Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2019 February 8

Recent AfDs: Today Yesterday

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

< 7 February	9 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. Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 15:41, 15 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Natural Justice[edit]

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

Page is for an organisation presumably defunct, no cites, the two external links don't lead anywhere and nothing coming up in search apart from a listing, and several organisations of the same name, to confuse the issue. Mramoeba (talk) 18:16, 1 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Health and fitness-related deletion discussions. Bakazaka (talk) 19:34, 1 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. Bakazaka (talk) 19:34, 1 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Behavioural science-related deletion discussions. Bakazaka (talk) 19:34, 1 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 11:14, 2 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment If this article isn't kept then I'd recommend redirecting it back to Natural justice which it was before this article was created in 2006. Crouch, Swale (talk) 13:54, 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) 23:43, 8 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. This organization is now known as The Institute for Food, Brain, and Behavior... but doesn't seem to have received any more coverage under that identity. There are a ton of other Natural Justices out there. The most prominent seems to be a South African legal org, but I'm not convinced of notability there either. No objection to the proposed redirect. Squeamish Ossifrage (talk) 00:42, 9 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. Once notable, always notable. A defunct notable organization does not lose its notability. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 00:50, 9 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. The "homepage" that this article links to had advice on getting "personal injury lawyers"? There is no notability here. Britishfinance (talk) 20:34, 9 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Does not appear to meet WP:NORG. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 14:05, 10 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete The subject seems not to establish notability.89ezagonoszkommunistanacionalista64 (talk) 15:53, 12 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 Paula Fox per WP:ATD. Ad Orientem (talk) 03:31, 16 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Elsie Fox[edit]

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

Not notable as a screenwriter per WP:CREATIVE and doesn't WP:INHERIT notability from her descendants. Clarityfiend (talk) 23:10, 8 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 07:12, 9 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Massachusetts-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 07:12, 9 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 07:12, 9 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as per WP:TNT as this reads like a National Enquirer piece brimfull with sensationalism, and gossipy tidbits and hardly anything about the subject's actual career. It is also entirely negative and borderline csd attack page, thanks Atlantic306 (talk) 20:01, 9 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Notability is not inherited... doesn’t matter who was born first. Trillfendi (talk) 17:22, 12 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails WP:CREATIVE and WP:INHERIT notability. The page has nothing due with her as a screenwriter. CASSIOPEIA^(talk) 08:23, 15 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Paula Fox as that's where she is name-checked in reliable sources. (example). Everybody quoting WP:INHERITED / WP:INVALIDBIO, go and read the guidelines you are quoting carefully and you will find that nowhere does it say you must delete an article. Specifically, "That person A has a relationship with well-known person B, such as being a spouse or child, is not a reason for a standalone article on A (unless significant coverage can be found on A); relationships do not confer notability. However, person A may be included in the related article on B.". See Jason Allen Alexander. Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 15:42, 15 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Paula Fox. Such an interesting story and connections. Seems like a shame to loose this text (some of the most interesting I have read in a BLP for some time). At least a Redirect would preserve what is there and maybe it could be fixed/properly merged in the future. Britishfinance (talk) 19:43, 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. This is not the strongest consensus that I've seen. But there does not appear to be any appetite for deletion and this has been relisted twice. Ad Orientem (talk) 03:34, 16 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Daniel Grau[edit]

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

no indication of meeting WP:MUSICBIO notability guidelines. Only reference is to a company that releases his records. Google searches not finding WP:significant coverage in third party sources. noq (talk) 09:06, 25 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 14:52, 25 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Venezuela-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 14:53, 25 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

He is a rather notable individual in Venezuela as well as in a few circles in the recording industry. I just need to find a few more resources that prove his notability. If given a few more days I can find them.Lightning ride (talk) 16:27, 25 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Mr. Grau recorded nine albums between 1974 and 1983... a series of "reworked" albums a couple of years ago returned him to the public consciousness after being forgotten for 30 years. The problem is that he is completely unknown outside of his native Venezuela, and almost all reliable sources are going to be in Venezuelan print media from decades ago, and nowhere else. I can't help here, but good luck to Lightning ride in trying to find RS. Richard3120 (talk) 16:59, 25 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 07:30, 1 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Five albums on London Records in the 1970s, satisfies WP:NMUSIC criterion 5. Coverage may be hard to find online, but it seems inconceivable that it doesn't exist. --Michig (talk) 08:51, 2 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Black Kite (talk) 21:37, 8 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep. Systemic bias/source availability arguments seem compelling. That aside, I think this might be an RS? Squeamish Ossifrage (talk) 23:58, 8 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. Ad Orientem (talk) 03:35, 16 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Abner Orick[edit]

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

I suspect this fails WP:NPOL, although I'm not very familiar with US politics below national level. If this does end up being deleted then the contents of Category:Dayton City Council members might need to be trawled. Sitush (talk) 00:35, 1 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 08:52, 1 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Ohio-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 08:52, 1 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Oh, Ab Orick, lol. I grew up in Dayton, and Abner Orick was a big deal at one time in that town, IIRC got a ton of local coverage because he considered himself a government watchdog and Dayton's political scene was full of cronyism. He may actually be notable. I'll see if I can find some sources. valereee (talk) 12:37, 1 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
~~Keep~~ I by no means exhausted the coverage; if anyone disagrees that notability has been proved, I can do more, but IMO I think he probably does qualify. The coverage is almost all local with some coverage in the rest of the state, but that's to be expected. He was a character, but not to the point he attracted national coverage. valereee (talk) 13:29, 2 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the sourcing but I'm still not getting it. I don't think local coverage counts for much when it comes to GNG and I still don't see how he meets NPOL. If we let this through, there will be scope for tens of thousands of people in India whom we at present routinely reject. - Sitush (talk) 13:58, 2 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

You don't think the sources meet "A politician who has received "significant press coverage" has been written about, in depth, independently in multiple news feature articles, by journalists." ? I guess I'd say if there are tens of thousands of people in India who are being written about multiple times in-depth over many years in the primary dailies of their midsize cities, they might be notable. valereee (talk) 14:21, 2 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I'm just saying how the guidelines have been interpreted in the past. It is also why quite a few articles by Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) have been deleted. I really don't give a crap about US politics but I do dislike systemic bias and the US gets away with murder on that score. I'm not trying to pull an OTHERSTUFFEXISTS line here, btw: local politicians get local coverage, it's not usually thought of as being a big deal. - Sitush (talk) 14:25, 2 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hey, you could mention probably a dozen other Dayton city commissioners and I'd say you're right, they aren't notable. I'd be able to do a search and find the only coverage they got were bare mentions of their wins or how they voted or single quotes in an article about an issue. I'm not arguing that being city commissioner (or the normal coverage that gets you) makes you notable. I'm arguing that in this case, a city commissioner of a midsize city might actually be notable because he got an abnormal amount of coverage. valereee (talk) 14:38, 2 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Fair enough. I'm in the UK and can't see many US news sources, even though I see the results listings. Thus, I can't comment on their content, merely on what tends to happen: the "local heroes" type of situation doesn't usually wash at AfD. (Or "local baddy", as it sounds like it may be in this case.) - Sitush (talk) 14:40, 2 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I clipped all those articles -- you can't see the clippings? Maybe I did it wrong -- I only recently figured out it was even possible ETA: I don't think he was necessarily a local hero, although certainly the people in his blue-collar white east dayton neighborhoods thought so. And definitely not a baddy, he was well-intentioned. He was just a colorful character lol valereee (talk) 14:43, 2 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, I saw the links were for newspapers.com and I know I can't see them even though I can get results listings. However, I've just tried the first one and it is visible to me - I've not seen the clipping thing before but perhaps that does make a difference. Anyway, let's just see what other people think. Hero/celebrity/baddy/whatever - he's of local interest and local interest doesn't usually make for encyclopaedic interest in a worldwide context. Perhaps it should, and it would suit me just fine, but I'm just telling you how I've seen it play out in the past. - Sitush (talk) 14:58, 2 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

