Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2019 February 15

Recent AfDs: Today Yesterday

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

< 14 February	16 February >

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. Tone 09:25, 23 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Adelre Brunitto[edit]

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

Not notable, WP:BLP1E. While an impressive achievement, a master's degree at 21 does not make someone a child prodigy and is not unique. Melcous (talk) 23:46, 15 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. ...William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 02:23, 16 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Italy-related deletion discussions. ...William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 02:23, 16 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Maryland-related deletion discussions. Thsmi002 (talk) 03:17, 16 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete being the youngest graduate of a specific program is not in and of itself a sign of notability.John Pack Lambert (talk) 15:22, 16 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, hopefully will be significant in the future but now WP:TOOSOON. Coolabahapple (talk) 07:47, 17 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete. Very close to being an A7. How is getting a masters at 21 notable (I was 22 getting mine)? Why did the Huffington Post have an article on her for this? Maybe her real genius is self-promotion, which would mean that this subject could be reappearing again on WP (salt anybody). Britishfinance (talk)
Delete - fails GNG, & NBIO ^{Atsme✍🏻📧} 02:34, 19 February 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 17:03, 22 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Adam Wachter[edit]

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

Fails WP:GNG and WP:NCREATIVE John from Idegon (talk) 16:18, 8 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. ~Ruyaba~ {talk} 16:23, 8 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Michigan-related deletion discussions. ~Ruyaba~ {talk} 16:23, 8 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Bakazaka (talk) 19:52, 8 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Mr. Watcher seems notable enough.TH1980 (talk) 21:37, 12 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Does not meet WP:COMPOSER notability requirements. While his award wins are respectful, none are major music competitions. They are youth awards and #4 of WP:COMPOSER says recognition must be for "major music competition not established expressly for newcomers." Actaudio (talk) 07:51, 15 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Agree above that he does not meet WP:COMPOSER notability requirements. The only article that I can see that actually is about him is the Hollywood Sential but the link seems broken and the paper is not a Tier 1 source. He needs at least one major RS where the article is mainly about him and not mentioning him in passing amongst others (e.g. this NYT article), and/or about winning awards (which are not material enough for WP:COMPOSER). Britishfinance (talk) 14:06, 17 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, DannyS712 (talk) 22:53, 15 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete At this time, he doesn’t meet the notability requirements. Trillfendi (talk) 00:10, 16 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above, and WP:TOOSOON, WP:CREATIVE, and WP:PROF. He literally got his highest degree last year. Bearian (talk) 18:53, 21 February 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. Tone 09:25, 23 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

BFI list of the 50 films you should see by the age of 14[edit]

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

This WP:COPYVIO survived three(!) Afd's from 2006 to 2008. Clarityfiend (talk) 09:43, 8 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. ~Ruyaba~ {talk} 09:46, 8 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. ~Ruyaba~ {talk} 09:46, 8 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. As this is an article about a list that exists in the real world, we have two questions: whether this BFI list is notable, and how much of it can we quote or copy. Merely having an article about this list is not in and of itself a copyvio, so if the topic merits inclusion, I don't see that being a deletion rationale, and we've dealt with this with other notable lists. postdlf (talk) 12:14, 8 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Google search does not evidence notability of list. Existence of list by a notable organization that has published other notable lists does not mean this is notable too. Reywas92^Talk 23:48, 8 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep As mentioned above this page has survived three deletion proposals (March 2006, April 2006, July 2008). BFI (British Film Institute) is notable and a quick google search will find hundreds of movie sites where the list is displayed. I vote Keep, because the only reason 16 year old me watched half of the movies on this list was because of this wikipedia page. Will be disappointed if it's deleted. Theweekndeditor (talk) 01:52, 9 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

WP:ILIKEIT, not a suitable reason for inclusion. Also we aren't interested in lists of other movies sites for purposes of this discussion. Ajf773 (talk) 20:38, 9 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep has coverage and there are a number of similar lists on Wikipedia such as Rotten tomatoes highest rated and lowest rated etc, thanks Atlantic306 (talk) 19:37, 9 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Coverage is routine. Also WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS. Ajf773 (talk) 20:38, 9 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Lack of independent sources verifying the notability of this ranked list. The three previous AfD's were conducted at a time where users voted to keep stuff based on general interest and not on policy. Ajf773 (talk) 20:38, 9 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Per nom and User:Reywas92. The one reliable source states "The following is an alphabetical list of the ten most recommended films for children to see:". This is noted but where does the other 40 come from? Apparently the "British Film Institute" in the "External links" section. It is there because it would potentially be a copyvio to use as a reference. Also, WP:OTHERSTUFF is not a good argument in an AFD. Otr500 (talk) 02:50, 11 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, DannyS712 (talk) 22:48, 15 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. The BFI is, of course, notable, but not every list of films that they produce is. Fundamentally, this lacks meaningful independent coverage. One BBC article isn't sufficient. And there's good reason to expect the minimal attention this list received, because the BFI itself described this list as "in no way final". As far as I can determine, they never revisited this concept after the initial BFI/Barbican Centre collaboration. Insufficient coverage plus the complicated question of whether we can even reproduce lists like this for copyright reasons both strongly suggest that there's only one policy-compliant outcome here. Squeamish Ossifrage (talk) 23:49, 15 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete this cruft with no independent sources. Trillfendi (talk) 00:11, 16 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete no independent coverage, and as noted we can't include the full list for COPYVIO reasons, so it's not even useful. power~enwiki (π, ν) 03:42, 16 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Time is a brutal resolver of notability (e.g. time defending old articles with flaky references to construct "contrived" WP:GNG cases will be wasted; eventually the ILIKEIT aspect, so crucial to their support at AfD, dies). Almost no RS to this list left; the list never caught on. Why would somebody look for this list now?. Britishfinance (talk) 14:21, 17 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep per WP:FILMMAKER (non-admin closure) ―Matthew J. Long -Talk-^☖ 03:03, 23 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Lucy Barzun Donnelly[edit]

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

An executive producer on some minor films, not seeing how this passes WP:GNG. Edwardx (talk) 22:33, 15 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

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

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

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

Delete She lacks independent sources. Trillfendi (talk) 00:12, 16 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep ~~Delele~~ There are of passing references to her in various high quality RS articles covering her films, but outside of listing her name, I can't find a single material RS that has an article (or even a part of an article), on the subject herself - E.g. no independent bio article, no chapter on her in a book, no interview on tv? Per RebeccaGreen, she does pass WP:FILMMAKER (at least two of the films she co-produced have their own WP articles). Britishfinance (talk) 14:29, 17 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep She has been producer of several notable films (ie, they have Wikipedia articles), so surely she meets WP:FILMMAKER #3, "has created or played a major role in co-creating a significant or well-known work or collective body of work." She has also been executive producer of other films and a TV show. The article needs improving, but I believe she meets notability guidelines. RebeccaGreen (talk) 01:48, 22 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - voting to make it clear, the above two editors are correct that FILMMAKER notability is satisfied. Nosebagbear (talk) 22:57, 22 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. (non-admin closure) ―Matthew J. Long -Talk-^☖ 02:27, 23 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Women's Euro Hockey League[edit]

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

While this article technically passes the Google Test, perhaps we should get a consensus on whether or not we should make an exception for Wikipedia is not a crystal ball. I dream of horses (My talk page) (My edits) @ 22:26, 1 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. I dream of horses (My talk page) (My edits) @ 22:27, 1 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Europe-related deletion discussions. I dream of horses (My talk page) (My edits) @ 22:27, 1 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: There are all manner of articles for things (sports leagues included) that never existed or came to fruition, but received enough significant press coverage to meet the GNG. The question to hand is whether those sources exist, not whether this league does. Ravenswing 01:52, 2 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. I don't follow hockey, but two points: First, is this just a rebranding of EuroHockey Club Champions Cup (women)? The article suggests it may be, so a merge there may be appropriate. Second, this is confirmed to be happening, so there's no crystal ball involved. --Michig (talk) 08:27, 2 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. This does article not fall under Wikipedia is not a crystal ball because there are enough sources saying this will happen and it is confirmed it will happen. Justwagen (talk) 09:12, 2 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Or perhaps more of a question; why is this sorted into an ice hockey discussion? Is there not a better place to present this so that editors who are more familiar with field hockey can interact with it?18abruce (talk) 21:26, 2 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
It is listed in a few places. -DJSasso (talk) 16:24, 5 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ―Matthew J. Long -Talk-^☖ 12:47, 8 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. ―Matthew J. Long -Talk-^☖ 12:49, 8 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. ―Matthew J. Long -Talk-^☖ 12:50, 8 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, 78.26 _{(spin me / revolutions)} 22:17, 15 February 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. Tone 09:26, 23 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Malcolm Levy[edit]

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

Non-notable artist. Does not meet WP:ARTIST or WP:GNG. A loose noose (talk) 20:29, 15 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Artists-related deletion discussions. Bakazaka (talk) 20:41, 15 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Photography-related deletion discussions. Bakazaka (talk) 20:41, 15 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete All I could find in a search was this Vancouver Sun article, which is an interview about his position as a festival director.ThatMontrealIP (talk) 05:33, 16 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. (Author of article) Wow, that was fast. Below is an easily findable list of sources about the artist. More importantly, as I said in the talk page, I have written an entire chapter - WP:GNG - on the uniqueness - WP:ARTIST - of his work in a peer-reviewed book (in both hard- and softcover) published by Dartmouth College Press (University Press of New England) and distributed by University of Chicago. It will also appear in another book coming out with Open Humanities (and I've given interviews about it/him on both NPR and Bad At Sports). I'll admit that I am an inclusionist and want to put most of the artists I write about online, but I'd appreciate recognition of the aforementioned sources as notable and reliable (and probably enough)?

