Forbes Under 30" listings and profile help, but all amount to a few sentences each. The Ozy article is mostly a restating of the Snopes page that covered the original viral news item. The article could use some cleanup, toning down the promotional gushing, but probably enough here to meet WP:BIO. OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 15:08, 7 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep At a minimum she passes WP:GNG with the Trib and 30 under 30s, maybe some other higher forms of notability too.-TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 19:39, 9 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Trending scientist, awards, plenty of notability showing sources, so this is a keep. THEFlint Shrubwood (talk) 03:14, 10 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I don't see a reason stated for why this page is slated for deletion. Ms. Paterski seems like a rising intellectual star, and someone whose page I would love to share with our daughter as an inspiration for what girls can do. I hope we can look forward to doing that on Wikipedia for a long time to come. Matthew.schnupp (talk) 19:34, 12 April 2019 (UTC) Matthew.schnupp[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Consensus is for deletion. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 18:12, 13 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Flore (artist)[edit]

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

Promotional article created by a COI, and edited by the subject. Insufficient WP:RS that are independent and cover the subject in depth, and thus fails WP:GNG and WP:ARTIST. Huff Post is not RS. Artnet is passing mention. Artsy is just a gallery page, not independent. HUBLOT is promotional/press release cruft. The Dwell lifestyle post is about his house, and his lifestyle, and would only help satisfy GNG, which it doesn't. And it says he has only been making art for 6 years -- explicitly admitting himself that this is WP:TOOSOON at best. The Nakumara Keith Haring Collection is a private collection in Japan, whose page is also flagged for notability. The line from the entry: "Flore embodies "the spirit of Keith Haring", and is closely influenced by artists such as Jean Michel Basquiat, George Condo, and Pharrell Williams." says it all. --Theredproject (talk) 14:03, 6 April 2019 (UTC) Theredproject (talk) 14:03, 6 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Artists-related deletion discussions. Ceethekreator (talk) 14:26, 6 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. Ceethekreator (talk) 14:26, 6 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. At first I thought there could be something here, as he compares himself to Pharrell Williams-- which is a good thing. Alas, there is inadequate sourcing to establish GNG.ThatMontrealIP (talk) 14:31, 6 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

personal disagreement not related to AFD

Why would a comparison to Pharrell Williams lead you to think "there could be something here"? I don't understand that reasoning. Bus stop (talk) 14:41, 6 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

It was humour.ThatMontrealIP (talk) 17:41, 6 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

It was gratuitous. It was mean-spirited. Bus stop (talk) 18:43, 6 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

nah, not at all. I really like Pharrell. Have you seen his 24 hour version of Happy? It is genius, almost contemporary art.ThatMontrealIP (talk) 19:21, 6 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

It is not humorous. It is gratuitous and mean-spirited. Bus stop (talk) 19:51, 6 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Oh relax. It is not gratuitous, Pharrell is mentioned in the article and in the nomination. ThatMontrealIP (talk) 20:07, 6 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Please stick to the subject of this page. No one is interested in your extraneous comments. Bus stop (talk) 21:19, 6 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Really, relax. Drop the stick.ThatMontrealIP (talk) 22:22, 6 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Also, this is totally off topic, so I am collapsing it. Please leave it be.ThatMontrealIP (talk) 22:30, 6 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

If you are providing input to an AfD on an article on an artist, and the article fails to meet notability requirements, all you need to do is point that out. I think additional commentary is unwanted. We delete articles such as this regretfully rather than gleefully. Bus stop (talk) 01:02, 7 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

that's fine for you to hold that opinion on commentary, but you should try to treat the other volunteer editors with respect rather than disdain. Calling people you do not know "mean spirited" is a personal attack and a waste of time. ThatMontrealIP (talk) 14:55, 8 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I apologize for the using the terminology "mean-spirited". Bus stop (talk) 19:17, 8 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 02:26, 10 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, does not meet WP:NARTIST, ie. not held at wikinotable galleries or significant exhibitions, maybe WP:TOOSOON. Coolabahapple (talk) 02:57, 10 April 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 Draftify. Obviously we will have an article but not this one. Spartaz ^Humbug! 07:27, 14 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

2019–20 Eredivisie[edit]

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

Besides the names of the 2 teams (PSV and Ajax) and their stadiums/capacity, everything on this page is incorrect or speculation.