No worries, since you're not convinced I'll keep working! Like I said, I'd by no means exhausted the sources :) valereee (talk) 15:13, 2 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. I haven't gone through all of the sources to establish whether they're enough to make him special or not — and to be honest, I'm not actually going to, so I'm not going to "vote" either way. (Also, Valereee is making a sincere attempt to improve it, so I don't want to prejudge the results of the effort.) But I just wanted to point out the following: when it comes to city councillors, we do indeed normally require that either (a) they serve in an internationally prominent global city on the order of New York City, Chicago, Los Angeles, Toronto or London, or (b) they can be referenced to a volume and depth and range of coverage that makes them a special case over and above most other city councillors. Simply showing that some local coverage exists is not normally enough, because local coverage of city councillors always exists — so we do indeed normally require some evidence of nationalizing coverage before we deem most city councillors to be notable enough, because if all you had to do to get a city councillor over the bar was show a handful of local coverage, then every city councillor could always show that and thus every city councillor would always be notable.
What I did want to say, though, is that in light of the above discussion I've reviewed the contents of the Dayton city councillors category — some of them do actually get over NPOL on other grounds (e.g. going on to serve in the state legislature), but there are indeed a few who have no credible evidence of notability at all, so I'm already taking on the task of listing those articles for AFD. Bearcat (talk) 17:04, 4 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment @Bearcat: Thanks for that. Britishfinance (talk) 20:01, 15 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete with regret. The sources are all local to the Dayton area with the exception of two. Akron is far removed from Dayton, and while not incredibly in-depth, it might help with GNG. The other is Cincinnati, again not tied to Dayton, but that is the briefest of bare mentions. Therefore it doesn't pass GNG, NPOL, or any other criteria I can think of to keep this well-written article. Dangnabbit. 78.26 _{(spin me / revolutions)} 21:30, 8 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Black Kite (talk) 21:35, 8 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete a locally notable city councilperson. Lots of coverage in the local papers, but fails WP:NPOL, and the coverage is basically what you would see for any councilperson who serves a long time without really doing anything of note. SportingFlyer T·C 20:43, 9 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete with regret. A well written and sourced article on an interesting subject. However, all RS I found were from the Dayton area, which means I cannot see how this can meet WP:GNG (and per Bearcat above). I'm afraid it must be delete. Britishfinance (talk) 20:03, 15 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Good enough for me, thanks all! valereee (talk) 20:49, 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. GNG is our bottom line and I find the argument that the subject fails that to be persuasive. Ad Orientem (talk) 03:40, 16 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Naresuan F.C.[edit]

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

Fails [1]. Sportsfan 1234 (talk) 21:18, 24 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. Bakazaka (talk) 21:49, 24 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. Bakazaka (talk) 21:49, 24 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Thailand-related deletion discussions. Bakazaka (talk) 21:49, 24 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Question for nominator @Sportsfan 1234: WP:NFOOTBALL is a guideline about players. This is an article about a club. Can you please specify a valid reason for deletion? Bakazaka (talk) 21:53, 24 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

My apologies, I wanted to link [2]. It has been corrected above. Sportsfan 1234 (talk) 00:47, 25 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Giant Snowman 11:51, 25 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - no evidence of notability. Fails WP:GNG and no indication they have ever played in the proper rounds of the national Cup (which is the usual barometer for football teams). Giant Snowman 11:52, 25 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The article says they played in the Thai FA Cup in 2018, it would appear they do pass that standard. Smartyllama (talk) 13:15, 25 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Has played in 2018 Thai FA Cup in the first round.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 19:47, 25 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: WP:FOOTYN—which is a project advice essay and not a Wikipedia guideline—notwithstanding, the only piece of in-depth coverage I could identify is this SuperSubThailand article. All of the mentions in mainstream media reliable sources appear to be routine coverage of the tournaments, and do not cover the subject in detail. --Paul_012 (talk) 10:17, 26 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Paul_012's analysis of the coverage. SportingFlyer T·C 04:35, 29 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) 00:21, 1 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - @Smartyllama and Pharaoh of the Wizards: - I presume you have located independent reliable sources which verify the claim of notability made in the article (ie that they've played in the National Cup) that you've selfishly decided not to share with us? If so please do so I can re-consider. GiantSnowman 10:27, 1 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
- For some reason the Thai League website is blocked by my company firewall, but supposedly this is the match report from their first round cup game. That took me about two seconds to find by clicking through the articles and finding sources. Smartyllama (talk) 13:13, 1 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  - The match seems to me to be reliably sourced at the cup article, is there any reason why we can't take these sources as confirmation that the team has taken part in a national competition? Fenix down (talk) 09:48, 3 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    - Those are primary sources, we can use them for WP:V but when there's evidence the team doesn't otherwise meet WP:GNG it makes this a difficult case, especially since searching in Thai language results is more difficult than searching in a language with Latin script. SportingFlyer T·C 20:03, 5 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)} 21:15, 8 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Per my above assessment, fails the WP:GNG. WP:FOOTYN is not a guideline. --Paul_012 (talk) 04:40, 14 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 delete per CSD G5. TonyBallioni (talk) 15:48, 9 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Beautiful Reborn Flower[edit]

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

Fails WP:NTV, article created in September 2017 and still no air date announced. "In most cases, a television series is not eligible for an article until its scheduling as an ongoing series has been formally confirmed by a television network". This is one of many such articles created by the sockfarm User:Xdeluna/User:Boyhoodjams, whose favorite method of writing articles is to have a sockpuppet create dozens of redirects which are later expanded by IPs into articles, when the sockpuppet has already been blocked. Timmyshin (talk) 21:02, 8 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. Bakazaka (talk) 02:12, 9 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of China-related deletion discussions. Bakazaka (talk) 02:12, 9 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. Ad Orientem (talk) 03:41, 16 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Olwen Kelly[edit]

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

Does not meet WP:NACTOR requirements. Page deleted twice for this reason. See https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Log&page=Olwen+Kelly Tyw7 (🗣️ Talk) — If (reply) then (ping me) 19:31, 8 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Tyw7 (🗣️ Talk) — If (reply) then (ping me) 19:32, 8 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Tyw7 (🗣️ Talk) — If (reply) then (ping me) 19:32, 8 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Paranormal-related deletion discussions. Tyw7 (🗣️ Talk) — If (reply) then (ping me) 19:32, 8 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Europe-related deletion discussions. Tyw7 (🗣️ Talk) — If (reply) then (ping me) 19:32, 8 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Ireland-related deletion discussions. Tyw7 (🗣️ Talk) — If (reply) then (ping me) 19:32, 8 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete and Salting. Little that would get the subject close to WP:GNG. The subject has even linked her instragam page and created an IMDb profile. Needs salting. Britishfinance (talk) 21:00, 9 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Definitely fails the WP:GNG and WP:NACTRESS. -- LACaliNYC ✉ 22:41, 10 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and Salt. Fails WP:NACTOR and WP:TOOSOON at the present stage. CASSIOPEIA^(talk) 08:50, 15 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and salt this time. Same reasons as before, doesn't look like anything's changed. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 19:30, 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. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 03:14, 16 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

William Hanes[edit]

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

Subject has doubtful notability; article created by editor since blocked for sockpuppetry Mccapra (talk) 18:59, 8 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Bakazaka (talk) 19:55, 8 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Alaska-related deletion discussions. Bakazaka (talk) 19:55, 8 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete – A classic case of flying under the radar, though "radar" is a deceptive description owing to the lack of proactive editors among the community. Article has existed for over a dozen years and in that time never had any stub templates or Alaska-related categories added to it, nor has the talk page seen any additions beyond the WP Biography banner, which is customarily added to BLPs. Accomplishments as a dog musher are underwhelming, to say the least. I found the current link at the Iditarod website. It says that he's been "in the money" (finishing in the top twenty) in his Iditarod career, but it probably wasn't enough to cover his expenses. RadioKAOS / Talk to me, Billy / Transmissions 03:26, 9 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete This article is a classic example of why Wikipedia needs a more morderated article creation process.John Pack Lambert (talk) 05:46, 11 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete No significant independent coverage. Just competing in the Iditarod doesn't make him notable.Sandals1 (talk) 18:06, 13 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete How did this article survive for so long on WP without being AfD'ed. Zero notability and not even sourced (his bio link is broken) ???? Britishfinance (talk) 20:08, 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. Ad Orientem (talk) 03:44, 16 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

A. Roger Merrill[edit]

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

Several source searches indicate that this subject does not meet WP:BASIC notability. RS coverage consists only of meager passing mentions, name checks and brief quotations, none of which establish notability. The article is entirely dependent upon primary sources, which also do not confer notability. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 10:59, 1 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 11:00, 1 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Utah-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 11:00, 1 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 11:00, 1 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I really don't know why there are so many Latter-day Saints bio's on wikipedia and a lot of them don't pass basic WP:GNG guidelines like this one. Northamerica1000 Maybe you can group them together into one AfD when you find them? Govvy (talk) 12:14, 1 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Govvy: While many of these bios were obviously created because the subjects became LDS leaders, the subjects themselves can have different possible notability claims besides being LDS leaders, so nominating them all together would be a WP:TRAINWRECK. Bakazaka (talk) 19:24, 1 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, RL0919 (talk) 17:37, 8 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Per nom. Multiple AFD nominations can be challenging but if articles are primary self-sourced like this one I would imagine easier. Otr500 (talk) 00:16, 11 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Per nom. Britishfinance (talk) 00:18, 14 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. Ad Orientem (talk) 03:45, 16 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Michael A. Neider[edit]