https://www.vancouverisawesome.com/2013/09/05/the-proof-%E2%80%93-malcolm-levy/
https://vancouversun.com/entertainment/local-arts/q-a-new-forms-festival-executive-director-malcolm-levy
http://www.burrardarts.org/project/malcolm-levy/
http://blog.goethe.de/satellite/authors/3-Malcolm-Levyv
http://transfergallery.com/malcolm-levy/
https://www.straight.com/arts/505866/fuse-and-isea-disrupt-vancouver-art-gallery-multimedia-marvels
http://capturephotofest.com/artists/malcolm-levy/
https://technical.ly/brooklyn/2015/04/07/generate-app-adds-artful-complexity-mobile-image-manipulation/
https://whitehotmagazine.com/articles/curator-code-live-2010-olympics/2027
http://csaspace.blogspot.com/2014/10/malcolm-levy-rize.html
http://www.isea-archives.org/symposia/isea2014-2-2-2-2-3/
https://link.springer.com/chapter/10.1057/9781137437204_3
https://thump.vice.com/en_ca/article/pg8jem/imprints-hybridity
https://books.google.ca/books?id=6IJZDwAAQBAJ&pg=PA16&lpg=PA16&dq=malcolm+levy&source=bl&ots=rf3Ie8F3tf&sig=aYx8--idurusKT3mT_4fQYCBmhI&hl=en&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwigosi8q6zcAhXkIzQIHRpADyw4RhDoAQhLMAg#v=onepage&q=malcolm%20levy&f=false

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hybridity_Music
https://tomboloartmedia.wordpress.com/2010/02/20/curator-malcolm-levy-builds-bridges-through-code-lives-new-media-art/
http://www.michelleobrien.net/2013/01/illuminations/
https://www.pressreader.com/canada/vancouver-sun/20100909/283472137563776
http://bluedogmedia.ca/project/the-road-to-shambhala/
https://artdailyvancouver.wordpress.com/2014/10/14/saw-it-the-rize-malcolm-levy-curated-by-steven-tong-csa-space-oct-9/
http://www.mutek.org/es/video/243-digitalis-6-babe-rainbow
http://arasozgun.net/Malcolm_Levy_Other-Frames.pdf
http://nathanielstern.com/text/2015/other-frames-malcolm-levy-and-sensing-images/
— Preceding unsigned comment added by Nathaniels (talk • contribs) 16:58, 17 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. I've had a look at a few of these sources, and I understand you believe he is notable. Let's take the Burrardarts link: it takes the reader to a page from the Burrand Arts Foundation. This kind of source is not independent from the article's subject: the Foundation has a vested interest in promoting the artists it features, and that makes it difficult to consider it to be a suitable source here. The Bluedogmedia link doesn't even mention the subject's name— it tells me about an upcoming film. The michelleobrien.net link is to a wedding announcement for which the article's subject will be doing an installation. One of the links is to another Wikipedia article, which is never a suitable source of evidence of notability. None of the blogs or wordpress articles/ links are likely to count as reliable publications. etc., etc. What we need in order to retain this article are multiple examples of where he has been discussed in newspapers, magazines, and/ or books (or MAYBE some internet sources, though these are often less convincing for establishing notability). We need not mere mentions of his name, but rather he needs to be the subject of some extended text of some kind. The NPR thing you mentioned might be enough— can you provide a source for it? Can you add that source into the article in an appropriate place? A loose noose (talk) 20:22, 18 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. The sources listed above are almost all not suitable WP:RS for a WP BLP (not even close). Even the lower-tier Canadian sources like the Vancouver Sun article mentions him because he was the Director of an arts festival. There is no single (never mind several) significant piece on him from a material Canadian RS (never mind non-Canadian). That is a clear fail of WP:GNG; not even borderline. Article is bio-spam, and a strong case for WP:A7. Britishfinance (talk) 13:05, 22 February 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 WP:SNOW Keep. (non-admin closure) ―Matthew J. Long -Talk-^☖ 02:49, 23 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Quinn Slobodian[edit]

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

Subject does not meet WP:ACADEMIC or WP:GNG. A loose noose (talk) 20:24, 15 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. Bakazaka (talk) 20:27, 15 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. Bakazaka (talk) 20:27, 15 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. Bakazaka (talk) 20:27, 15 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Massachusetts-related deletion discussions. Bakazaka (talk) 20:27, 15 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The article needs updating and improvement, but Slobodian's work is widely reviewed, making him an easy pass of WP:AUTHOR#3. For example, Globalists was reviewed in The New Republic [1], Dissent [2], Areo [3], The American Historical Review [4], etc. Foreign Front was reviewed in Journal for the Study of Radicalism [5], Journal of Contemporary History [6], etc. Again, article definitely needs to be improved, but there's no problem here that deletion solves. Bakazaka (talk) 20:32, 15 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I thought about nominating this for deletion myself, as the subject doesn't pass WP:NPROF; however, I'm persuaded that he would pass WP:AUTHOR, as his 2018 book in particular has been the subject of several substantial reviews in relevant publications. Unless we're saying that academics have to pass WP:NPROF in addition to other criteria, I think this is a keep. GirthSummit _(blether) 09:28, 16 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I agree the subject is a probably a bit WP:TOOSOON for NPROF, however he does seem to pass NAUTHOR. Icewhiz (talk) 13:45, 17 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - as per Girth Summit, was ready to vote delete as per WP:NACADEMIC, but the book reviews make me change due to WP:NAUTHOR. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 00:45, 18 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
WP:SNOW Keep. JSTOR shows this historian's books getting multiple reviews. This nomination seems to be a failure to perform routine WP:BEFORE search for notability of an academic historian who has published multiple books. Sails past WP:AUTHOR. E.M.Gregory (talk) 01:19, 18 February 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. Tone 09:26, 23 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Imoh River Area Development Union[edit]

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

Organization is not notable. No suitable references were found during a google search. A loose noose (talk) 20:21, 15 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. Bakazaka (talk) 20:26, 15 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. Bakazaka (talk) 20:26, 15 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Nigeria-related deletion discussions. Bakazaka (talk) 20:26, 15 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Found not sources indication of the subject. Fails WP:NCORP. CASSIOPEIA^(talk) 05:18, 20 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete Per nom and clear WP:A7 candidate. Nothing onine that would imply any form of WP:GNG. Britishfinance (talk) 13:46, 22 February 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. Tone 09:26, 23 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Jason Horsley[edit]

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

Not notable BodaciousTattvas (talk) 20:16, 15 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. Bakazaka (talk) 20:24, 15 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. Bakazaka (talk) 20:24, 15 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Spirituality-related deletion discussions. Bakazaka (talk) 20:24, 15 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. Bakazaka (talk) 20:24, 15 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Delete. Bio-spam. References to self-published books do not create notability. Nothing from a material United Kingdom RS where he is the subject of the article/piece. Doesn't even appear much in google which is unusual for a media-BLP. Only that the article is so well referenced (with unsuitable refs), would be a WP:A7. Britishfinance (talk) 13:50, 22 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete appears to be PROMO for a self-published writer on a wide variety of topics, some clearly FRINGE. Lacks SECONDARY sourcing. Fails WP:SIGCOV, fails WP:AUTHOR. Extensive self publishing ≠ notability. E.M.Gregory (talk) 14:48, 22 February 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. Fenix down (talk) 07:17, 22 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Kada City F.C.[edit]

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

Subject does not qualify as notable under WP:SPORTS nor WP:ORG. A loose noose (talk) 20:18, 15 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. Bakazaka (talk) 20:23, 15 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. Bakazaka (talk) 20:23, 15 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Nigeria-related deletion discussions. Bakazaka (talk) 20:23, 15 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep A newly promoted Nigerian team just promoted to the top flight. Should not have been moved from AfC in that state, but absolutely notable as a top flight team. I'll clean up the article, make it presentable. SportingFlyer T·C 21:43, 15 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I've sourced the article. There's a lot of other coverage such as [7] that I found but wasn't able to incorporate any of this information into the article. SportingFlyer T·C 22:02, 15 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Giant Snowman 14:57, 18 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per SF. Giant Snowman 14:58, 18 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per SF.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 09:26, 21 February 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. Tone 09:26, 23 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Rent24[edit]

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

Poorly referenced corp-spam, sourced almost entirely to interviews, press releases (rehashed or otherwise) and basic announcements. No coverage with any depth. Praxidicae (talk) 18:50, 15 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Unreliable sources, a quick WP:BEFORE didn't reveal much more. Drewmutt (^ᴥ^) talk 18:59, 15 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Bakazaka (talk) 20:19, 15 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Germany-related deletion discussions. Bakazaka (talk) 20:19, 15 February 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. Tone 09:27, 23 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Teal Group[edit]

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

No evidence the group is notable for a stand-alone article, nothing in the article shows them as being of note MilborneOne (talk) 18:49, 15 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Provisional Delete - unless evidence of notability can be produced for this AfD. — Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 19:27, 15 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 12:52, 18 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. IntoThinAir (talk) 19:32, 15 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Virginia-related deletion discussions. Bakazaka (talk) 20:19, 15 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Fails to meet WP:CORPDEPTH. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 14:59, 19 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - I spent quite a bit of time looking for a source to meet CORPDEPTH - there is a lot of minor press coverage and references to reports that they've produced, so I thought that I'd be able to find some significant coverage, but I drew a blank. GirthSummit _(blether) 14:16, 22 February 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 Dos Yiddishe Licht. Two people argued to merge, but the counter-argument that without references, you don't have WP:V, precludes a merge. Still, the suggested merge target does mention this, so a redirect, per WP:ATD seems reasonable. The history is still available, so if anybody wants to mine this for material to merge. If you do that, however, you need to find WP:RS to support any merged material. -- RoySmith (talk) 14:38, 23 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Beleichtungen[edit]

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

Doesn't seem to pass GNG or Notability guidelines, references are not even for the subject of the article. Sir Joseph ^(talk) 18:40, 31 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Judaism-related deletion discussions. Sir Joseph ^(talk) 18:40, 31 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. I deleted the blogspot under references as well as the other entry that also doesn't apply. Yoninah (talk) 18:43, 31 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Journalism-related deletion discussions. Icewhiz (talk) 19:08, 31 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Israel-related deletion discussions. Icewhiz (talk) 19:08, 31 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of News media-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 09:07, 1 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

~~Keep~~. Mostly notable as Das Yiddishe Licht, and not the newer Beleichtungen. Title probably should be the newer one, but Das Yiddishe Licht should redirect here. As a Yiddish paper in Jerusalem - English BEFOREing won't get you far (though I suspect the yiddishkeit rags in New York probably do refer, in Yiddish, to the Jerusalem Yiddish rag). There are however quite a few Yiddish (which is harder for me to assess RS-wise) and Hebrew hits, for instance: This academic paper on the use of Hebrew and the Yiddish language used in DYL (lots of different types of Yiddish are extant - though following the Holocaust, it has all become a mishmash)..... Here a Haredi paper refers to DYL. Quite a few Hebrew book hits, harking back quite a bit (e.g. 1945) - [8][9][10][11][12][13]. I would expect even more hits in Yiddish literature - whose online availability is spotty, to say the least (Hebrew ain't great either online, but there's quite a bit more). Icewhiz (talk) 09:20, 1 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to Dos Yiddishe Licht. As a DYL was created too, and since I do not think Beleichtungen is independentally notable from DYL per my search - a merge to there, leaving a redirect, is probably the best course.Icewhiz (talk) 19:38, 2 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.