Season doesn't start at 9 August, the Eerste divisie will.
(Regular) season will not end 24 May with play-offs taking place after
The assignment of spots in European leagues will most likely differ.
The reference to the season rules is invalid. A new document will be published with the rules for 2019/20.
Coaches and captains of teams are far from certain. In case of Ajax the odds them changing is substantial.

Wiki is not a speculation encyclopedia, nor an announcement board of what might be. Sb008 (talk) 12:57, 6 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2019 April 6. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 13:02, 6 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 13:04, 6 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Netherlands-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 13:05, 6 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 13:05, 6 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions.CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 13:47, 6 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: Wikipedia:Deletion is not cleanup. The erroneous information can be removed, having erroneous information is not a reason to delete. This article can exist as a stub with the qualified teams and certain information like their stadiums: there are already two qualified teams so there's at least some certain information. By June, all of the qualified teams will be known. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 89.243.239.57 (talk) 13:59, 6 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - It's too soon to create this article. – Pee Jay 14:01, 6 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Draft or Keep Pointless deleting something that's needed to recreate it in a months time. Govvy (talk) 14:34, 6 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
- Articles can be restored by admins at such time as is warranted. No point keeping something in draft space when we can just delete it, and it definitely shouldn't be kept. – Pee Jay 17:24, 6 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Those teams have qualified for next year's season, so it's ok to have it created. Kante4 (talk) 18:44, 6 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep It's a general thumbrule that next-season (next-iteration pattern) articles can be created when the year they start in is the current year, or when the previous iteration is over. @PeeJay2K3: Please cite the policy which states that it's too soon to create this article.

Per WP:FUTURE, this article satisifies the conditions that this will definitely happen. The article can be modified to remove the speculation bits. --QEDK (後 ☕ 桜) 18:47, 6 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@QEDK and PeeJay2K3: If you expect PeeJay2K3 to cite a policy, it's only fair you do the same for your thumbrule. Furthermore, I don't understand the 2 examples you provide, the 2019 Indian general election page was created 5 years (2014) before the actual election. In 2014 no one could guarantee the government elected would not collapse. So the page was pure speculation at creation time. And I most certainly hope you don'y wish to compare the 2019–20 Premier League and the 2019–20 Eredivisie (DED) page. On the EPL page I don't see speculations about managers/coaches, team captains, kit manufacturers and shirt sponsors. I don't see invalid start and end dates. I don't see invalid references to season rules. I don't see a ranking table with incorrect European League qualification options and 18 TBA listings. If you can guarantee the stadium names mentioned will not change, the EPL page contains only accurate info where the DED page besides 2 team names only contains invalid info or speculation. The DED page has been used as an exercise page and is a disgrace as is. --Sb008 (talk) 20:34, 6 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Let me quote part of the second pillar: "All articles must strive for verifiable accuracy, citing reliable, authoritative sources, especially when the topic is controversial or is on living persons." At the time the article was created, the only verifiable accurate information available were start and end date of the season (both listed incorrect) and not 2 but 5 teams which will participate next season. If you study the current ranking and matches to go, in depth, the list of 5 teams can be expanded even more. From those teams, in general, the only thing which can be listed is the town they from. For the 2 teams listed right now, we can assume the stadium names still to be correct next season. However nothing is for sure. There was a time you were called insane if you said PSV will have a different shirt sponsor than Philips. So who knows, maybe next season the PSV stadium is called Sony Stadium. All in all, in general the stadium name, kit manufacturer and shirt sponsor are in some cases likely but in none factual. The shirt sponsor now listed for PSV in the next season is incorrect. To list coaches and team captains is even more absurd. The transfer circus still has to start, so almost all is open. Like mentioned before, the spots available in European leagues are not yet clear. But the way it's listed now for sure will not apply. This alone makes it bizarre to create a standings table already. The majority of the teams not yet known makes it even more bizarre. However, what can be said for sure is that PSV will not be among the first 9 at the start of the season. To list them right now as 2nd is incorrect for sure. Ajax could in theory start as 1st, but it's not what I expect. If the page should be kept, right now all that can remain are a corrected start and end date and a list of teams (name and town only) which for sure will participate in next season. All the rest is assumption and speculation and doesn't belong on the page (yet). --Sb008 (talk) 18:52, 6 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - CRYSTAL does not apply here. Giant Snowman 07:38, 8 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
~~Delete~~ Draftify per WP:TOOSOON, there isn't sufficient information yet for an article although it will need to be created at some point. SSSB (talk) 16:02, 9 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep If this does get delete, it's properly going to be recreated anyway in a couple of months with this type of seasonal article. Matt294069 (talk) 05:26, 11 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
keep If delete, it will be recreated in a few weeks Hhkohh (talk) 08:01, 11 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Hhkohh:, @Matt294069:, that's not a keep argument, it's a drafting argument, moving it to draft allows an article that was created prematurely to be republished at an appropriate time. This article was created prematurely and should be temporary moved to draftspace where it can be added to and improved until an appropriate time to move it back to the mainspace. SSSB (talk) 08:59, 11 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