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

Non-notable subject that fails WP:BASIC notability standards. WP:BEFORE searches are only providing a few minor passing mentions, name checks and minor quotations. No significant coverage found in independent, reliable sources; none appears to exist. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 10:43, 1 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 10:45, 1 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 10:45, 1 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 10:45, 1 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Nom says it all, there's nothing to verify notability here. Stefka Bulgaria (talk) 10:47, 1 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, RL0919 (talk) 17:36, 8 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Per nom. Britishfinance (talk) 00:19, 14 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. Ad Orientem (talk) 03:46, 16 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Current (health company)[edit]

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

non notable company--sources refer only to early funding and do not meet WP:NCORP DGG ( talk ) 17:24, 8 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Health and fitness-related deletion discussions. Bakazaka (talk) 19:53, 8 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Bakazaka (talk) 19:53, 8 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. Bakazaka (talk) 19:53, 8 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. Bakazaka (talk) 19:53, 8 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Scotland-related deletion discussions. Bakazaka (talk) 19:53, 8 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete The article in its current condition does not meet WP:GNG and my quick Google search likewise finds no supporting evidence of notability. Blue Rasberry (talk) 22:10, 8 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete No obvious sources of notability; small company using WP for promotional purposes. Britishfinance (talk) 01:37, 10 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete As noted above there is no clear sign of notability and the article does rather read as being promotional. Dunarc (talk) 21:19, 10 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Woah, slow down there, amigos! As the author of the page, I'd like to point out that I've created many articles on Wikipedia ranging from current businesses to biographies of women in British colonial history. This is not PR for a company, neither am I acting on their behalf. Secondly, this article has sources including The Guardian and BBC News. Clearly these are highly authoritative sources. There a multiple other sources for this company. FunkyCanute (talk) 14:21, 11 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: sourcing does not meet WP:CORPDEPTH; they are passing mentions and / or detail company hopes and aspirations. Borderline WP:PROMO directory listing. WP:TOOSOON per review of available sources. K.e.coffman (talk) 02:34, 12 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) 22:53, 15 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

24 Vesti[edit]

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

Non-notable TV channel with no sources of any kind. Fails WP:NOTABILITY and lacking WP:RS. PlotHelpful (talk) 10:48, 1 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 17:04, 1 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Macedonia-related deletion discussions. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 17:04, 1 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. All licenced television broadcasters are notable. See https://www.google.com/search?tbm=nws&q=%2224+Vesti%22+-wikipedia for lots of references. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 17:06, 1 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, RL0919 (talk) 14:28, 8 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Per Eastmain's comment. ~Ruyaba~ {talk} 15:09, 8 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep By far a WP:SOFIXIT case for a national 24 hour news channel. Google.mk exists to search Macedonian sources, and Google Translate easily translates Macedonian. Unless it's a MADEUP thing, the 'no sources of any kind' rationale for a nom should not be used. Also after close if kept, please complete move to Televizija 24 for its current name. Nate • (chatter) 00:41, 9 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per arguments above. 24.84.14.158 (talk) 19:47, 10 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) Jovanmilic97 (talk) 16:28, 15 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Christopher Y. Lew[edit]

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

No evidence of any notability. Self promotion, passing mentions etc but nothing reliable and independent discussing the subject. Moved without review from Draft to mainspace by the author long before it might have been ready. Fails WP:GNG Velella ^{Velella Talk} 04:46, 1 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I respectfully disagree. I am in no way affiliated with the subject, just an art historian. This subject is worthy of an article in my opinion. Please see references that include NYTimes, artforum, and The Creative Independent. --Wil540 art (talk) 04:55, 1 February 2019 (UTC)--Wil540 art (talk) 03:47, 3 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Massachusetts-related deletion discussions. KCVelaga (talk) 06:00, 1 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Bakazaka (talk) 08:25, 1 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletion discussions. Bakazaka (talk) 08:25, 1 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. Bakazaka (talk) 08:25, 1 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep this one is not so clear cut at first glance. The New York Times article used as the first ref is a namecheck and has no depth; on the other hand this W Magazine article has lots of depth. Enough sources are out there to establish GNG easily. Add to this the fact that he co-curated one of the Whitney Biennales (one of the top ten or twenty art exhibitions in the world) and you could probably make an argument that he meets some part of WP:CREATIVE. The guy is high-level. And let's not forget all the coverage that was generated by the Whitney show, like this article in Time, with a video, this Vogue magazine article, this rather good article in the New York Times, and so on. And those were easy to find.ThatMontrealIP (talk) 09:08, 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]

Keep agree per above and Google News results suggest sufficient notability. Hninthuzar (talk) 16:37, 8 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
OMFG Strong Speedy Keep are you kidding me? 1) Nancy and Fred Poses Curator - named full curator 2) Curated the Whitney Biennial, which alone is enough 3) For better or for worse, was at the center of the Dana Schutz fiasco, along with Mia Locks (and which should probably be included this article. --Theredproject (talk) 17:57, 10 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 soft delete. WP:REFUND applies. Ad Orientem (talk) 03:47, 16 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

San Diego Film Week[edit]

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

This is of dubious notability at best and has been discretely spammed throughout wikipedia for the last two years but I can find no significant coverage and what little coverage is found, is hyper local. No evidence this meets WP:NEVENT or WP:GNG and is just a minor regional event. Praxidicae (talk) 00:34, 25 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. Bakazaka (talk) 00:42, 25 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. Bakazaka (talk) 00:42, 25 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. Bakazaka (talk) 00:42, 25 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 07:42, 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) 14:15, 8 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Practically every city has a film festival and there is no indication this one is notable with anything beyond local coverage. Reywas92^Talk 00:01, 9 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 First Norfolk & Suffolk. Randykitty (talk) 14:18, 16 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Ipswich Rapid Transit[edit]

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

Non-notable guided busway, no evidence the name "Ipswich Rapid Transit" has ever been used. CoolSkittle (talk) 09:57, 1 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. CoolSkittle (talk) 09:58, 1 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. CoolSkittle (talk) 09:58, 1 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. CoolSkittle (talk) 09:58, 1 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment it's poorly named. A search for Ipswich guided busway brings up hits. I think it's a sourceable article - first guided busway in the UK, and I've seen a lot of mentions if not significant coverage, including from parliament. SportingFlyer T·C 10:07, 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) 14:11, 8 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment The exact string comes up as a gscholar snippet in "Bus Rapid Transit: Worldwide History of Development, Key Systems and Policy Issues". I'll request it at the library to see if it has substantial content. SpinningSpark 03:16, 9 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

It doesn't have in-depth content that would meet GNG, but if the article is kept, it can be used as a source to verify some basic facts. On page 248: 0.5 km route and first launched in 1994. It also gives some stuff not currently in the article: there were 739 passenger per day in 2010, and if I am reading the table correctly, there would seem to be only one bus. That last contradicts the article which uses the plural, but how many buses do you need for a 500m run? Also gets a mention in this book, but again, not in-depth. SpinningSpark 12:25, 9 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Unsourced. Snippets and sources with no in-depth coverage don't advance notability for GNG or NORG. Keeping the article so it "can be used as a source to verify some basic facts", Would be hard to imagine if there are no reliable sources to verify what might be called "facts". Otr500 (talk) 01:34, 11 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Otr500: I meant the source I cited could be used to verify some basic fact, not the article. And I didn't !vote for keep because of that. I didn't !vote at all. SpinningSpark 18:34, 11 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I couldn't find anything that supports WP:N. Also the article is completely unsourced which is a massive WP:V fail. -Ad Orientem (talk) 03:51, 16 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to First Norfolk & Suffolk per WP:ATD. ––Redditaddict69 ^(talk) ^(contribs) 07:37, 16 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete/Redirect to First Norfolk & Suffolk per WP:ATD. Over ten years on WP and not a single reference. Probably should be a delete as per nomination but happy as a Redirect also to preserve the text in case anybody has enough interest (unlikely) to make a proper article on this. Britishfinance (talk) 12:04, 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. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 17:07, 15 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Dear Deadly[edit]