Partial merge to a disambiguation page. Unless there is enough material for a standalone page, I think a redirect to a disambiguation page instead of an unrelated newspaper would be preferable and less confusing for readers. 24.84.14.158 (talk) 22:43, 10 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

When the material is withou any references it simply does not make it as a new article. If the material somehow, usually through overight, has already made it as an article, we do not send it elsewhere but eliminate it altogether. -The Gnome (talk) 10:16, 23 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Randykitty (talk) 18:33, 15 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Unrefenced and a decade old. No evidence ever independentally notable. Nothing to "Merge" as there are no references; must be Delete. Britishfinance (talk) 16:33, 22 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete since there are no references verifying any kind of independent notability. In fact, there are no references out there, period. -The Gnome (talk) 10:16, 23 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note that most of what is out there is writtent in Yiddish (much off line, some online), written in Hebrew letters.Icewhiz (talk) 10:29, 23 February 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 Church Educational System per WP:BLP1E (non-admin closure) ―Matthew J. Long -Talk-^☖ 02:57, 23 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Paul V. Johnson[edit]

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

A non-notable subject, the article qualifies for deletion per WP:BLP1E. The subject is notable only for one event, being appointed as commissioner of the LDS Church Educational System. WP:BEFORE source searches are providing no significant coverage in independent, reliable sources other than this article about the subject's appointment. Fleeting passing mentions, name checks and brief quotations found in source searches do not establish notability. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 22:24, 31 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 22:26, 31 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 22:26, 31 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 22:26, 31 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Church Educational System per nom. My BEFORE isn't turning up anything substantive. b uidhe 23:04, 31 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ad Orientem (talk) 00:36, 8 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Randykitty (talk) 18:30, 15 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Per nom, clear fail of WP:GNG. Britishfinance (talk) 13:54, 22 February 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 move to draft. I will tag the redirect per WP:CSD#R2. Thanks, -- (non-admin closure) DannyS712 (talk) 06:15, 23 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Diva Tommei[edit]

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

Not notable person. BEFORE finds little else than the scant sourcing in the article. Chetsford (talk) 23:29, 31 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 08:56, 1 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 08:56, 1 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Italy-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 08:56, 1 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 09:01, 1 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ad Orientem (talk) 00:32, 8 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Move to draft to provide time for evidence of the notability of this subject to develop. If no improvement is made in due time, the draft will be abandoned and deleted as such. bd2412 T 03:07, 15 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Randykitty (talk) 18:29, 15 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete/Draftify. Nothing I can find to support GNG. Tiny company that raised just over $1m in 2017. There is an assumption that I see repeated often at AfD that TED talks imply notability but I don't think that this is the case. Still young so who knows, but for now, not a candidate for a BLP. Britishfinance (talk) 13:58, 22 February 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. -- RoySmith (talk) 16:35, 23 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Auseklis (newspaper)[edit]

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

Fails WP:NEWSNOTE. Completely unsourced and wasn't edited once since its creation in 2010. GN-z11 ^☎ ^★ 15:08, 8 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of News media-related deletion discussions. ~Ruyaba~ {talk} 15:12, 8 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Latvia-related deletion discussions. ~Ruyaba~ {talk} 15:12, 8 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: The creator of this page, Starzynka, was blocked in 2010 for being a sockpuppet account. Levvy^owo? 15:23, 8 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

...and considering the fact that the page has actually not been touched since 2010 except to put an AfD template, I'm going to have to concur with GN and say delete. Levvy^owo? 15:29, 8 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete 1 sentence unsourced stub with 1 edit from a blocked user. No prejudice against recreation --DannyS712 (talk) 16:56, 8 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Further comment: Just noticed this, the subject and the article are so bland that the folks over at WikiProject Latvia didn't bother to give it any importance rating. GN-z11 ^☎ ^★ 18:04, 8 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep with the argument that the poster's misbehavior is moot, as their singular sentence is so sparse one can hardly argue it is promotional. It was, however, extremely inaccurate. The paper seems to have a very interesting history as the first Marxist periodical published in the Latvian language, dating back to the 1800s. It also looks to be an interesting glimpse into the history of Latvian American immigrants, a group no doubt lacking some coverage on Wikipedia due to systemic bias. If the sourcing seems sparse, a redirect to List of newspapers in Latvia would also be logical from where I'm standing. 24.84.14.158 (talk) 20:17, 10 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for improving the article, however having a somewhat short history involving certain diaspora still doesn't make it notable per WP:NEWSNOTE. GN-z11 ^☎ ^★ 16:47, 11 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
More on this: checking the two book references, it doesn't seem that there's any substantial mention of Auseklis; rather, it's a passing and non-substantial mention (at the most, searching its name only brings up 1 or 2 results in the entire book). Therefore, I do believe it fails WP:GNG. Levvy^owo? 17:24, 11 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, GN-z11 ^☎ ^★ 17:43, 15 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Question: When will this be over with? This AFD's been open for 2 weeks now and no active contributions since the relisting a week ago. I'd like this to be over. Levvy^owo? 16:38, 22 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Levityn, some articles take a bit longer to delete than others. Consensus simply needs to be sorted out. ―Matthew J. Long -Talk-^☖ 03:04, 23 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nomination. Lack of sources decides the case against inclusion. We get hits for Miķelis Krogzemis' pen name but not for the paper.-The Gnome (talk) 10:22, 23 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete; fails WP:N/WP:GNG due to lack of sources. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 11:12, 23 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Per nomination and particularly the lack of verifiability of the topic. Britishfinance (talk) 13:58, 23 February 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. Tone 09:27, 23 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Orchards of the world[edit]

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

There are two problems with this article. The first is that the content of the article directly states that "Orchards of the world is a nickname for Mediterranean forests:", which, if true, would mean that this should not be a standalone article, but rather should redirect to Mediterranean forest. The second issue is that there doesn't appear to be any reliable source coverage that actually establishes that "Orchards of the world" is used to refer to such forests. It appears to be a phrase used in Excellup brand teaching materials, based on both this source cited in the article [14] and an internet search whose top hits were Answers.com pages with titles like "Why are Mediterranean forests called the orchards of the world". Previously nominated for PROD, dePROD by an editor with no other edits who asserted that this article is needed because the nickname is true _signed,Rosguill ^talk 17:19, 15 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom - this looks like a nickname from a textbook for Class 7 Geography. It's a misnomer and not in common use. power~enwiki (π, ν) 03:45, 16 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Fails WP:NEOLOGISM. Clarityfiend (talk) 20:08, 16 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Language-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 07:40, 17 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete If multiple unconnected sources used this term it should be a redirect, just like Garden of England which recieves a mention in the target article. I'd expect such a term to be used in books, but it doesn't seem to be, so delete.--Pontificalibus 11:38, 17 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Fail of WP:NEOLOGISM. Britishfinance (talk) 13:59, 22 February 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. There's no true consensus, but closing this as NC would keep something in mainspace which most people agree shouldn't be there. Draft seems like a reasonable compromise. -- RoySmith (talk) 16:20, 23 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Rupa Shanmugam[edit]

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

Can't find information that would meet WP:GNG. Her company does not have a WP article either. Britishfinance (talk) 21:55, 31 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 22:09, 31 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Bakazaka (talk) 23:19, 31 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. Bakazaka (talk) 23:19, 31 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep There are several independent sources and so the subject passes WP:GNG. Andrew D. (talk) 11:03, 4 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ad Orientem (talk) 00:38, 8 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Move to draft to provide time for evidence of the notability of this subject to develop. If no improvement is made in due time, the draft will be abandoned and deleted as such. bd2412 T 03:13, 15 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 17:11, 15 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. The sources found or cited are quite poor, and certainly do not meet WP:NPERSON or even WP:GNG: NYS Women Inc is a women's support group that has simply put up subject's cv; the New Strait Times piece is pure advertorial, with a link to the NYS Women Inc cv; and Ipoh Echo is a small local newspaper at Perak. This is just trivial coverage. Let's be gracious and call it a case of WP:TOOSOON. -The Gnome (talk) 10:59, 23 February 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. Tone 09:27, 23 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Xavier Khan Vattayil[edit]

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

Non-notable person. Article's sole claim to notability is based on his foundation of Sehion Ministries, but there is no indication that this is a notable organization. WikiDan61^ChatMe!_ReadMe!! 16:51, 15 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. WikiDan61^ChatMe!_ReadMe!! 16:52, 15 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. WikiDan61^ChatMe!_ReadMe!! 16:52, 15 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. Bakazaka (talk) 20:20, 15 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Article takes an unambiguously promotional tone and lacks third party references of any sort. Searching on google, there is no third-party mention of him from a source that could be remotely considered reliable. There is nothing in the article that can be saved, and the article cannot be rewritten as there is no source-able information on the subject. SWL36 (talk) 21:19, 15 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Delete All the references are primary. Google search gives nothing as "Xavier Khan Vattayil", but "Vattayil Achan" gives loads of youtube videos, plus his supporters asking flattering questions about him on Quora (What makes Fr.Xavier Khan Vattayil a successful charismatic speaker?). However, not a single material Malaysian or Indian RS on him as a subject. Article is highly WP:PROMO and I am sure a WP:COI as well. Britishfinance (talk) 14:05, 22 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment Not sure why you would be looking for Malaysian sources. Vattayil is from India. WikiDan61^ChatMe!_ReadMe!! 15:39, 22 February 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 Dareysteel#Singles. (non-admin closure) ―Matthew J. Long -Talk-^☖ 02:32, 23 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Celebration (Dareysteel song)[edit]