SSSB, I am fine with drafting. Either is okay to me Hhkohh (talk) 10:40, 11 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Drafting would just mean that another user could create a stab in the article space, and then we have both a stub and a draft.--Ymblanter (talk) 10:47, 11 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Ymblanter, unlikly, when you attempt to recreate a deleted article a notice comes up informing the editor that the article was deleted, and when you create an article that exists in the draft space the same thing happens. Besides another user creating, also prematurly, is not an argument to keep the article. SSSB (talk) 10:59, 11 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Being a new page patroller, I have seen this actually happening so many times that I can not really believe this is unlikely. Now, if you need the argument, deletion and draftifying are the last means of dealing with the article which can not be otherwiose salvaged. This article can be reduced to an entirely uncontroversial stub in a couple of minutes, it is just the nominator was not willing to do so and nominated it for AfD out of principle (they and I had a discussion prior to the nomination).--Ymblanter (talk) 11:05, 11 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Ymblanter: reducing it to a stub doesn't make it uncontreversial, it has been nominated per WP:TOOSOON making it a stub doesn't change anything. SSSB (talk) 11:27, 11 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

It is not in any way uncontroversial. The 2019–20 Eredivisie is going to happen with absolute certainty, and we have plenty of reliable sources about it. We also know quite a few facts with absolute certainty, for example, how many clubs are going to participate and what are the positions of these clubs in the current season going to be. Or who is going to organize the competition.--Ymblanter (talk) 11:31, 11 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Ymblanter: but we don't need an article about it yet because there isn't enough specific information to warrant an article per WP:TOOSOON. There is no need for this article to exist yet. SSSB (talk) 11:35, 11 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Our policies do not operate with such notions like "we need an article" or "we do not need an article". You think we do not need it, I think we need it, who cares. The policies establish notability (which in this case nobody really disputes) and whether the article otherwise conforms to the policies (it does not since it contains clearly false statements). Then the question is what do we do with the article: clean up, draftify, or delete. The policies are pretty clear that cleaning up is preferable. Additionally, it is unclear who is going to work on this article if it goes to draft and who will remember to move it to the article space once more info is available. My guess is that nobody is going to do it, but just someone recreates something directly in the article space.--Ymblanter (talk) 11:43, 11 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Look if you really want to complain about the fact this article is indeed WP:TOOSOON then why haven't you gone and AFD 2019–20 La Liga and 2019–20 Bundesliga as they haven't happened yet. Both of those events will happen in the near future and yet you haven't targeted those. Maybe it is because there is no references in the article and that is why you have put it up for deletion. Matt294069 (talk) 00:06, 12 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Xymmax ^{So let it be written} _{So let it be done} 18:05, 13 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Identification in Burkean rhetoric[edit]