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

No evidence of any notability for this band, no reliable indepth sources. Fram (talk) 10:05, 1 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Please review my pages references. I apologize if I am not correct. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bennymetalsh5 (talk • contribs) 10:34, 1 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Illinois-related deletion discussions. Bakazaka (talk) 19:28, 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) 14:11, 8 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: fails WP:GNG and WP:BAND. Article creator (and commenter above) admits that he is the band's lead singer. No reliable independent sources found: the Chicago Reader reference is simply a gig listing, with no prose whatsoever. Richard3120 (talk) 18:14, 12 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
delete I find no significant independent coverage to meet the GNG and I also didn't find anything to show any standards of WP:NBAND are met.Sandals1 (talk) 16:56, 13 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 defaulting to keep and w/o prejudice to a future renomination. The Keep !vote lacks any rational at all. However with only a single pro-delete comment I could not do more than close this as a "soft delete" which is precluded by the sole keep, however unimpressive it is. Ad Orientem (talk) 03:55, 16 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

UK Music Video Awards[edit]

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

As we may witness, the written content on the page is bolstered up mainly by primary sources. Nevertheless, some tertiary coverage is included, but these articles are mostly presented in a form of the list of winners/nominees rather than being actual journalistic pieces to be taken into account, though. I believe the criteria noted in WP:NOTESAL are not measured up to: many laureates of that awards are notable by themselves, but their arranged list may don't– This Is Where I Came In (talk) 03:24, 25 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - but the article's tone could be re-written in places. Vorbee (talk) 09:27, 25 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete The RS independent coverage seems to be all passing mentions or churned press releases, which fail ORGIND. b uidhe 10:20, 25 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Jovanmilic97 (talk) 10:07, 1 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 05:22, 2 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 05:22, 2 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 05:22, 2 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. 2018 UK Music Video Awards should have been bundled with this. postdlf (talk) 19:17, 3 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Nosebagbear (talk) 14:11, 8 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 merge to Babylon 5. I take note of the clear consensus that this looks like a poorly sourced WP:OR mess and remind anyone engaged in the merge that only properly sourced material may be kept. Ad Orientem (talk) 04:00, 16 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Babylon 5 influences[edit]

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

I would like to explain my nominating this article for deletion. I spent a great deal of time trying to find citations for the claims made in this article, and while I was successful in some cases, the vast majority of them are unsupported claims of similarity between the series and other works of fiction, or historical events, and not all are of sufficiently notable status.

Many of these claims may well be correct, and certainly seem plausible. Others are so vague and/or tenuous so as to make finding citations - when one is not the source of the edit - virtually impossible. In either case, without reliable sources I don't believe Wikipedia is the place for them. As pointed out on the talk page the article is a scattered mess anyway, and little better than a listicle in some places. There are plenty of B5 fan sites that point out perceived literary and historical parallels that don't have the same burdens for inclusion as Wikipedia.

In summary the portions of this article for which I could find sources are so few that what is left does not warrant a separate article. I have gathered together the elements for which I could find sources, and put them under a new 'Influences' heading in the main Babylon 5 article. I believe that removes the need to keep this article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by ElectricalTill (talk • contribs)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Science fiction-related deletion discussions. ~Ruyaba~ {talk} 13:55, 8 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. ~Ruyaba~ {talk} 13:55, 8 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Purge and Merge, per nom. Aside from JMS's statements acknowledging the show's homages and inspirations, there are very few WP:RS references available for this. It's a great topic for a paper, but as a textbook example of WP:OR, it doesn't belong on WP. -Jason A. Quest (talk) 14:46, 8 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Article constantly quotes a "James Michael Straczynski," and I don't think Wikipedia needs an exhaustive list of all the inspirations of any media. Jeb³ _{Talk at me here} 16:27, 8 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom and Jason A. Quest. The majority of the article is, as said, largely OR, and the actual cited elements (the statements from JMS himself, mostly) don't really need an article separate from the main Babylon 5 article. I was initially going to suggest merging those actual relevant bits of information to the main article, but I see that has already been done, and a must more succinct and better organized section with this information has already been created there. That being said, there is no reason to do anything here than a Deletion at this point. 169.232.162.112 (talk) 19:57, 8 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Don't delete it, just replace it with a redirect to the main article. Anyone can then go and merge over anything worth merging whenever they feel like getting around to it. Dream Focus 01:59, 9 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. I've moved and consolidated everything I could cite. I haven't checked printed literature, which may have usable sources, but a good few pages of google searches with various terms for each of the major claims. Most of it seems to be OR, conjecture, or claims so nebulous ("it seems," "a parallelization that can be made," "this is reminiscent of," "are similar to," "is often compared to," etc.) that it's difficult to even begin trying to find sources. Even citations from major sites like the Lurker's Guide are dubious IMO unless they're actually quoting JMS.ElectricalTill (talk) 10:02, 9 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Per nom and taking into account comment above that anything salvagable/mergable has been done (otherwise I would redirect, but wary that some redirects become resurrected). The WP:OR issue is just too great here – both in terms of the topic (how can it ever avoid OR), and even the text, so it is beyond a WP:TNT issue. You could imagine some material being salvaged in a short section on a Babylon 5 article under an "Influences" section (e.g. "Experts regard the following list as important influences on Bablyon 5 ......") that might be sufficiently brief that it is uncontraversial; although, it could still attract OR concerns if the experts are not the accepted experts. Not for a full seperate article. Britishfinance (talk) 20:47, 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 delete. Ad Orientem (talk) 04:01, 16 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Bernard Hiller[edit]

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

I was cleaning this up, but the moment you start cleaning the promotional crap out of an article like this, there's nothing left. There are no reliable sources, there are no real, verified achievements, even the filmography is questionable. So, remove per GNG--just another vanispam article, with heavy COI edits by a now-blocked person whose name is an awful lot like that of the subject. Drmies (talk) 22:35, 19 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Bakazaka (talk) 23:04, 19 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. Bakazaka (talk) 23:04, 19 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. Bakazaka (talk) 23:04, 19 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Argentina-related deletion discussions. Bakazaka (talk) 23:04, 19 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. Bakazaka (talk) 23:04, 19 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Bernie Hiller has undoubtedly some influence as an acting coach. The documentary 'Pink Elephants' is about him and his work. And he was in some festival jurys. In my eyes, that makes him a relevant person. Sure, the article was pure advertising, but now it's better. The sources are o.k. and there is a criticism-section, too. As far as I know, Pink Elephants is only available in german. But at the latest when there are english subtitles in this documentary, people are asking for a Wikipedia article. Django.Muerte (talk) 23:15, 19 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 01:14, 26 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 03:24, 2 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This conversation was reopened by request from an uninvolved user. ―Matthew J. Long -Talk-^☖ 13:26, 8 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Per Praxidicae in a discussion on my talk page, this needs more discussion before closing. (Non-administrator comment)
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ―Matthew J. Long -Talk-^☖ 13:23, 8 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Per nom. The "Filmography" section is sourced with IMDb (user-generated) that is not reliable or acceptable as a reference. Otr500 (talk) 02:18, 11 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Article is still so promitionally written. There are some references in RS, but media-BLPs throw up refences quickly (by definition from their industry). There is no proper article on the subject (as opposed to referring to him in the context of another subject) in a significant RS (e.g. NYT interview). A notable acting coach, given the industry, would have at least one strong interview in a major publication. Britishfinance (talk) 21:00, 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 merge to 2019 Australian Open – Men's Singles. Ad Orientem (talk) 04:03, 16 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

2019 Australian Open – Men's singles final[edit]

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

Contested PROD, none of the coverage of the 2019 Australian Open gave anything more than WP:ROUTINE coverage to this match. Don't believe there is anything here that can be merged in to parent articles. Iffy★Chat -- 13:10, 8 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. ~Ruyaba~ {talk} 13:52, 8 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. Bakazaka (talk) 19:50, 8 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. Bakazaka (talk) 19:50, 8 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep the article certainly needs improvement, but calling all of the coverage of one of the two main matches of tennis' biggest tournament WP:ROUTINE? My first impression of this AfD is that it was a joke. See: [3] [4] [5] [6], et cetera. SportingFlyer T·C 20:21, 8 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to 2019 Australian Open – Men's Singles. This article just serves as a content fork. It is not common practice to have articles dedicated to tennis finals, even for Grand Slam tournaments. Ajf773 (talk) 20:45, 8 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as has plenty of non routine coverage as shown by Sporting Flyer. There are a number of similar articles on finals matches as shown in this category Category:Tennis matches, thanks Atlantic306 (talk) 21:38, 8 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Merge Just because an article can exist separately does not mean it should. No reason it cannot be merged to 2019 Australian Open – Men's Singles. Notability is only based on it being part of that tournament. Reywas92^Talk 23:58, 8 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Merge. Djokovic beat Nadal in straight sets, so the match doesn't warrant a separate article, unlike their 2012 classic. Clarityfiend (talk) 08:53, 10 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep please see also 2013 Wimbledon Championships – Men's singles final. This article should be expanded.--Chinyen Lu (talk) 03:59, 11 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment The 2013 Champiosnship is their because of history being created because of Andy Murray. This is a different kettle of fish. Not Homura (talk) 06:13, 15 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Merge or Keep This article on first glance does not need a standalone article, but despite the straight sets, if the article is improved then I would favor a keep. As it is now, merging is better Garlicolive (talk) 19:03, 14 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Merge This final wasn't a classic and wasn't an history defining final compared to some of the other ones that do have articles on here. I personally that it should merge into the 2019 Australian Open – Men's Singles. Not Homura (talk) 06:28, 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. 78.26 _{(spin me / revolutions)} 22:16, 15 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Gabriel Brazão (footballer, born 2000)[edit]