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

The song fails WP:GNG and WP:NSONG. It did not chart on any country's official music chart and was not discussed in reliable sources. Versace1608 ^{Wanna Talk?} 17:02, 2 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. Versace1608 ^{Wanna Talk?} 17:03, 2 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Nigeria-related deletion discussions. Versace1608 ^{Wanna Talk?} 17:03, 2 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Spain-related deletion discussions. Versace1608 ^{Wanna Talk?} 17:03, 2 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: No participation so far.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ―Matthew J. Long -Talk-^☖ 13:05, 8 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Jovanmilic97 (talk) 16:30, 15 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per above. This was not a top 10 song. I would not object to a redirect. Bearian (talk) 19:03, 21 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep the article meet WP:NSONG . beside a song that was featured on TOP40 songs charts , including notable media newspapers such as Herald newspaper , Rayoveto (talk) 09:50, 22 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. To meet NSONG it must be "ranked on national or significant music or sales charts"; the TOP40 charts referred to in this article don't meet this. Britishfinance (talk) 16:45, 22 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Fails NSONG. Fails GNG. References in the article are either junk or broken. Pure WP:PROMO. Britishfinance (talk) 16:43, 22 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
comment. redirect instead Rayoveto (talk) 16:58, 22 February 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. Retained due to more than sufficient sources, under various names. I believe titling will need to be raised at Requested Moves, or further talk page discussion, as multiple names are proposed within the AfD and no notable consensus on that issue found (non-admin closure) Nosebagbear (talk) 16:54, 22 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Victoria Ground (Leeds)[edit]

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

PROD removed for reason: "I think it has enough references in books to meet WP:GNG." Well, I'd be interested to know just what book references there are to establish GNG. Here there are no references to the Victoria Ground in Leeds and here the mentions are nowhere enough for notability. Bear in mind the location of this ground wasn't even known prior to old OS maps being released, so it's hardly well covered. Beyond that, the ground did not host a first-class match, as the match was cancelled. So it fails WP:CRIN and beyond that it fails WP:GNG. StickyWicket (talk) 10:22, 1 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Architecture-related deletion discussions. Bakazaka (talk) 19:28, 1 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Cricket-related deletion discussions. Bakazaka (talk) 19:28, 1 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. Bakazaka (talk) 19:28, 1 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment This should probably be moved back to Victoria Ground, Leeds, even if it gets merged (since it should still remain in categories), Grange Park, Wetherby uses this form of disambiguation and is standard to use commas, not brackets for places, even if they aren't settlements, see WP:UKPLACE. Crouch, Swale (talk) 13:59, 2 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Notable park. Variously called "Leeds Royal Park", "Leeds New Gardens", "Tommy Clapham’s Park", "Leeds Horticultural Gardens" ([15] (page 2)). Sources to satisfy WP:GNG include [16] p 62-67, [17] p77-79, [18], [19] and [20] It was clearly a notable location in Leeds, not just used for cricket ([21], [22]). It was converted into public gardens and the roads Royal Park Road, Royal Park Grove, Royal Park Road Avenue and Royal Park Terrace were named after it. Appears to have been the site of the first Balloon-related death in the UK, in 1887 ([23]). Cricket-wise it hosted matches involving William Clarke's All-England Eleven ([24]), and regularly Leeds Cricket Club vs e.g. York and Bradford (e.g. [25]), and was regarded by some as the principal cricket ground in Leeds ([26]). A 1902 work of fiction commented on "the bye-gone glories of Tommy Clapham's park, an institution which was at one time part and parcel of the town of Leeds, and which far outshone in popularity the vaunted glories of Roundhay Park or any other of the present-day amusements provided for the toiling masses of the city" ([27]).--Pontificalibus 12:41, 7 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: For consideration of given alternate sources under different names, if applicable.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Nosebagbear (talk) 14:10, 8 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Jovanmilic97 (talk) 16:29, 15 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep with the new sources, this passes WP:GNG. Would be good to use those sources for an article expansion. Joseph2302 (talk) 08:55, 18 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep based on the info found by Pontificalibus. Lugnuts ^{Fire Walk with Me} 13:13, 19 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - if kept, I might be better to redirect to Leeds Royal Park (or something along that line), as the cricket ground appears to have made up just one part of the larger park. StickyWicket (talk) 16:47, 19 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I agree, if kept them a requested move could be started to determine the best name, as it's been more than a cricket ground. Joseph2302 (talk) 17:43, 19 February 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. Tone 09:27, 23 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Howza ilmeya jamia jaffria[edit]

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

Supposedly an Islamic university, but I couldn't find a single reliable source about it (searching for the Urdu name also only gave 5 results, most from wikis). If it exists, it doesn't seem to be a notable true university at all, but some online religious college. Fram (talk) 09:13, 1 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 09:35, 1 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 09:35, 1 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Nosebagbear (talk) 14:12, 8 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Jovanmilic97 (talk) 16:29, 15 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Delete Per nom, found nothing on this. Almost feels like a hoax article? Certainly can't be as notable as claimed and be a ghost in GNG terms? Britishfinance (talk) 14:19, 22 February 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. Tone 09:28, 23 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Nowi[edit]

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

References appear to point to only primary sources, niche articles and press releases, falling short of WP:NCORP. Drewmutt (^ᴥ^) talk 16:27, 15 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. AllyD (talk) 17:54, 15 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Netherlands-related deletion discussions. AllyD (talk) 17:54, 15 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. AllyD (talk) 17:54, 15 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete this is nothing more than mill corpspam. Praxidicae (talk) 18:17, 15 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Per Praxidicae. Just another mill corpspam. Lapablo (talk) 09:31, 21 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Per Praxidicae. Tiny capital raising, non-notable awards. Fails NCORP. Britishfinance (talk) 17:11, 22 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: While noting that this was accepted through AfC, and carries many references, the article is describing a start-up firm's proposition and funding. Many of the references are merely reporting a funding announcement, some others are incubator/project listings and passing event mentions. The listed awards do not appear inherently notable. I do not see enough to demonstrate attained notabiility at this time via WP:NCORP or WP:GNG. AllyD (talk) 08:56, 23 February 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. Tone 09:28, 23 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Raymond H. Shuey[edit]

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

Local politician and appointed public servant who fails WP:NPOL. The author's username suggests that this is an WP:AUTOBIO. The vast majority of references used are primary (mostly PDFs of local government records) and a search for further sourcing failed to turn up enough to establish WP:GNG. GPL93 (talk) 16:15, 15 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Arizona-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 18:52, 15 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 18:52, 15 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 18:53, 15 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Avondale AZ is not a global city for the purposes of extablishing the notability of its city councillors under WP:NPOL, so the inclusion tests he would have to meet are that either (a) he had another claim of notability for other reasons that would have already gotten him an article anyway, such as serving in the state legislature at another time in his career, or (b) he could be referenced so much better than most other city councillors (i.e. to nationalizing media coverage) that he had a credible claim to being special. But neither of these conditions are in evidence here at all, and the referencing depends far too heavily on primary sources that do not aid notability at all — although the tangential fact about Avondale's economic growth, referenced to CNN with the link title "Please create a screen name to access this feature", is amusing, it's not evidence of his notability as it isn't about him. Nothing here is "inherently" notable at all, and none of the sourcing is getting him over GNG for it. Bearcat (talk) 18:37, 17 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Per nom and per Bearcat. No material U.S. RS of which he was the subject. Fails WP:GNG. Britishfinance (talk) 16:27, 22 February 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. In terms of considering accepted reasons for deletion, there was a staunch consensus for Keep on the basis of suitable sourcing (non-admin closure) Nosebagbear (talk) 16:56, 22 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

La muñeca menor[edit]

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

Tagged for 4 problems, the earliest of which was noted 6+ years ago. Seemingly, none have been addressed. In fact, there have been no edits in more than 3 years. Toyokuni3 (talk) 16:10, 15 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. I'm sympathetic to the argument that this article isn't good and isn't getting any better, but that's a drawback inherent in the project as a whole, not a cause for deletion. Instead. there are quite a few scholarly publications focused exclusively on this work. When a journal article begins by acknowledging that "there have been numerous studies" of a work, it's a strong implication that the work is notable. Squeamish Ossifrage (talk) 17:51, 15 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 18:55, 15 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Puerto Rico-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 18:55, 15 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, obviously, per the many sources with significant coverage found by the Google Scholar search linked by the nomination process. The issues tagged for are all reasons to improve the article, not to delete it, and the length of time since the last edit is absolutely irrelevant to either. Phil Bridger (talk) 10:37, 16 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I've asked for help with some of the applicable WikiProjects to find people fluent in Spanish that could help expand and improve this article. In any case, there does seem to be quite a bit of coverage that specifically focuses on this specific short story. ReaderofthePack(formerly Tokyogirl79) (｡◕‿◕｡) 20:12, 18 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Plenty of citations in academic journals on this story (I added one). Britishfinance (talk) 14:51, 22 February 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. The article is no longer unsourced, and consensus is to keep it in some form. Further discussion belongs on talk. (non-admin closure) wumbolo ^^^ 19:15, 22 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

List of Martian canals[edit]