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

Survived PROD in 2006 apparently because the book discussed in the article is notable. There are no secondary sources so this appears to be original research to me. Mccapra (talk) 08:58, 30 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: completely original research framed as an essay, something Wikipedia is not for. SITH (talk) 15:20, 30 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. There are sources with very substantial coverage of Burke/identification/rhetoric. The Legacy of Kenneth Burke, whole chapter; Critical Responses to Kenneth Burke, 1924-1966, Kenneth Burke and the 21st Century. SpinningSpark 19:45, 30 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 07:29, 1 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Philosophy-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 07:29, 1 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: Per User:Spinningspark. With so much unsourced, and only an actual general source supplied, there are very possible instances of original research or at the least plagiarism, as well as issues of NPOV. On looking at the sources provided above it seems to be an editing issue, deserving of tags and possibly a rewrite, but not a notability problem deserving deletion. Otr500 (talk) 16:59, 5 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 11:28, 6 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. There is clearly a case for moving the article to A Rhetoric of Motives, and it should all be rewritten. But there is no need to be deleting it. Charles Matthews (talk) 07:28, 7 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Consensus was to keep (citing WP:LISTN). (non-admin closure) -- Dane ^talk 04:13, 14 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

List of Irish supercentenarians[edit]

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

The list is very short and has no standalone notability per WP:LISTN, therefore falls under WP:SYNTHESIS and WP:INDISCRIMINATE. The oldest known Irish person, Katherine Plunket, has her own article. The next two, Margaret Dolan and Mary Ellen Geaney, are not notable, and died too "young" to be mentioned in any of our other lists such as List of the verified oldest people. Finally, people listed in the section about emigrants and who are "old enough" are already mentioned in the American, British and Canadian lists of supercentenarians, including their country of birth. Accordingly, we won't lose any relevant information by deleting this list, a legacy from GRG overreach. — JFG ^talk 06:12, 6 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per the detailed nom. Listcruft, fails LISTN. --Randykitty (talk) 07:21, 6 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 07:30, 6 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Ireland-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 07:30, 6 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists of people-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 07:31, 6 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: Is this an less notable a list than all the other similar lists found in Category:Lists of supercentenarians by nationality? Ok, it's short but at the time these people were born, Ireland only had a population of around 3 million. What do you expect for a small country with a small population? ww2censor (talk) 10:56, 6 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep This, along with all the other by-country lists, is a split-out of List of supercentenarians by continent, to prevent that article from becoming too large. Such split-outs do not require the standalone notability of WP:LISTN as long as the "parent" list meets the guidleine. UnitedStatesian (talk) 11:41, 6 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
What? So a bunch of non-notable oldsters from a random country deserve a list here because a much broader general list on the subject is notable? That doesn't follow. Also, where are the reliable sources to show this is notable? The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 01:06, 11 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - there seems to be an assumption that anything to do with the GRG should be deleted. There were several similar ill-considered noms at cfd recently. It is hardly WP:SYNTHESIS or WP:INDISCRIMINATE. Oculi (talk) 16:38, 6 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - there is ongoing war against any articles on Wikipedia relating to longevity. Why would this information be a cause of such angst to people? If other countries have similar entries, why should Ireland not be allowed to have the same information available? Crveni5 (talk) 02:10, 7 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per the nomination. There are almost no sources about supercentenarians in Ireland, just a list of names from one database. Every reference in this article is either a GRG page or something about British supercentenarians, demonstrating the lack of notability for this subject. Plus, there's the simple fact that not a single person on that list was born in the country of Ireland; everyone there entered the world while Ireland was part of the British Empire, even if their departure was after Ireland's statehood. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 15:45, 8 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per UnitedStatesian Spiderone 21:25, 9 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep There would be issues with creating article on each of these names but a list is justifiable as it meets LISTN. Kaweendra (talk) 16:59, 10 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per UnitedStatesian. Also I don't see anyone proposing to delete/merge the List of Finnish supercentenarians, even though everyone on the list was born when Finland was part of the Russian Empire. Spleodrach (talk) 17:23, 10 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
WP:WAX. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 01:06, 11 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per UnitedStatesian. --Comment by Selfie City (talk about my contributions) 22:55, 10 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The list is indeed a bit small, but I am unsure about merging, the UK article has the potential to grow a lot more and this information would be better separate in the long run. Garlicolive (talk) 02:53, 12 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Withdrawn nomination with no input from Wikipedia editors on whether to Keep or Delete. A non-admin closure. Capt. Milokan (talk) 22:17, 6 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Carol McGregor[edit]