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

Fails WP:GNG and WP:NFOOTY. Player has not played in any fully-pro league. RRD (talk) 12:01, 8 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. ~Ruyaba~ {talk} 12:10, 8 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Brazil-related deletion discussions. ~Ruyaba~ {talk} 12:10, 8 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Bakazaka (talk) 19:49, 8 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete No appearances, still needs multiple substantive sources to pass GNG if/when that happens. Reywas92^Talk 23:55, 8 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Doesn't meet any of the criteria on WP:CSD, so I'd be opposed to a speedy, but he's not notable either. Smartyllama (talk) 02:28, 10 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Doesn't pass WP:NFOOTY. R96Skinner (talk) 18:59, 10 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - I agree with the deletion, the criteria of notability alone does not warrant a need for an article on Wikipedia, maybe in the future if the player achieves notability the article would be reinstated.Garlicolive (talk) 22:10, 10 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Giant Snowman 11:24, 11 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - fails WP:GNG and WP:NFOOTBALL. Giant Snowman 11:26, 11 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Does not meetWP:GNG and WP:NFOOTBALL at this stage. CASSIOPEIA^(talk) 08:59, 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 redirect to Sunrise in Heaven. (non-admin closure) DannyS712 (talk) 22:52, 15 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Caylee Cowan[edit]

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

WP:TOOSOON. Virtually no actual coverage and thus far only has one semi-notable role. Fails WP:NACTOR. Praxidicae (talk) 11:55, 8 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Author's comment. She's the lead actress in a movie that comes out April 9th 2019 with 5 actors that all have wikipedia pages — Preceding unsigned comment added by Junerock21 (talk • contribs) 16:01, 8 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. ~Ruyaba~ {talk} 11:59, 8 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. ~Ruyaba~ {talk} 11:59, 8 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. ~Ruyaba~ {talk} 11:59, 8 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. ~Ruyaba~ {talk} 11:59, 8 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to the film she has a starring role in. If she gets another notable role the redirect can be undone. Clear case of WP:TOOSOON.Onel5969 ^{TT me} 16:13, 8 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect Per above. Film will not get a wide release (online on-demand only) so even if the film is notable, that is not inherited by actors in it. Reywas92^Talk 23:52, 8 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect Per above. Britishfinance (talk) 21:07, 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. 78.26 _{(spin me / revolutions)} 22:15, 15 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Brittany Lo[edit]

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

Can't find decent sources to support notability under GNG. (Not a deletion rationale, but interesting: article was created by the (now blocked) user Beautini; Lo's company is called Beautini. ) ThatMontrealIP (talk) 08:35, 8 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. ~Ruyaba~ {talk} 09:08, 8 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. ~Ruyaba~ {talk} 09:08, 8 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Indeed, WP:GNG is not met, and there is no claim of notability. GregorB (talk) 09:36, 8 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Bakazaka (talk) 19:48, 8 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Fails GNG. ♟♙ (talk) 21:16, 8 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Not enough for GNG. There was a NewYorkTimes piece on make-up for weddings that gave her a mention (amongst others), but no actual material artical on her from an RS. Britishfinance (talk) 21:13, 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. 78.26 _{(spin me / revolutions)} 22:14, 15 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Nate Iese[edit]

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

Fails WP:GNG and WP:NGRIDIRON John from Idegon (talk) 07:16, 8 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. ~Ruyaba~ {talk} 09:10, 8 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. ~Ruyaba~ {talk} 09:10, 8 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of American football-related deletion discussions. ~Ruyaba~ {talk} 09:13, 8 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I'm not finding any evidence the individual has played in an actual NFL or CFL game, so that's a failure of WP:NGRIDIRON. Looking at his college play, it doesn't look promising--I'm only finding basic "transactional-type" and/or blog entries, and even those reports point to a lack of notability. For example, Fansided blogged "I’ll be honest I was excited thinking about what Nate Iese was going to bring to the group last year with his size and athleticism. He had an okay year for the 2016 UCLA Football team catching the ball but his 25 catches for 400 yards and four touchdowns didn’t blow anyone out of the water." The Sacramento Bee only had this to say: "Played fullback, tight end, linebacker at UCLA; considered a freak athlete." I have to admit that I don't know what a "freak" athlete is, but it doesn't sound like he was able to generate enough press there to surpass WP:GNG. There is a pre-season article at the Orange County Register where he got several paragraphs outlining the "anticipation" of what he could do, but by all measures I can find he didn't produce the results that this one article of hype predicted. There certainly are not a good selection of independent reliable sources that wrote about his efforts and I can find no other notability measure that points to a pass. Anyone have better/different research?--Paul McDonald (talk) 14:09, 8 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I concur with Paul McDonald's research. He isn't listed as being on the team roster currently(according to the article here). 331dot (talk) 14:52, 8 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Non-notable athlete.-UCO2009bluejay (talk) 21:19, 9 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Paul McDonald and lack of significant coverage focused on him. With 46 catches and seven TDs in four years of play, he wasn't even a particularly significant contributor at UCLA. See here. Cbl62 (talk) 15:43, 10 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as the article fails WP:GNG on numerous levels. He was with the team for a short time and most of the points were very well stated by Paul McDonald. My last nail in the coffin is that the article is also extremely poorly sorted and written, seems like a sandbox article rather than a full article. James-the-Charizard (talk) 05:16, 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. 78.26 _{(spin me / revolutions)} 22:14, 15 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Samie Bower[edit]

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

This seems to be one of another attempts at creating an autobiographical article; nearly all sources listed are either from Discogs, social networking sites, and other sources which aren't even from a reliable news site, failing WP:GNG and WP:ARTIST. It should be noted that another user, Entrelations, had this same page on their sandbox created hours ago, so sock puppetry and maybe undisclosed paid editing is highly likely. theinstantmatrix (talk) 05:53, 8 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. ~Ruyaba~ {talk} 09:35, 8 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. ~Ruyaba~ {talk} 09:35, 8 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete It's vanity spam and has no coverage in RS. Praxidicae (talk) 12:02, 8 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and Salt No notability, very promotional. Will need salting. Britishfinance (talk) 21:03, 9 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per reasons stated above. A Google search yielded 7 pages of results, none of which were reliable sources. Gargleafg (talk) 01:30, 12 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete – Fails WP: NMUSIC. StaticVapor message me! 22:54, 14 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 merge to Daejeon Citizen FC. (non-admin closure) Jovanmilic97 (talk) 00:39, 16 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Daejeon Citizen in Asian football[edit]

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

Not enough list to separate an article, maybe we should merge to Daejeon Citizen FC Hhkohh (talk) 05:34, 8 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. Hhkohh (talk) 05:39, 8 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of South Korea-related deletion discussions. Hhkohh (talk) 05:39, 8 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect/marge to section on main article, in the same way as Bradford City A.F.C. in European football. Giant Snowman 08:55, 8 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy merge A list with a single item is obviously not something that needs a separate page, sheesh. Please just be bold and merge in such blatant cases and come to AFD or start a discussion in the unlikely chance it's objected to. Reywas92^Talk 23:40, 8 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 Jeju United. Any content worth merging is available from the article history. Randykitty (talk) 18:57, 15 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Jeju United in Asian football[edit]

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

Not enough list to separate an article, maybe we should merge to Jeju United FC Hhkohh (talk) 05:30, 8 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. Hhkohh (talk) 05:30, 8 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Korea-related deletion discussions. Hhkohh (talk) 05:30, 8 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect/marge to section on main article, in the same way as Bradford City A.F.C. in European football. Giant Snowman 08:54, 8 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy merge Per my comment at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Daejeon Citizen in Asian football, and please also merge some of the others at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Daejeon Citizen in Asian football like Jeju United in Asian football. This content can be in a separate article when article and section length requires it but that should never be the default. Reywas92^Talk 23:45, 8 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Merge redirect per above suggestion. Govvy (talk) 14:03, 9 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Merge & Redirect to main article, per past consensuses on similar AFDs. Inter&anthro (talk) 23:10, 9 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) 18:56, 15 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Bajju Rajput[edit]