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

Unsourced, of doubtful notability now that Martian canals are debunked. PatGallacher (talk) 16:03, 15 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. ~Ruyaba~ {talk} 16:10, 15 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. ~Ruyaba~ {talk} 16:10, 15 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. ~Ruyaba~ {talk} 16:10, 15 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom - unsourced. RhinosF1^(chat)_{(status)(contribs)} 16:33, 15 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, although perhaps not exactly in this form (and clearly with a more verbose introduction to provide context). This is a very different situation that a list of geographical features from a work of fiction. Sourcing this isn't hard. Schiaparelli and Lowell are in the public domain, easily accessible, and can be cited for the names and purported locations. This list, and its partner article classical albedo features on Mars serve to document what was believed to be the geography of Mars by astronomers of the late 19th to early 20th century. Now, obviously, they were wrong. But I think the principle of "once notable, always notable" applies (for example, luminiferous aether). We keep legitimate lists of legitimately named features on the planets of the Solar System. This is such a list... it just happens that none of the features actually exist. Squeamish Ossifrage (talk) 17:44, 15 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - highly relevant historical information. Let's add more sources from a historical perspective, not delete this article. Skirts⁸⁹ 17:50, 15 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: RandomCritic, you added this list to Martian canal in March 2006 at a time when references weren't thought so necessary. Do you remember the source? StarryGrandma (talk) 19:19, 15 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep just like we're keeping the list of lunar seas. Andrew D. (talk) 20:52, 15 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
- Yes, but the seas are real geographical features, although we now know that they aren't really seas. PatGallacher (talk) 22:23, 15 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Of historical interest. Xxanthippe (talk) 21:36, 15 February 2019 (UTC).[reply]
Keep but probably rename, refocus, merge into article on a "real" topic, or some combination of all of them or more. "Notability" isn't technically affected by the fact that the theory in question has been debunked, but rather just makes all the older sources on it out of date and wrong: newer sources would be needed to contextualize the topic, but I don't see strong evidence that such sources do not exist. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 13:42, 16 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as information on an influential historic classification scheme. This is history of science, not fiction; we're not about to throw out the properties of the phlogiston either. - Needs a serious lede, and sourcing of individual names might take some digging, as most were coined by either Schiaparelli and Lowell (principally), and one might have to turn to the original sources to find out which. --Elmidae (talk · contribs) 01:40, 18 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Wholly unsourced, may well contain OR.Slatersteven (talk) 11:26, 18 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. The topic of Martian canals is notable (they have an WP article). I have added links to articles in Nature and Scientific American about them. Obviously the theory turned out to be bogus but that does not diminish from the considerable time and investigation by leading academics (plus wider public) in this issue (there are loads of references to this topic on any google search). My issue however is where this exact list came from? I have added external links to PDF copies of Lovell's book and the relevant Chapter IV on the Canals. However, I am not sure how this list compares (it is not a direct extraction). I guess we still have a potential WP:V issue (but not a notability issue), but given that the lists/diagrams exist, it it solvable task, and clearly someone went to great trouble to complete this list many years ago implying that it is probably right. However, all of this should no prevent the article from being kept. Britishfinance (talk) 20:22, 21 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

As StarryGrandma notes above, RandomCritic might be able to shed some light on the origin of the list. Last seen in these here parts two weeks ago, so might yet chime in? --Elmidae (talk · contribs) 20:57, 21 February 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. Tone 09:28, 23 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Private India[edit]

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

Article authored by a commercial company designing books, web-sites etc. All refs are promotional. Nothing here get close to WP:GNG Velella ^{Velella Talk} 07:08, 1 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. Bakazaka (talk) 08:23, 1 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. AllyD (talk) 08:43, 1 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Nosebagbear (talk) 14:19, 8 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to James_Patterson_bibliography#Private_series: The article is little more than a plot summary with links to Goodreads etc. I am not seeing evidence of notability independent of the co-authoring franchise series. AllyD (talk) 09:16, 15 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 15:12, 15 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Clearly a COI problem, not notable for an article. Skirts⁸⁹ 17:51, 15 February 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. Firm consensus that as an anglican bishop he is presumed notable, as well as a degree of sufficient sourcing (non-admin closure) Nosebagbear (talk) 16:58, 22 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

George K Turyasingura[edit]

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

Does not seem to pass WP:ANYBIO - no third-party coverage. Yunshui ^雲 _水 14:57, 15 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. ~Ruyaba~ {talk} 15:05, 15 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Uganda-related deletion discussions. ~Ruyaba~ {talk} 15:06, 15 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. Bakazaka (talk) 15:25, 15 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy keep: Angican bishops are generally notable, and it isn't hard to find significant coverage in independent sources for this one.[28] This is a recently created article that needs substantial cleanup - it's not a good move to pull the trigger on a deletion nomination so soon. In other words, multiple transgressions of WP:BEFORE. St Anselm (talk) 04:01, 16 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, historic AFD consensus is that Catholic bishops are presumed notable because they almost always pass WP:GNG Atlantic306 (talk) 14:51, 16 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete we lack the reliable source articles to show notability.John Pack Lambert (talk) 15:29, 16 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

No we don't. Did you read the one I linked to? St Anselm (talk) 02:33, 17 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep subject is an Anglican bishop. Anglican, Lutheran, Orthodox, Methodist, and Catholic bishops are notable. -- Willthacheerleader18 (talk) 06:10, 17 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep -- Bishops in the Anglican communion are generally notable. The lack of penetration of the Internet may make it difficult to get sources, but that does not affect its probable truth or notability. Peterkingiron (talk) 18:28, 17 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Long consensus is that Anglican bishops are notable. -- Necrothesp (talk) 11:05, 18 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

General consensus here is that "Anglican bishops are notable by default", so I'm assuming we have that enshrined somewhere. I did check, prior to nominating, to see whether we had a WP:NBISHOP or similar notability guideline for Anglicism and couldn't find one; would someone be kind enough to point me to it, so that I don't make this mistake again? Much obliged! Yunshui ^雲 _水 14:25, 19 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

WP:CLERGYOUTCOMES summarises AfD consensus. -- Necrothesp (talk) 16:16, 19 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Necrothesp: Thank you for that - didn't think to check the common outcome pages, only notability. In light of that, and the overwhelming slew of Keep !votes above, I Withdraw the nomination (although since there is at least one !vote to delete, this still needs closing properly by someone else). Yunshui ^雲 _水 19:28, 19 February 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. Randykitty (talk) 16:19, 23 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

IPhone Backup Extractor[edit]

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

Promotional article, lacks reliable sourced coverage of the subject. Does not meet WP:NPRODUCT or WP:GNG. - CHAMPION ^{(talk) (contributions) (logs)} 09:44, 1 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. - CHAMPION ^{(talk) (contributions) (logs)} 09:45, 1 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Author Comment. Thanks for pinging my talk page! If I understand, there are two questions: notability and whether it’s promotional.

I don’t think the page falls foul of elements 1 - 4 in WP:PROMOTION. It appears neutral and factual. Element 5 states that it’s promotional if not notable — thus your citation of WP:NPRODUCT. Makes sense!

(WP:NPRODUCT says “if a company is notable, information on its products and services should generally be included in the article on the company itself”, and “a specific product or service may be notable on its own, without the company providing it being notable in its own right.” On Draft:Reincubate, I see kvng suggests “it may be possible to recast this as an article on iPhone Backup Extractor”.)

With reference to WP:GNG, the page’s citations group into these:

N Tech blogs & podcasts: hard to asses independence, reliability.
N Release note chronology: clearly not secondary.
N Review aggregators: not suitable for notability.
Y National press and government coverage around the royal award. Meets the WP:ORGCRIT tests for multiple significant, independent, reliable, secondary. (Fits “substantial”, too.)

WP:PSTS provides examples of coverage that includes “a scholarly article, a book passage, or ongoing media coverage focusing on a product or organization” and “an extensive how-to guide written by people wholly independent of the company or product”. There are examples of both of these for the product in question at Draft:Reincubate. Would it be helpful if I edit the article's talk page proposing an edit to include them?

It’s been challenging digging out examples of similar products and companies on Wikipedia in order to see how it is done well. ScreenFlow is a much-edited and well-regard page, but has no notable sources at all. I’m not arguing WP:WHATABOUTX, but am curious to find good examples!

Tgho (talk) 14:51, 4 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. Tgho can you enumerate which of the cited sources are in your 4th category? I'd like to review those. Also I do think that the article has a WP:PROMOTIONAL slant to it but that should be able to be addressed through improvements to the article - deletion is not required to fix this. ~Kvng (talk) 17:03, 4 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Jovanmilic97 (talk) 17:15, 8 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete This is challenging to evaluate because at least half of the cited sources fail to meet WP:RS. If anyone is serious about keeping this article then delete all the WP:SPS then delete all sentences without a citation. I fail to recognize how this article meets WP:GNG. Blue Rasberry (talk) 22:12, 8 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. Deletion is not cleanup. ~Kvng (talk) 21:09, 17 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Significant coverage in two cited sources: [29], [30] ~Kvng (talk) 01:21, 11 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 14:36, 15 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Author Comment. Following up on Kvng’s request for WP:ORGCRIT enumeration to support a keep... apologies for the delay, I’ve been reading forensics books.

Regarding notable award coverage, strong citations are the London Gazette entry here [31] and the Southwark News article [32] (which you mentioned in your comment).

On the “book passage” criteria, there are a number of books with passages on iPhone Backup Extractor in forensics, penetration testing, and as a system utility. A typical example is “Forensics Cookbook” (Mikhaylow, 2017). The following include passages on it, too, and some of these have specific citations in Draft:Reincubate:

Investigating the Cyber Breach (Muniz, Lakhani, 2018)
iOS Forensic Analysis: for iPhone, iPad, and iPod touch (Morrissey, Campbell, 2010)
iOS Forensics Cookbook (Birani, Birani, 2016)
iPhone and iOS Forensics (Hoog, Strzempka, 2011)
Learning iOS Forensics (Epifani, Stirparo, 2015)
Learning iOS Penetration Testing (Yermalkar 2016)
Mastering Mobile Forensics (Tahiri, 2016)
Mobile Forensic Investigations (Reiber, 2015)
O’Reilly’s App Savvy (Yarmosh, 2010)
Operating System Forensics (Messier, 2016)
Practical Mobile Forensics (Mahalik, Tamma, Bommisetty, 2014)
Take Control of Your iPhone (Landau, 2009)

On the “scholarly article” criteria, there are several dozen papers with passages on the application and its use. Jonathan Zdziarski’s 2013 paper “iOS forensic investigative methods” has a chapter for it on page 110 (no deep-link I'm afraid). Similarly, 2012's “iPad 2 Logical Acquisition: Automated or Manual Examination?” (Ali, AlHosani, AlZarooni, Baggli) gives it a chapter (p. 119+) and makes reference to it throughout.