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

GNG fail and WP:ARTIST fail. Four sources, most of which do not appear to be independent RS. I cannot find any more than that in a search. I did see event announcements, talks, interviews and the like, but those are not enough in terms of independent recognition in reliable sources. I'll be happy if someone can prove me wrong. ThatMontrealIP (talk) 05:28, 6 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Withdrawn, see comment below.ThatMontrealIP (talk) 18:14, 6 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 05:29, 6 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Artists-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 05:29, 6 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of New Zealand-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 05:30, 6 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I partially disagree with the nominator that the sources "do not appear to be independent RS". At the time of nomination, there were four sources, two of them problematic:

http://www.carolmcgregor.com.au (the subject, clearly WP:PRIMARY)
https://www.griffith.edu.au/art-museum (does not mention the subject, but she is listed as a Higher Degree Research candidate at https://www.griffith.edu.au/centre-creative-arts-research/our-researchers, so there is a connection.
https://ima.org.au/exhibitions/the-commute/ The Institute of Modern Art used visiting curators to organize the exhibition. There is no close affiliation between the artists and the institute other than that they showed her work.
http://www.portrait.gov.au/content/so-fine-2018/ The National Portrait Gallery similarly is a museum that makes its curatorial decisions independently, something that is implicitly recognized in WP:NARTIST. https://www.portrait.gov.au/content/so-fine-carol-mcgregor, a statement by the artist, is a primary source. That still doesn't mean it can't be used. Policy, per WP:PRIMARY is that "Unless restricted by another policy, primary sources that have been reputably published may be used in Wikipedia, but only with care, because it is easy to misuse them." Vexations (talk) 13:06, 6 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment from a different angle, it appears her work is in two public collections. Kluge-Ruhe Aboriginal Art Collection clearly satisfies the requirements. I don't know enough about Australian art organizations to make the call on the other one, but given that they are a public institution and have a permamenent collection, I am leaning towards accepting it as satisfying 4(d) --Theredproject (talk) 13:36, 6 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I have been looking for sources and adding some, as well as looking for collections which hold her work. I may be able to add some quotes from reviews, although there are some I don't have access to (on ProQuest). The Commute exhibition at the Institute of Modern Art, Brisbane, is of works commissioned from the artists - whether that means the works will become part of the permanent collection of IMA, I don't know. I think that she is close to meeting WP:NARTIST, though that's not completely clear yet. RebeccaGreen (talk) 14:37, 6 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Withdrawn I didn't mean for this to be a cleanup, but it has been, and that is good. References have been found and added, and the two collections do seem to mean she meets WP:ARTIST. I still think there is little in terms of truly independent coverage, but she seems to meet notability on other grounds. (One thing I want to remark on, and this is not applicable to the article at hand, was the use of indigenous art collections as notability criteria. This is fine for contemporary living artists, but it immediately struck me that many museum collections are full of stolen aboriginal art! Again, not related to contemporary living artists and the article at hand, but interesting given the history of (often forced) appropriation in that area.)ThatMontrealIP (talk) 18:02, 6 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. There is a strong consensus to delete, and as suggested I will salt the page. Xymmax ^{So let it be written} _{So let it be done} 17:45, 13 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Bridge Back to Life[edit]

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

In its earlier version, this was a coatrack for the doctor prominently mentioned in the article. In its current version, with most of that information removed, it is no longer notable. See also the extensive delete history (and here too!) for the Dr in question. ThatMontrealIP (talk) 04:37, 6 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as per nomination. Pit there are not any more sources for a place established in 1988.TH1980 (talk) 04:39, 6 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 05:18, 6 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 05:19, 6 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Health and fitness-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 08:51, 6 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 08:51, 6 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep There is certainly many more sources which establish Bridge Back to Life as an OASAS certified outpatient addiction treatment program with numerous centers throughout NY metropolitan area. This fact is not even in question. Additionally, the owner Gary Butchen, has extensive and unique qualifications. This page does not list all of his qualification but a simple search will show this. Here is another link: https://www.lohud.com/story/news/crime/2019/03/28/opiod-lawsuit-sackler-purdue-pharma-drug-crisis-oxycontin/3300544002/. Also, I agree that there was a significant amount of information about the medical director - Dr. Russell Surasky, however his notoriety as a triple board certified physician is also well established. If someone would do a little basic research about Bridge Back to Life this nomination for deletion would have never even been started.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 63.85.164.33 (talk • contribs) Strikng comment of blocked editor/ likely sockpuppet.ThatMontrealIP (talk) 08:49, 7 April 2019 (UTC) [reply]