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

Still seems to be problematic. Recreated some time ago after a previous "soft delete" AfD. - Sitush (talk) 20:24, 24 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Ethnic groups-related deletion discussions. Bakazaka (talk) 21:59, 24 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Bakazaka (talk) 21:59, 24 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. Bakazaka (talk) 21:59, 24 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete unsourced, doesn't seem notable either. samee converse 23:33, 28 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) 00:22, 1 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Given that this was "soft" deleted and re-created already, it would be highly desirable to get more input for a firm decision this time.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, RL0919 (talk) 02:55, 8 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete No sources and no substance, the article is pretty much useless. Doradafan (talk) 03:46, 8 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Couldn't even find it on Google Maps. Sorry, I vote delete also. Theweekndeditor (talk) 01:57, 9 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

?? It is alleged to be a social group in India, not a place. I'm not sure that Maps would be a useful resource in these circumstances. - Sitush (talk) 05:12, 9 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete or Merge into Rajput and/or Rajput clans (perhaps others?). This is way out of my realm of expertise, but, unless there are more definitive and comprehensive sources out there discussing the group, I don't see why this page needs to exist in a standalone capacity. Mentioning the group in one of the pages I listed above might be more appropriate if there are sources available. Gargleafg (talk) 01:42, 12 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) 18:52, 15 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Firepower Records[edit]

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

The only sources I could find for this record label today refer to the 2018 sexual allegations of its founder, Datsik (musician) as well as the songs signed to this label. No other significant coverage can be found, but I do not believe the 2018 events are enough to satisfy independent notability for the record label. Jalen D. Folf (talk) 00:19, 1 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Only two references (three technically), only one of which (UKF) actually being reliable and usable. Writing format seems biased and unprofessional. Artist section had a bunch of seemingly random (or previously part of the label?) artists added to the list that aren't listed in the reference. Beatport cannot be used as a source in any case, including as a discography page reference. Micro (Talk) 03:25, 1 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Just as a comment, I'm not convinced even UKF is reliable... it's essentially the work of one man, Dave Jenkins. There are a couple of other contributors listed, but absolutely no biographical information about them, so we have no idea of their credentials, they could just be unpaid volunteers. Richard3120 (talk) 12:54, 1 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 08:53, 1 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 08:53, 1 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of British Columbia-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 08:53, 1 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, RL0919 (talk) 02:52, 8 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: fail WP:NCORP & WP:PROMO. K.e.coffman (talk) 19:24, 9 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: I agree it fails WP:NCORP & WP:PROMO Actaudio (talk) 07:35, 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. Randykitty (talk) 18:47, 15 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The Grove (Downers Grove, Illinois)[edit]

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

Only coverage is local and routine. No significant coverage. Jmertel23 (talk) 00:14, 1 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Illinois-related deletion discussions. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 02:18, 1 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Shopping malls-related deletion discussions. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 02:19, 1 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. This shopping center has a total area of 204,762 sq ft, according to Edgemark Commercial Real Estate Services LLC, and 400,000 square feet according to RD Management LLC. Coverage by Chicago media is regional rather than local. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 02:31, 1 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, RL0919 (talk) 02:49, 8 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. There are many articles of shopping centers of this size. This article does a good job of documenting changes to the center to deal with a changing situation. As the documentation of a single site it is dull, but as a reflection of the changing face of commerce it is worthwile. GeorgeofOrange (talk) 02:44, 12 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Doesn't that fall under WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS? Sandals1 (talk) 17:01, 13 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

delete I don't see any coverage that looks like it qualifies for meeting the GNG. Of the four references given one is from the management company, one doesn't mention the center at all, one gives it a passing mention as one of the closing Ultra locations, and the final one says it's been foreclosed on and will be put up for sale (WP:NOTNEWS). Sandals1 (talk) 17:01, 13 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Fails WP:SIGCOV.E.M.Gregory (talk) 19:06, 13 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. Copyright issues should be addressed by revdels. I can do this if you indicate exactly which revisions need to be deleted. Randykitty (talk) 18:45, 15 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Benedetta Dubini[edit]

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

Spam bordering on G11 speedy deletion territory. None of the provided sources covers Benedetta Dubini in any detail. Significant parts of the content are unreferenced; multiple sources don't confirm what they're cited for (nor much else about Dubini the person). There are also copyright issues since parts of the "Early life and education" section are closely paraphrased from her website. Huon (talk) 01:07, 8 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Italy-related deletion discussions. ~Ruyaba~ (talk) 01:18, 8 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. ~Ruyaba~ (talk) 01:18, 8 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. ~Ruyaba~ (talk) 01:20, 8 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete User:Lucifero4

Note: This discussion has been included in the WiR February 2019 Geofocus: The Ancient World. StrayBolt (talk) 21:41, 8 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - WP:NOTCLEANUP Added some RS and minor clean up. Needs more work but doesn't need to be deleted. StrayBolt (talk) 17:46, 9 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The article could really use someone who speaks French and Italian to add sources. They exist, but I can't read them (You can see some of these here). The sources that are here are hit or miss. Some aren't great, but the Wallpaper articles are good and the other sources in other languages make me say she passes GNG. Megalibrarygirl (talk) 03:47, 11 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep As above, really struggling to get good quality English articles. Most are in Italian and some French. Subject matter is also part of Wikiproject Women. This project addresses the under-representation of content on Wikipedia about women (both real and fictional) and covering women's perspectives. Only 17% of Wikipedia biographies are about women. Agree I also believe she passes GNG. Equine-man (talk) 15:53, 11 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) 18:43, 15 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

A Fox In Space[edit]

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

Fails WP:GNG. References are all links to youtube except for a brief article from A.V. Club (related to Gizmodo and Lifehacker, but I don't consider this particularly reliable) that wasn't significant in coverage. Before search returned fan sites, still nothing reliable. Definitely nothing that covered the game the way this article does (no way to verify what's said). Aurornisxui (talk) 16:28, 31 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

This isn't a game, it's an animated web series. Iffy★Chat -- 16:40, 31 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
- Iffy Thanks. Aurornisxui (talk) 16:48, 31 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

Delete - A fairly unnotable bit of fan work. The article from the A.V. Club, which is the only valid reference currently in the article, appears to be the only reliable secondary source out there. Searching for more brings up nothing further except for mentions in blogs or user comments, neither of which can be used to establish notability. 169.232.162.112 (talk) 17:24, 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) 00:55, 8 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Although the series is very well animated, there isn't much secondary sources that exist. I searched it on Google, and it was only talked about around April 26, 2016. Unless the series grows, an article shouldn't exist. Yoshiman6464 ^♫🥚 02:01, 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 merge to List of Marvel Comics characters: D. Randykitty (talk) 18:41, 15 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Discus (comics)[edit]

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

Does not meet WP:GNG. Character appears 11 times, according to Marvel Wikia. A Google search for "discus marvel" does not turn up any notable results. Namenamenamenamename (talk) 16:34, 31 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep or merge into List of Marvel Comics characters: D or List of Luke Cage and Iron Fist supporting characters. No need to delete when merge is a valid option. BOZ (talk) 21:02, 31 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. Bakazaka (talk) 23:11, 31 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Comics and animation-related deletion discussions. Bakazaka (talk) 23:11, 31 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Generic term, and current target fails WP:GNG--Killer Moff (talk) 14:38, 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) 00:54, 8 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep or merge I agree with BOZ above. Merge into List of Marvel Characters or Luke Cage supporting characters. I don't believe it deserves its own page. Theweekndeditor (talk) 02:01, 9 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. A possible merge can be discussed on the article talk page. Randykitty (talk) 18:38, 15 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Armless Tiger Man[edit]

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

Does not meet WP:GNG. Page is linked in the body of four articles, and the character appears eight times according to Marvel Wikia. Namenamenamenamename (talk) 16:49, 31 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per sources noted below supporting the WP:GNG, or failing that merge into List of Marvel Comics characters: A or List of Marvel Comics Golden Age characters. No need to delete when merge is a valid option. BOZ (talk) 20:12, 31 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. Bakazaka (talk) 23:11, 31 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Comics and animation-related deletion discussions. Bakazaka (talk) 23:11, 31 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - No toher likely target and fails WP:GNG. --Killer Moff (talk) 14:55, 1 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect/Merge to List of Marvel Comics characters: A. An extremely minor character, whose only sources are primary. However, his name is unusual enough that it could be a valid search term, so a redirect and selective merge would be fine. 169.232.162.112 (talk) 17:17, 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) 00:53, 8 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Cracked has an entertaining account of the character and it's not difficult to find similar coverage elsewhere. The nomination's assertion about the WP:GNG is therefore false while its claims about Wikia are remarkably irrelevant. Andrew D. (talk) 10:10, 8 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The information provided from the Marvel Wikia goes directly to a lack of significance within the fiction. Marvel has published 60+ comics a month for almost 80 years. A character appearing in only 8 of those says a lot about his lack of importance. Argento Surfer (talk) 21:29, 8 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete does not meet my criteria for merging or redirect. Coverage of the character in list articles of oddball comic characters doesn't demonstate notability. Argento Surfer (talk) 21:29, 8 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Passes the WP:GNG. Comic Book Resources gives significant coverage to the character at [7] Screen Rant mention him at [8]. This and other coverage found and mentioned count. Dream Focus 00:15, 9 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. A possible merge can be discussed on the talk page. Randykitty (talk) 18:37, 15 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Asbestos Man[edit]