I believe these sources satisfy WP:RS and WP:ORGCRIT. I hope this is helpful. Tgho (talk) 18:37, 18 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. Thanks, from this, I'll add [33], [34] and [35] to my list of sources demonstrating notability. 5 total seems like plenty. ~Kvng (talk) 15:09, 19 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nomination. The dedication of paid editor tgho is admirable, as dedications go, but not sufficient to overcome the lack of verifiable independent notability. The sources put up in the effort to save the text are tangential to the subject, at best. E.g. the article in the Southwark News is about Aidan Fitzpatrick and not the product; if we want a bio on Aidan Fitzpatrick we already have a source. E.g. the article in the Sydney Morning Herald is a listing of apps that help the iPhone user, among which is this product. Same kind of listing (one among many) one encounters in specialist forensics texts such as the Forensics Cookbook. (Someone offered a London Gazette issue as proof of notability but their link contains no reference to the product; it lists the Queen's Awards and among those who won is Reincubate, with no mention of their product at all.) We are left with simply a gallant effort of a text. -The Gnome (talk) 11:16, 23 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Per nom and per The Gnome comments above. A "contrived case" at best. Britishfinance (talk) 14:00, 23 February 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. Tone 09:28, 23 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

William Pryor (writer)[edit]

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

I am not clear that this writer and businessperson meets WP:BIO, WP:AUTHOR or WP:GNG. The article starts with his relatives and WP:NOTINHERITED. I have found and added one link, though it is an interview. Tacyarg (talk) 21:39, 8 February 2019 (UTC) Tacyarg (talk) 21:39, 8 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. Bakazaka (talk) 02:11, 9 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. Bakazaka (talk) 02:11, 9 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 14:32, 15 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. I think he fails WP:AUTHOR and I also think it's a COI problem as well. Skirts⁸⁹ 17:52, 15 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above. He has done nothing notable, and notability is not inherited from one's parents and family friends, royalty excepting of course. Bearian (talk) 19:02, 21 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Per nom; any case here is contrived at best. Doesn't even make an appearence in the English Times, Guardian or Telegraph Tier 1 newspapers; which would be very odd for a notable British writer, with such notable connections, and who is still alive. Britishfinance (talk) 16:20, 22 February 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. Tone 09:29, 23 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Marilhéa Peillard[edit]

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

Besides the fact that all but 1 or 2 of these references are to her modeling agencies aka primary sources, even though she won the Elite Model Look contest years ago, she doesn’t meet NMODEL. Don’t let the advertisement tone of this article fool you. She’s only done about 11 jobs in 6 years and none of them notable. There are not sources out there to substantiate notability. Trillfendi (talk) 21:58, 1 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of France-related deletion discussions. Ruyaba (talk) 00:47, 2 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 11:30, 2 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, DannyS712 (talk) 23:42, 8 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 14:32, 15 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Fails NMODEL and also any form of GNG. Not even borderline. Britishfinance (talk) 16:12, 22 February 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. Randykitty (talk) 16:17, 23 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Dubophonic[edit]

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

I just removed some inconsequential "awards" from the article; looking at sources, the company doesn't seem to be notable. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 14:17, 15 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. ~Ruyaba~ {talk} 14:25, 15 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. ~Ruyaba~ {talk} 14:25, 15 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Cyprus-related deletion discussions. ~Ruyaba~ {talk} 14:25, 15 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Fails WP:SUBNOT and comes across as promotional. Actaudio (talk) 03:31, 16 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Author comment. I am a bit surprised tham my article has been considered for deletion because its not noteable. I hope it will not be deleted without any discussion, since i invested a lot of time for researching and writing. I have written it following the guidelines of other articles on sinilar subjaect, and i think everything was nicely citadet. I dare to note that it has more information it it than many other articles in wikipedia on a sinilar subject ... but of course there is always space for improvement. --Explorations In Dub (talk) 08:56, 19 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I understand that not everybody is familiar with independent labels, but in such cases any citation coming from third party sites will not be from mainstream sites. I have rewritten the article adding more citations from third party sites from noteable sources in reggae music like Juno, Roots Reggae Review, etc. (such sites are very trustworthy)

I tried to write 4 things in the article: First a brief profile of the label, second the policy of how they choose the music, third the catalog of the label and fourth the feedback it has to the listeners through reviews/airplay/etc, all nicely citated from third party sites/media etc. .. each subject with citation from the research i've done in the internet.

I hope with these changes the article can be saved from deletion. thnx -Explorations In Dub —Preceding undated comment added 16:21, 16 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: fails WP:ORGCRIT and WP:ORGDEPTH. @Explorations In Dub: the problem is that apart from the Cyprus Mail (which sounds like a promotional publicity piece anyway), none of your citations are from reliable or noteworthy sources. Reggaemusic.org.uk, Reggae Roots Review and The Cerebral Rift are blogs, and not acceptable as sources per WP:BLOGS (indeed, the last one appears to be crowdfunded). The Juno chart isn't a recognised chart per WP:SINGLEVENDOR. Tribal Realities magazine isn't a recognised source either, it appears to be mostly the work of one man and given away free. Most of the other sources just show that records from the label have had the occasional play on radio stations, which doesn't make them notable either. And none of the artists on the label are notable. Your article on Reggae Sunjam has the same serious problems regarding notability, with the same Cyprus Mail article, and an event listing, and that's it, which means it fails WP:EVENTCRIT. Richard3120 (talk) 14:25, 18 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. Looks like you will delete the article anyway, so whatever i add or write will apparently have no result. I tell u again that an independent label is NOT a mainstream label and will NOT be in mainstream charts/sites/newspapers/etc (very rare)that does not mean though that the citation is not of quality. I just wonder why articles on same subject (indep. record labels) with less information and with zero citation, or citation of same "quality" as the ones i used are allowed to be on wikipedia? eg. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/21st_Circuitry#cite_note-1 ... there are so many. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jahtari Similar links i used in my article (Discogs, interview sites, sites that look like were made privately, etc) but still accepted. ... or this https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mirakel_Musik no citation and external links from discogs and archive.org .... Is this the logic you are using? Is this the way you are facing new editors/writers in wikipedia? because if u decide what to do u must decide the same for everybody and many other articles should also be removed ... and there are so many ;) -Explorations In Dub

Comment. But you see, the Jahtari article has in-depth references from the leading national German newspaper, a German national broadcasting network, a syndicated British newspaper, and a British events magazine (although this is just an event listing, and the weakest reference of the lot). The Dubophonic article doesn't have any references from sources at this level of recognition, so you can't compare the two cases. But I agree with your other examples, and that they should probably be put up for deletion too... we're not picking on you, it's just that there are well over five million articles on the English Wikipedia, and a lot of the bad ones can go unnoticed for years. But all of them should pass the basic criteria for verifiability WP:V, and when an editor funds an article that doesn't, it gets nominated for deletion - we do have the same criteria for everybody. Richard3120 (talk) 12:33, 19 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. I think it will be easier if instead of spending my hours writing articles only to be rejected at the end, to fish out all these thousands of articles for deletion ... easier, faster and with no stress. I hope u don't accuse me of vandalism though :) By the way regarding the Dubophonic article, it was in the list of the articles that people wanted something to be written on wikipedia => https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Requested_articles/music Perhaps i am indeed adequate to write a "proper" article, but perhaps there is another one who would want to write about it. I would be also very curious to see how another person would deal with the subject. Explorations In Dub —Preceding undated comment added 07:46, 20 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Greetings, Explorations In Dub. Do not be discouraged if an article you have created, and one, moreover, on which you have worked hard, as you say, is being deleted. It happens all the time, due to the nature of Wikipedia. It has happened to me a few times, too, for what it's worth. The way to go forward is to acquaint yourself with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines, and particularly with the WP:AFC process. Take care. -The Gnome (talk) 11:25, 23 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Per nom and Richard3120. Above arguments in favour of keeping are about existence (versus notability), and feel like WP:FAN. Britishfinance (talk) 21:27, 21 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete since subject fails WP:NCREATIVE and WP:NCORP. The argument that the text's creator has worked hard for it is not relevant. -The Gnome (talk) 11:25, 23 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy keep per WP:SKCRIT#1: withdrawn by nominator. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 16:59, 15 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Terry Witherspoon[edit]

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

Fails WP:NGRIDIRON. Never played in a pro game. ...William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 11:41, 15 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. ~Ruyaba~ {talk} 11:44, 15 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. ~Ruyaba~ {talk} 11:44, 15 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of American football-related deletion discussions. ~Ruyaba~ {talk} 11:44, 15 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of North Carolina-related deletion discussions. ~Ruyaba~ {talk} 11:44, 15 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Keep passes WP:NGRIDIRON having played professional football in the National Football League for 3 regular season games. NFL.com.--Paul McDonald (talk) 12:07, 15 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
AFD withdrawn I made a mistake in starting this AFD and have already requested[36] that it be withdrawn. If any other admin sees this, please close this discussion....William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 13:16, 15 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as a straight-up WP:NGRIDIRON pass. Contrary to the nominating statement Witherspoon did indeed play in the NFL. Ejgreen77 (talk) 15:06, 15 February 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.

I don't why the user User talk:WilliamJE is saying that he suggested for deletion this article because in his words Terry Witherspoon "Never played in a pro game". The references say he played in 3 NFL games https://www.pro-football-reference.com/players/W/WithTe00.htm. So this user argument doesn't apply in this case. Tecmo (talk) 03:29, 16 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete. Fenix down (talk) 07:14, 22 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Lucas Perri[edit]

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

Footballer who fails WP:NFOOTY and WP:GNG. Article has been deleted twice in the past. PROD and BLPPROD have been contested. Spike 'em (talk) 10:40, 15 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

also there is a more extensive Draft:Lucas Perri which was rejected for move into main space on 28th Jan. Spike 'em (talk) 10:44, 15 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. ~Ruyaba~ {talk} 10:46, 15 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. ~Ruyaba~ {talk} 10:46, 15 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. ~Ruyaba~ {talk} 10:46, 15 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Brazil-related deletion discussions. ~Ruyaba~ {talk} 10:46, 15 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Nzd (talk) 11:47, 15 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Per nomination ~Ruyaba~ {talk} 11:25, 15 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. The draft is much better and can be used once the player makes an appearance in a professional match. Nzd (talk) 11:47, 15 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - fails WP:GNG and WP:NFOOTBALL. Giant Snowman 12:22, 15 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete As above: use pre-existing draft when notability attained. Eagleash (talk) 17:11, 15 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I agree with the users above, the player is not notable enough for a standalone page right now, but the draft can be used in the future if the player becomes notable. Garlicolive (talk) 17:33, 16 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. AmericanAir88^(talk) 00:05, 21 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Fenix down (talk) 07:16, 22 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Christopher David Quick[edit]

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

Quick fails N:FOOTY because he has never played in an FPL or played internationally. This is the only thing I found on him so he fails WP:GNG as well. https://www.walesonline.co.uk/sport/football/football-news/forget-messi-ronaldo-suarez-vardy-11289572 Dougal18 (talk) 09:58, 15 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. ~Ruyaba~ {talk} 10:12, 15 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. ~Ruyaba~ {talk} 10:12, 15 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. ~Ruyaba~ {talk} 10:12, 15 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Wales-related deletion discussions. ~Ruyaba~ {talk} 10:12, 15 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. ChrisTheDude (talk) 12:28, 15 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - fails WP:GNG and WP:NFOOTBALL. Giant Snowman 12:43, 15 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - clear all-round notability failure -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 12:45, 15 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I can't find any significant coverage in reliable secondary sources. Nwlaw63 (talk) 18:25, 15 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom, Govvy (talk) 00:12, 19 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Rather clearly lacks WP:SIGCOV per my check.Icewhiz (talk) 08:52, 19 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. AmericanAir88^(talk) 00:04, 21 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. ~ Amory (u • t • c) 16:38, 22 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Barrel Mountain Brewing[edit]