Comment: The above IP user has been blocked for one week for repeatedly removing the AfD notification template from the article in question, and for re-introducing content to the article that was previously introduced to Draft:Russell Surasky by users who have been indef blocked for sockpuppetry and for undisclosed paid editing. I would recommend that the closing admin take into account that this is likely an IP sock of a blocked user. ST47 (talk) 04:18, 7 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. This is an infomercial for the doctor, and given the difficulty in establishing an article about him, looks like a backdoor effort. The facility doesn't appear notable. To be clear, this is the version I was referring to [18]. 2601:188:180:1481:65F5:930C:B0B2:CD63 (talk) 04:10, 7 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete and Salt The text of this article which is repeatedly being added by IP users and sockpuppet accounts is substantially similar to the deleted content of Draft:Russell Surasky, which was Russell Surasky, before it was deleted several times, salted, and gotten no fewer than six different accounts indef banned for socking or for undisclosed paid editing. If this AfD is closed as "delete", please also salt the page. ST47 (talk) 04:26, 7 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Cannot see how this facility passes WP:ORG or the WP:GNG - couldn't find much coverage in sources. Zingarese talk · contribs 04:34, 7 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete entirely promotional rubbish not WP:GNG Lubbad85 (☎) 20:23, 11 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect to Edda Awards. Xymmax ^{So let it be written} _{So let it be done} 17:55, 13 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Edda Award for Best Short Film[edit]

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

An award at a show that may or may not be notable. Either delete or a redirect be the best I think. No references to be found either. (Not sure of the notability of the other categories at the show.-one can check to see) Wgolf (talk) 04:23, 6 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Iceland-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 05:19, 6 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 05:20, 6 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Edda Awards. These sub-articles are severely out of date (many updated 13 years ago, like this one), and they should probably all redirect to the parent article. The award show itself has some notability (albeit minor) as being the only large film award in Iceland, but the Edda Awards article might need to be written from scratch. – Þjarkur (talk) 13:05, 6 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Xymmax ^{So let it be written} _{So let it be done} 17:39, 13 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Ernie Schenck[edit]

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

Poorly sourced, promotional creation that has not been improved in nearly 10 years of existence. Nothing to show meeting WP:GNG and a WP:BEFORE source turns up a fair amount of self-promotion and some passing mentions. Melcous (talk) 00:29, 6 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Advertising-related deletion discussions. IntoThinAir (talk) 03:49, 6 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Delete If the article has not been improved in a decade, it can go.TH1980 (talk) 04:07, 6 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 08:52, 6 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 08:57, 6 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 08:59, 6 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I don't see any reason for keeping this article. TheEditster (talk) 10:01, 6 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Xymmax ^{So let it be written} _{So let it be done} 17:37, 13 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Kingsley Uyi Idehen[edit]

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

Unsourced BLP. One apparently spurious hit on Gnews, one verifiable hit on Gbooks. See also Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/OpenLink Software. Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 00:22, 6 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. KCVelaga (talk) 03:01, 6 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. KCVelaga (talk) 03:01, 6 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. KCVelaga (talk) 03:01, 6 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Nigeria-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 03:58, 6 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 03:59, 6 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 03:59, 6 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Heavily promotional and lacks any reliable third party sources. – Ammarpad (talk) 05:46, 6 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete promo, not notable. Graywalls (talk) 21:57, 6 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Can't find sources.Jacona (talk) 12:45, 7 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was soft delete. WP:REFUND applies. Xymmax ^{So let it be written} _{So let it be done} 17:36, 13 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

OpenLink Software[edit]

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

I declined a G11 speedy deletion of this. However, I see nothing resembling the level of in-depth coverage required to satisfy WP:NCORP, so listing here. Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 00:16, 6 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. KCVelaga (talk) 03:01, 6 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. KCVelaga (talk) 03:01, 6 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Massachusetts-related deletion discussions. KCVelaga (talk) 03:01, 6 April 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.