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

Does not meet WP:GNG. Character appears less than ten times, according to Marvel Wikia. Namenamenamenamename (talk) 16:52, 31 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per evidence below of meeting the WP:GNG, or failing that merge into List of Marvel Comics characters: A or Great Lakes Avengers. No need to delete when merge is a valid option. BOZ (talk) 21:18, 31 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

There is not really any evidence proving Wp:GNG yet though that I know of IMO. Jhenderson⁷⁷⁷ 01:55, 5 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. Bakazaka (talk) 23:10, 31 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Comics and animation-related deletion discussions. Bakazaka (talk) 23:10, 31 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Looks like it passes GNG to me, based on reference 6, and these: [9]] and [[10]]. --Killer Moff (talk) 14:05, 1 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

No not really. Absestos Lady gets more coverage and she is even more obscure. All those sources are broke too. Jhenderson⁷⁷⁷ 22:53, 3 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Reference six, as well as both of the sources you tried linking to here, are just blogs. Blogs are generally not considered reliable secondary sources for the purposes of passing the GNG.169.232.162.112 (talk) 17:07, 7 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep comic book character that passes GNG. Wikiman5676 (talk) 03:54, 2 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Merge: Both Asbestos Lady and Asbestos Man were only notable for one thing. For being asbestos type villains to their flaming counterpart. But they are extremely minor and they didn’t last long. Not enough coverage. I wish he appeared more since he is a Stan Lee original but he has passes on in both in real life and in-universe. Jhenderson⁷⁷⁷ 22:53, 3 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to List of Marvel Comics characters: A. The few sources provided that are not the comics themselves are blogs and official marvel handbooks. These do not meet the requirements of being reliable secondary sources. However, they do provide enough that I think a merge would be appropriate. 169.232.162.112 (talk) 17:14, 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) 00:53, 8 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Appears in The Supervillain Handbook, The Encyclopedia of Super Villains and The Rough Guide to Superheroes and so passes the WP:GNG. Andrew D. (talk) 09:55, 8 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

No. These are primary sources where any Marvel character or super villains can appear. You need to read GNG again. Jhenderson⁷⁷⁷ 15:50, 8 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - does not meet my criteria for a merge or redirect. Argento Surfer (talk) 21:30, 8 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to List of Marvel Comics characters: A. Appeared in media popular enough that someone might want to read about it, but that doesn't require its own article. - WPGA2345 - ☛ 01:05, 10 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 The Fall of the Mutants. Any content worth merging is still available from the article history. Randykitty (talk) 18:36, 15 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Ani-Mator[edit]

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

Does not meet WP:GNG. Page is linked by seven articles, most of which are minor mentions that could be deleted, and the character appears nine times according to Marvel Wikia. Namenamenamenamename (talk) 17:03, 31 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep or merge into List of Marvel Comics characters: A or The Fall of the Mutants. No need to delete when merge is a valid option. BOZ (talk) 20:13, 31 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. Bakazaka (talk) 23:10, 31 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Comics and animation-related deletion discussions. Bakazaka (talk) 23:10, 31 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Cypher (Marvel Comics), fails WP:GNG, but no other likely target, and target article provides enough context. Character's involvement in major event in target's story justifies redirect. --Killer Moff (talk) 14:00, 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) 00:52, 8 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to The Fall of the Mutants. 21:32, 8 February 2019 (UTC)

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

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

The result was delete. Randykitty (talk) 18:35, 15 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Fixx[edit]

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

Does not meet WP:GNG. Page is linked in the body of four articles, character appears eight times according to Marvel Wikia. Namenamenamenamename (talk) 17:10, 31 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep or merge into List of Marvel Comics characters: F or List of X-Men members. No need to delete when merge is a valid option. BOZ (talk) 20:16, 31 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. Bakazaka (talk) 23:21, 31 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Comics and animation-related deletion discussions. Bakazaka (talk) 23:21, 31 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Fails WP:GNG. Suspect is more likely to be a typo than a valid search term. --Killer Moff (talk) 15:52, 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) 00:52, 8 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - does not meet my criteria for a merge or redirect. Argento Surfer (talk) 21:23, 8 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 Marvel: The Lost Generation. (non-admin closure) Jovanmilic97 (talk) 16:24, 15 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Black Fox (Robert Paine)[edit]

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

Does not meet WP:GNG. Is linked by one article, appears 13 times according to Marvel Wikia. Namenamenamenamename (talk) 17:59, 31 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep or merge into List of Marvel Comics characters: B or Marvel: The Lost Generation. No need to delete when merge is a valid option. BOZ (talk) 20:19, 31 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. Bakazaka (talk) 23:08, 31 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Comics and animation-related deletion discussions. Bakazaka (talk) 23:08, 31 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Marvel: The Lost Generation. Valid search term but nothing of any worth in preserving. --Killer Moff (talk) 13:42, 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) 00:49, 8 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect per Killer Moff. 21:12, 8 February 2019 (UTC)

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

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

The result was delete. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 17:22, 15 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Abir Ibrahim[edit]

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

I see no reason why this page passes WP:GNG, there is no reliable source for her, and the only point that can be looked upon is her being a "UNICEF USA Community Engagement Fellow" Daiyusha (talk) 17:59, 31 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 23:17, 31 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Health and fitness-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 23:17, 31 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 09:08, 1 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - most of these sources are not reliable/independent. Those that are, fail Sig Cov. I am confident that an article on Inua Naturals would be sufficiently notable, but Abir is usually only covered in short detail before going on about Inua. This sourcing issue is duplicated elsewhere. I don't believe any of her positions or awards are so large as to demonstrate notability in themselves. As a side note, the article is also a mix of advertorial and a CV. Nosebagbear (talk) 21:32, 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) 00:49, 8 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Fails WP:GNG. Wikipedia is a summary of WP:RS. If this article is kept then delete everything without a citation to meet Wikipedia's quality standard. The sources which are cited do not feature this person as their subject or are WP:SPS. Blue Rasberry (talk) 22:25, 8 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. Apart from the nom there is only one participant in this debate, who argues for a merge. If that is an acceptable solution, that can be handled on the talk pages of these articles. If not, no prejudice to taking this to AfD again in, say, 2 months time, hoping on a wider participation. Randykitty (talk) 18:32, 15 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Golden Grand Prix Ivan Yarygin 2019 – Men's freestyle 70 kg[edit]

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

While this GrandPrix event is notable, it doesn't mean that all subevents (individual gender/weight classes) have the necessary notability to support stand-alone pages. Fails WP:NEVENT.

If we compare it to other sports with multiple subevents, it looks as if neither athletics, judo or karate have similar pages, apart from major championships (World, Olympic), where this is generally accepted. It is rare for such subevents to get the sustained coverage needed for an individual page, usually they get reported upon when they happen, and after that are just passing mentions or lines in databases. Fram (talk) 15:01, 24 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

For the same reason are also nominated:

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Russia-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 17:29, 24 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Not that I disagree with the nomination but I'm not sure AfD is the right solution here. It makes more sense to simply be bold and merge all content of the three subpages to Golden Grand Prix Ivan Yarygin 2019. Pichpich (talk) 19:44, 24 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
'Comment number 2 I just found Category:Golden Grand Prix Ivan Yarygin 2017 and Category:Golden Grand Prix Ivan Yarygin 2018. Whatever we decide here should probably apply to all articles in these categories and it might make sense to either add them to this nomination or at least notify the articles' creators about this AfD. Pichpich (talk) 19:50, 24 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. Bakazaka (talk) 21:35, 24 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Wrestling-related deletion discussions. Bakazaka (talk) 21:35, 24 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Jovanmilic97 (talk) 18:49, 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) 00:46, 8 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 17:16, 15 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Physical Presents[edit]

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

Cannot find enough sources to confirm WP:GNG. Britishfinance (talk) 19:41, 31 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

delete no independent in-depth coverage. Staszek Lem (talk) 21:36, 31 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 22:56, 31 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 22:56, 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) 00:45, 8 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: does not meet WP:NCORP. K.e.coffman (talk) 19:17, 9 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 03:14, 15 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Jon Jashni[edit]