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

Doesn't meet WP:ORG. Juggler Juggler (talk) 08:01, 15 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. ~Ruyaba~ {talk} 08:34, 15 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Washington-related deletion discussions. ~Ruyaba~ {talk} 08:34, 15 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete No assertion of notability, fails WP:NCORP. Reywas92^Talk 21:21, 15 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete per WP:A7 - non-notable company --DannyS712 (talk) 09:52, 16 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 05:10, 17 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Food and drink-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 05:10, 17 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment, "c'mon, they've got burgers and beer! Yeah coola, but without WP:RS its not notable. Drat!", Delete. Coolabahapple (talk) 05:22, 17 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete Per WP:A7. Britishfinance (talk) 13:23, 22 February 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. Tone 09:29, 23 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Joana Plankl[edit]

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

No information, no citations, appears to be purely promotional. Artist does not meet music/notability guidelines. Actaudio (talk) 07:28, 15 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Austria-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 07:33, 15 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 07:33, 15 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 07:34, 15 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Most likely an attempt at promotion, and it's a messy attempt too because she operates under two names. Note that the name Petty Joy has been redirected to this article. ( [37] ) This article tries to promote her work as a DJ, in which she uses Petty Joy as a stage name. But the article is titled with the name Joana Plankl, which she has used as a nude model, and that line of work is not mentioned in the article. Under that name, she might have a small amount of notability for appearing in the German edition of Playboy, but if the article chooses to focus on her music work, that is even less notable. Nothing can be found beyond the typical retail/streaming sites. ---DOOMSDAYER520 (Talk|Contribs) 13:32, 15 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: fails WP:GNG and WP:MUSICBIO. Doomsdayer520 has this right, it's a promotional article for a sometime German Playmate of the Month and DJ who plays mainstream chart music at mostly private parties. I sometimes express frustration at AfDs for DJs, because I know the DJ in question is well known on the dance scene but there aren't any online sources... but that isn't the case here. I'm sure Ms. Plankl can DJ, but she sure doesn't get booked to play the cool clubs of Berlin and New York, and even the weak references in the article have mostly disappeared without an archive, leaving us with no decent reliable sources. Richard3120 (talk) 19:35, 16 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete Nothing in terms of RS to construct a BLP. Fails WP:MUSICBIO. Strong WP:PROMO and WP:COI. Will need Salting. Britishfinance (talk) 15:05, 22 February 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. Tone 09:29, 23 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Ambur Times[edit]

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

Doesn't meet WP:N/WP:ORG. Juggler Juggler (talk) 06:56, 15 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Journalism-related deletion discussions. CASSIOPEIA^(talk) 07:24, 15 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of News media-related deletion discussions. CASSIOPEIA^(talk) 07:24, 15 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. CASSIOPEIA^(talk) 07:24, 15 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete. Falls under WP:A7 criteria quite obviously, seeing there seems to be no coverage on this paper or organization anywhere online aside from its website.Yeenosaurus (talk) 🍁 08:21, 15 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete no evidence of notability. (Not "speedy delete" because the assertion of a 20,000 copy circulation is, if true, a claim of notability) --DannyS712 (talk) 09:54, 16 February 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. Tone 09:29, 23 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Doodle Army 2: Mini Militia[edit]

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

I'm concerned that this game doesn't meet GNG - there is some pretty standard coverage on mobile-gaming-specific sites, as you'd expect, but nothing to indicate any artistic merit or critical acclaim, or any form of real impact. I'm sure it's quite a fun game, but I don't believe it belongs here. Horst.Burkhardt (talk) 03:14, 15 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Video games-related deletion discussions. ~Ruyaba~ {talk} 04:28, 15 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Games-related deletion discussions. ~Ruyaba~ {talk} 04:28, 15 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete First of all, analyzing the references in the article:
- 1 While it is a "coverage" from a reliable secondary source of the game, it certainly is not a WP:SIGCOV since nothing in depth about this game is mentioned except the pricing (worthless encyclopedia wise) and difference from Doodle Army 1. But it's not a passing mention either, so it's kind of in between. Meh.
- 2 No idea what is this supposed to be since it brings me up to log-in.
- 3 Passing mention by name.
- 4 A fan website. Enough said about the reliability.
- 5 Firstpost here. Good enough source, not that much in-depth, but can be used to write something.
- 6 Appmodo is a blog as it says on the front page, making it not reliable.
- 7 An unreliable website citing summary of the game, making it WP:PRIMARY as well.
- 8 Not a WP:SIGCOV, even before we enter the talk whether it is reliable or not. "Best multiplayer games" title does not give me confidence about that.
- 9 Same as **4.
- 10 Unreliable source per WP:VG/RS.

In my WP:BEFORE search I found this on The Daily Star (Bangladesh) https://www.thedailystar.net/shout/app-review/doodle-army-2-mini-militia-1461607 which is not WP:SIGCOV (3 sentences, 1 of just reciting what the game is about, 1 that the player has a jetpack and 1 that it is fast paced (which is subjective)) before the "you will be terrible" part) as well and apart from that, all either unreliable sites or blogs. For now, unless someone else finds another I lean to delete based on failure of WP:GNG for lack of significant coverage in independent reliable secondary sources. Gaming reliable websites largely ignored this game, and that is probably not just because. Jovanmilic97 (talk) 14:15, 15 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, per nom and thanks to Jovanmilic97 for the sources run-down. Ifnord (talk) 20:39, 19 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Videogameplayer99 (talk) 20:55, 22 February 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. Tone 09:30, 23 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Trackback submitter[edit]

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

Not notable. Absolutely no coverage in reliable sources. The article has a single external link to a blog post from "Search Engine Journal", which does not appear to be a reliable source. I didn't find any other sources for this subject. — Newslinger talk 02:39, 15 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Sping. I agree with Power~enwiki's reasoning. — Newslinger talk 04:13, 16 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. — Newslinger talk 02:40, 15 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. — Newslinger talk 02:40, 15 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. — Newslinger talk 02:40, 15 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. — Newslinger talk 02:40, 15 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Advertising-related deletion discussions. — Newslinger talk 11:27, 15 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete and Redirect per nom - the one reference doesn't establish notability. The title is also miscapitalized as the content is about a specific product - Sping is the article on the phenomenon in general; I'd support a redirect for this title as a plausible search term for that. power~enwiki (π, ν) 03:49, 16 February 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. Mz7 (talk) 20:26, 22 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Out of the Blue (Blue Raspberry album)[edit]

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

I first came across this article as a potential GAN project, but I unfortunately could not find anywhere near enough coverage from reliable, third-party sources to justify an independent article. It seems to fail WP:GNG to me, though I have opened this AfD to get further feedback. Aoba47 (talk) 05:52, 7 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. Aoba47 (talk) 05:53, 7 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 16:06, 7 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. No coverage found. A redirect is unlikely to be useful from such a convoluted title - anyone looking for the album can find the artist via the entry at Out of the Blue, which if this is deleted should be pointed at the artist. --Michig (talk) 08:04, 8 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ad Orientem (talk) 02:07, 15 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: fails WP:NALBUM. Record company shenanigans seem to have killed this album stone dead, with the result that it came out years after the artist recorded it and with no publicity, unfortunately (for us) resulting in no sources to be found for it. I think Michig's rationale regarding the search term is valid, it's not a likely one and therefore a redirect won't serve a purpose here. Richard3120 (talk) 00:13, 19 February 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. Tone 09:30, 23 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Frewitt[edit]

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

Speedy declined, source searches don't bring up the requisite depth of coverage for corporations. SITH (talk) 13:45, 7 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. Ruyaba (talk) 13:48, 7 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Switzerland-related deletion discussions. Ruyaba (talk) 13:48, 7 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 22:18, 7 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - As far as English references, nothing adds up to WP:CORPDEPTH. --CNMall41 (talk) 22:52, 7 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ad Orientem (talk) 02:00, 15 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, unfortunately. Google Books has some coverage in this source. As far as German sources go, here's an in-depth perspective on the company's Operations Director: [38]. There are a few articles written by individuals working at the company (e.g. [39]), which don't contribute to notability. A few passing mentions: [40][41]. Overall, I'm afraid I have to agree that coverage is looking sparse. I'm not sure we have enough to write an article with. Mz7 (talk) 20:41, 22 February 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. As noted by RebeccaGreen, there's some cleanup that needs to happen with the sources. Facebook??? -- RoySmith (talk) 16:25, 23 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

PS, @PamD: please don't rename pages while an AfD is in progress. If nothing else, it breaks the automated scripts that most people use to close them, which makes extra manual work to clean up after the breakage. -- RoySmith (talk) 16:28, 23 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Elizabeth Akua Nyarko Petterson[edit]