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

This is a connected-editor puff-piece, with enough references to give the impression that the person is notable. However, I believe that notability is not established; Jashni gets a number of passing mentions, as a "creative officer" (here) or as one of a team of producers. I see no in-depth coverage of him or of his achievements, nothing to to suggest that he is any different from the thousands of behind-the-scenes people who help make notable films happen, but do not in that process themselves become notable. Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 21:28, 24 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. Bakazaka (talk) 21:58, 24 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. Bakazaka (talk) 21:58, 24 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. Bakazaka (talk) 21:58, 24 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Pinging Primefac who accepted this at WP:AFC. ~Kvng (talk) 15:37, 31 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Meh... I don't remember much other than keeping tabs on it for a while after accepting. Was definitely in the category of a "borderline accept". I have no strong opinions but would personally say that he's not notable just for being someone who has done things. Primefac (talk) 16:08, 31 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, Kvng – I'd meant to do that but it seems to have slipped my mind. Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 17:31, 31 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Nosebagbear (talk) 21:38, 31 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

commment thousands of behind-the-scenes people, well' I wouldn't call President a one of "thousands of behind-the scenes people". Staszek Lem (talk) 22:01, 31 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
- Borderline keep. NOtability's are just guidelines to weed unquestionalbe cases. This one in borderline hence special consideration. I's say by the sum of facts (President; twice direct producer; press coverage, although routine, but verifies his activities, not just PR hype. Staszek Lem (talk)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ad Orientem (talk) 00:42, 8 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Passes WP:SIGCOV. Found him in 8 magazines in the first 16 references, discussing a wide range of films at Legendary Entertainment. Seems to be ok. scope_creep^Talk 10:36, 9 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. After extended time for review, consensus is clear. bd2412 T 16:33, 14 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Friary Bowling Club[edit]

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

A historic club, apparently formed in 1820, but nothing notable seems to have happened in the two centuries since! There are no relevant sources in the page except a book that I cannot find any reference to and I have found no other sources that deal in depth with this club. I had hoped that there was a possibility of adding a mention in the Friary's page but, despite the Friary being quite possibly notable, it has no article. This page has had no substantive content addition since creation in April 2013. Fails WP:ORG. Delete. Just Chilling (talk) 22:19, 31 January 2019 (UTC) Just Chilling (talk) 22:19, 31 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. Bakazaka (talk) 23:17, 31 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. Bakazaka (talk) 23:17, 31 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. Bakazaka (talk) 23:17, 31 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. Bakazaka (talk) 23:17, 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) 00:37, 8 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete -- an undistinguished amateur sports club, so far as I can see, even if older than many. Peterkingiron (talk) 20:00, 10 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as I couldn't find a single informative source outside of Wikipedia. Gargleafg (talk) 01:52, 12 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. After extended time for discussion, there are three firm !votes to keep, premised on a reasonable examination of available sources, two firm !votes to delete, and one !vote leaning delete. Normally, the nominator would be counted as a vote to delete, but in this case User:Balkywrest as nominator has been blocked as a sockpuppet of User:Septrillion. It would be odd to give substantial weight to the opinion of a sockpuppet in a discussion, and no less so as nominator. Thus, although the opinion of the nominator is not discounted entirely, it must be given little weight in the outcome here. Given the previous extension of time for this discussion, and the tendency over the course of the discussion for additional sources to be found, relisting this nomination in expectation of a different consensus seems an unwise use of resources. The article can clearly be improved by the addition of sources raised in the discussion, and those supporting its inclusion should consider taking on this task. bd2412 T 02:02, 15 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Riskified[edit]

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

Sources are insufficient to prove notability. Balkywrest (talk) 22:32, 24 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 00:28, 25 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 00:29, 25 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Nosebagbear (talk) 23:35, 31 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Leaning delete: all of the sources, even the ones which appear "major", are actually blog-like, such as the WSJ one. SITH (talk) 14:18, 7 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - When you take away the routine funding announcements and brief mentions, there are sources that meet WP:CORPDEPTH. The Wall Street Journal piece is not a blog post in the typical sense of the word. It is written by a staff writer who says has been employed there since 2013. Other significant coverage includes Jerusalem Post, another JP, and Globes to name a few. The page itself needs cleaned up and stripped of the promo, but it certainly meets WP:NCORP.--CNMall41 (talk) 23:05, 7 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment The WSJ reference is even listed as a blog post on Riskified's website ... HighKing⁺⁺ 12:05, 12 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ad Orientem (talk) 00:31, 8 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Does not meet WP:NCORP; significant WP:RS coverage not found. Just a promotional directory listing. WP:TOOSOON per review of available sources. K.e.coffman (talk) 17:48, 9 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. There's a TechCrunch article ([11]) which is a yellow-light source, and can be counted for limited additional notability, on top of sources already discussed above. I don't see any discussion of Globes ([12]) as a source, but it appears reliable and is a national newspaper, so I assume this article can be counted towards notability as well. Lastly, there's a Mother Jones article ([13]) which is definitely a green-light reliable source, and is definitely not biased in favor of this company. That's decent press in two countries. - WPGA2345 - ☛ 01:13, 10 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete None of the sources meet the criteria for establishing notabilty. The Globes article is an interview with the founders, not intellectually independent, fails WP:ORGIND. Both this Jerusalem Post reference and this one are classic chrurnalism - faux "profiles" complete with the usual photo/quotes/vision/growth/funding structure but, you know, no actual "news", fails as not being intellectually independent, fails WP:ORGIND. The MotherJones reference is the best of a bad lot but it is merely commenting on the WSJ reference and doesn't provide and in-depth information on the company and fails WP:CORPDEPTH. This company obviously has a marketing dept but the topic does not appear to be notable and fails WP:NCORP and GNG. HighKing⁺⁺ 12:01, 12 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I feel like there are plenty of sources available that do not amount to churnalism. In addition to the other sources noted on here, there are two articles from The Wall Street Journal (one's a WSJ blog, but it's still a highly reputable source) and there's one from Reuters. Also, a Google News search reveals a number of sources, many of which are funding announcements. I realize that's not a way to contribute to notability, but those sources are at least supplemental. Maybe reworking the draft might help. Gargleafg (talk) 01:06, 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.

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 and redirect to 2006 United States Senate election in Utah. bd2412 T 02:12, 15 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Pete Ashdown[edit]

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

Looking at the sourcing the only sourcing that is indepdent and reliable is connected with his run for US senate. The problem is we have decided that not all candidates for public office are default notable, but the coverage he got is just at the level any candidate can expect. The last discussion 14 years ago was clearly misguided, it included such gems of early Wikipedia thought as a keep vote that essentially boiled down to "keep because Ilike the fact that this candidate set his campaign website up as a .org website and not a .com website". I am less than convinced that a website that aims to get you put in a position where you get oaid should be anything other than .com, but I clearly do not think either way should influence inclusion in Wikipedia. John Pack Lambert (talk) 00:16, 8 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, a well written page but the subject has very small claims to noteworthiness. Delete supported. Gumsaint (talk) 00:40, 8 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. Bakazaka (talk) 19:46, 8 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. Bakazaka (talk) 19:46, 8 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Utah-related deletion discussions. Bakazaka (talk) 19:46, 8 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Our notability standards for politicians have evolved significantly since 2005, so the first discussion is not determinative in and of itself. At that time, there was still some support for the idea that non-winning candidates for office should be considered notable enough for articles, though that's been much more definitively quashed in the intervening 14 years — now, the standards that a non-winning candidate for political office would have to pass are that either (a) he can be shown to already have had preexisting notability for other reasons, independent of the candidacy, that would have gotten him an article on those other grounds anyway, or (b) he can be shown to have received so much more coverage than most other candidates also got that he has a credible claim to being special. So he might get over our notability standards for businesspeople if somebody could reference his work as CEO of an internet provider much better than this, but simply saying that he was CEO of an internet provider without sourcing the claim at all doesn't get him past condition A — and there's definitely no evidence of condition B on the table here at all. Bearcat (talk) 21:51, 8 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I just added a reference to the front page Salt Lake Tribune profile of him as the XMission CEO in 2004. There are dozens of hits in newspaper databases pre-politics (mid-90s to early 00s), basically because when any paper in Utah needed a quote or example in internet-related coverage they would call up the local internet company CEO. Bakazaka (talk) 03:11, 9 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Delete as a non-notable businessman and failed political candidate that only garnered such coverage as candidates might expect. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 14:30, 10 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to 2006 United States Senate election in Utah. Best, GPL93 (talk) 18:36, 10 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.