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

With correctly-spelled name: (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Comment I've moved the article to the correct spelling of her name (Elizabeth Akua-Nyarko Patterson - hyphen between 2nd and 3rd components, and "Patterson" with an "a"): it seemed too bad to leave even though there's an ongoing AfD. PamD 13:39, 8 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Not notable. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 14:29, 31 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep (Author) She is very notable in my country looking at the kind of social works she has done. She is an activist for girl and the marginalised person. Jwale2 (talk) 15:03, 31 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Jwale2: Can you provide reliable sources that substantiate this claim? –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 16:19, 31 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@Roscelese sure why not, but I want to find out whether you have also looked at the sources I provided for her articleJwale2 (talk) 16:24, 31 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@Jwale2: yeah, I looked, is that all you are able to provide? –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 18:35, 31 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Ghana-related deletion discussions. Qualitist (talk) 15:50, 31 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Fails WP:BIO. Of the sources listed in the article, AmeyawDebrah.Com has significant coverage, but I wonder about it's reliability, it looks like a personal website. The second source triggered my antivirus, so I think not reliable. The last source is a link to Petterson's site, so primary source, not reliable. A WP:BASIC basic search turned up nothing, so I searched for Ghana newspapers. I tried Ghana times, IRIN News, a couple of others found here. Nothing from any of them. Aurornisxui (talk) 17:36, 31 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 05:35, 1 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 05:35, 1 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I think there is enough significant coverage in independent, reliable sources to meet WP:BASIC. I have found and added another source, a long article in The Weekend Finder. The CitiFM and EnewsGH articles also provide significant coverage, and as far as I can see, are independent and reliable. There is also shorter coverage from Ghana News Agency and the Herald Ghana. I agree that the AmeyawDebrah source is not reliable, and I don't think the CNBC Africa one is independent - it is sourced to Forbes, and the Forbes article does not have an author's name. I have also edited the article. If the article is kept, it should be moved to Elizabeth Akua-Nyarko Patterson, the correct spelling of her name - it currently has "Petterson", which would not help in finding sources. Some of the unreliable sources could probably be removed, but that is another job. RebeccaGreen (talk) 12:15, 7 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Jovanmilic97 (talk) 15:23, 7 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ad Orientem (talk) 01:57, 15 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Week Keep. It is borderline but there are sources (per RebeccaGreen above), and RS are thin on the ground in her part of the world (and even thinner for female-BLPs). CNBC/Fortune would not be covering her if she was a nobody. Britishfinance (talk) 11:07, 23 February 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. Tone 09:30, 23 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Dragondoor[edit]

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

Page is unsourced and I cannot find anything to support it meeting WP:GNG. Galatz גאליץ ^{שיחה Talk} 16:13, 7 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Wrestling-related deletion discussions. Galatz גאליץ ^{שיחה Talk} 16:13, 7 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Japan-related deletion discussions. Galatz גאליץ ^{שיחה Talk} 16:13, 7 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 16:15, 7 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ad Orientem (talk) 00:42, 15 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete – Short lived promotion. Does not meet notability guidelines. StaticVapor message me! 09:35, 18 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete – Fails WP:GNG. I found a few passing mentions [42][43], but no significant coverage. There appears to be a publishing company with the name "Dragondoor" that is unrelated to the subject of this article. Mz7 (talk) 11:58, 22 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Per nom; nothing here that is GNG. WP is not a repository of data on pro-wrestling.Britishfinance (talk) 15:10, 22 February 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. Mz7 (talk) 11:54, 22 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hell Demons[edit]

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

Professional wrestling stable completely lacking reliable coverage. The promotion is also likely non-notable as per Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/El Dorado Wrestling Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 16:22, 7 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Japan-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 17:00, 7 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Wrestling-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 17:02, 7 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 17:02, 7 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Hard to find references which might be based on the common-ness of the term in results, but I cannot support WP:GNG - Galatz גאליץ ^{שיחה Talk} 18:02, 7 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ad Orientem (talk) 00:39, 15 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I can't find any coverage in reliable secondary sources. Nwlaw63 (talk) 18:22, 15 February 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. Down-weighting comments from users who appear to have a connection with the subject. -- RoySmith (talk) 16:34, 23 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Ensmallen (C++ library)[edit]

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

No coverage in independent reliable sources; searching online and in academic databases, the only coverage of the subject appears to be published by the library authors themselves. _signed,Rosguill ^talk 18:55, 7 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Mathematics-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 21:47, 7 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 21:47, 7 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete At best, this is too soon: the software was presented in an arXiv preprint just last October, far too recently for it to have had significant community uptake or influence. To see the kind of sourcing this would need, compare the articles on PyMC3 and PyTorch, which were nominated for deletion and survived. XOR'easter (talk) 20:46, 10 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep There are multiple reasons for keeping this page as is: (1) the associated paper is more than just an arXiv pre-print; it is actually published at an official NeurIPS workshop (see accepted papers and associated DOI); NeurIPS is a well-established and highly influential conference in machine learning and artificial intelligence. (2) according to Google Scholar, there are already 2 other papers which cite the associated paper, meaning that it already has impact; the citation count is only going to increase. (3) the ensmallen library is used by mlpack, a well-established library of machine learning algorithms (use evidenced by source code on GitHub: FindEnsmallen.cmake, lmnn.hpp, etc). (4) the ensmallen library implements many optimization algorithms directly described on Wikipedia, such as the seminal Stochastic gradient descent and its offspring, meaning it has direct practical consequences Gtfjbl (talk) 16:00, 13 February 2019 (AEST)

Two citations is pretty low. Once the paper gets many citations, if the paper gets many citations, an article would be in order. As for the other arguments, I don't think that notability should be inherited between the subjects described in points 3 and 4, I think it's entirely possible for major machine learning libraries to be bloated and conversely implementing stochastic gradient descent is not unique and I don't see why that would .immediately make something likely to have received coverage. I can't say I'm familiar with the NeurIPS conference, and it does get a fair amount of coverage in the press, but from working in an adjacent field my impression is that even the best conferences are still full of tons of papers many of which don't really go anywhere or influence much. _signed,Rosguill ^talk 06:42, 13 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

According to Google Scholar, the NeurIPS conference is ranked #1 in the Artificial Intelligence field, with a h5-index of 134 and h5-median of 221 (source). As such it would be safe to say it is very influential venue. One of the primary reasons for the existence of the ensmallen library is to concretely address the serious limitations of previous implementations of many optimization algorithms (including SGD and Quasi-Newton) such as brittleness, inflexibility, lack of integration capability, slow execution, etc. Since optimization algorithms are widely used in machine learning, having very robust (from multiple view points) and an unencumbered open source implementations of such algorithms has direct practical consequences for the wider application of machine learning in many products and industrial processes. Gtfjbl (talk) 17:20, 13 February 2019 (AEST)

Being accepted by a selective conference is like getting published in a peer-reviewed journal: it's a start, but by itself, it doesn't automatically make the topic notable. We need indicators of impact and influence, like discussions of and citations to that work. The only GS citations to the paper are by its authors themselves. There's nothing wrong with that, but it is a signal that it's too soon to have an encyclopedia article about it. XOR'easter (talk) 15:56, 13 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Draftify or userfy per above. I agree that this is WP:TOOSOON, but given that it was recently released, as well as being featured in NeurIPS, suggests that more references could emerge. --DannyS712 (talk) 20:49, 13 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. ensmallen has actually been around for quite a while, just not as its current name. If you take a look at the paper it is the optimization framework from mlpack, which has been used in over 100 scientific publications and has well over 100 contributors on Github. So despite the fact that the NeurIPS workshop paper was published in only October, based on the git history the ensmallen codebase has existed since 2010, and the community is much larger than a single recent workshop paper would imply (see also that ensmallen itself has 60+ contributors already, a sign that this is not a small or very recent effort). So personally I don't think this is WP:TOOSOON and I think it would be useful and relevant to the machine learning community on Wikipedia to keep it here. --Nemarts (talk) 14:36, 14 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
- Question Wouldn't it make more sense to cover it within the article mlpack, then? XOR'easter (talk) 16:08, 14 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ad Orientem (talk) 00:31, 15 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as not independently notable; hasn't received coverage in multiple secondary sources, just their own original workshop paper and then citing that paper in a couple of Arxiv preprints with overlapping author lists. Sneftel (talk) 09:47, 15 February 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 to delete, after greatly extended time for discussion. bd2412 T 01:46, 23 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Black Crow (comics)[edit]

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

Does not meet WP:GNG. Is linked in the body of two articles in passing mention. Namenamenamenamename (talk) 17:55, 31 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per evidence of notability shown below by Killer Moff, or failing that merge into List of Marvel Comics characters: B or List of Native American superheroes. No need to delete when merge is a valid option. BOZ (talk) 20:23, 31 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. Bakazaka (talk) 23:09, 31 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Comics and animation-related deletion discussions. Bakazaka (talk) 23:09, 31 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Given the sources provided in at 1, 2 and 4, we have to presume this passes WP:GNG until somebody actually checks these books and discovers the extent of the coverage. --Killer Moff (talk) 13:46, 1 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Only one of the Keep !votes is actually justified as a literal Keep, currently meaning there is a Delete/Merge/Keep split
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Nosebagbear (talk) 21:33, 7 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The nomination makes an unsupported, false assertion about the GNG as the subject appears in a variety of sources including Native Americans in Comic Books: A Critical Study. Andrew D. (talk) 13:11, 8 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to List of Native American superheroes, since that seems to be the character's claim to notability. Argento Surfer (talk) 21:11, 8 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ad Orientem (talk) 00:25, 15 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to the Native superhero list. Passes GNG from sources, but not notable enough, IMO, for a solo article. Etzedek24 ^{(I'll talk at ya) (Check my track record)} 16:04, 19 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to List of Native American superheroes. I am not opposed to a merge, but I am not sure how the information would be carried over from this article to the list, since the target list currently is just a collection of names without any real information on individual characters. Hopefully, it will be improved in the future, as it is a valuable and interest topic. Aoba47 (talk) 20:48, 19 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) DannyS712 (talk) 07:16, 22 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Julian Waters (calligrapher)[edit]

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

Not finding WP:SIGCOV of this calligrapher. Tacyarg (talk) 00:21, 15 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletion discussions. Tacyarg (talk) 00:23, 15 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Artists-related deletion discussions. IntoThinAir (talk) 00:27, 15 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep if you actually delve into the available sources, and search for material, you will find that he meets the WP:ARTIST "recognized by his peers" criteria easily. He has:

done the calligraphic lettering on four stamps for the US postal service
consulted for Maya Lin on Typography at the Vietnam war memorial
had his own font released by Adobe ("Waters Titling")
designed the typography for the Women in Military Service for America Memorial at Arlington Cemetery
talked and lectured all over the world, indicating he is a recognized world authority on caligraphy and typography.

He has also had decent coverage: when National Geographic does a profile, that is not minor. The depth is not what it could be, but the breadth is wide, which is why I found it easy to add ten sources to the article. With the above accomplishments, it's clear he is recognized by his peers as a serious dude.ThatMontrealIP (talk) 04:21, 15 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep As Montreal described, this individual is very notable but in a niche category. They don't have the same wide-ranging notoriety as, say, a world leader but within that sphere they are well-covered. Cosmic Sans (talk) 22:38, 15 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep So calligraphers can't be notable? There seems to be plenty of coverage here as a calligrapher and that's how we should judge this. Andy Dingley (talk) 22:44, 17 February 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.