Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2019 March 13

Recent AfDs: Today Yesterday

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

< 12 March	14 March >

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 keep. Consensus that this is a valid encyclopedic entry. -- Patar knight - ^chat/_{contributions} 07:36, 21 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Orphon[edit]

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

I proposed that this be deleted, with the rational that Wikipedia is not a dictionary. It was contested by @Phil Bridger with the reasoning that this is a short encyclopedia article, not a dictionary entry. I disagree; this is a one-sentence dictionary definition. For reference, excluding the tags, references, and categories, the entire content of this article is:

An orphon is a gene located outside the main chromosomal locus.

This is not suitable for Wikipedia, which is not a dictionary. DannyS712 (talk) 23:51, 13 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organisms-related deletion discussions. DannyS712 (talk) 23:51, 13 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I'm afraid you are overshooting the mark here. A basic check shows that the original description publication [1](cited in the stub) provides on its own enough material to turn this into at least a start class article. And it has a couple of hundred cites; this topic can readily be expanded on. Not every one-sentence stub has to be purged as a "dictionary definition", the question is whether enough material can be added to turn it into a viable article. --Elmidae (talk · contribs) 00:34, 14 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Elmidae: Looking through some of the cites, it clear that it is a term that is used, but it doesn't seem to have coverage in-and-of itself. I would support a wiktionary redirect though --DannyS712 (talk) 00:54, 14 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Welp, spent ten minutes making a start on expansion. Well outside DICTDEF territory already. --Elmidae (talk · contribs) 01:29, 14 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect - Sounds like a good use for {{wiktionary redirect}}. --Nessie (talk) 00:40, 14 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as this is about a concept, not a word. There is a good explanation at Wikipedia:Wikipedia is not a dictionary, which I recommend that the nominator reads, of the difference between an encyclopedia article and a dictionary entry. Length is nothing to do with it. Phil Bridger (talk) 08:42, 14 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect I agree this is not about a word. can redirect Alex-h (talk) 18:16, 17 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to where? Phil Bridger (talk) 19:26, 17 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I suspect this was either a drive-by vote or the user didn't quite get the distinctions made so far. --Elmidae (talk · contribs) 21:05, 17 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep A valid concept in genetics, in particular in immunogenetics - [2][3][4][5]. There are research papers on it - [6] and should satisfy WP:GNG. The article is no longer just a dictionary definition and it can still be expanded, so the rationale for the AfD no longer applies. Hzh (talk) 15:16, 19 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. Is there overlap with this other larger WP article: Orphan gene. Britishfinance (talk) 00:59, 20 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

No. They are different concepts, although the term "orphon" is derived from the word "orphan" as they appear to be "genetic elements that have lost their families". Orphons refer to isolated genes that have been displaced from the main chromosomal location, while orphan genes refer to unique genes that have no apparent relationship with other genes. Hzh (talk) 10:04, 20 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for that. Britishfinance (talk) 11:31, 20 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. From the discussions above, this topic more than just a dictionary entry; article is a well constructed and well referenced stub. Britishfinance (talk) 11:31, 20 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, and good work by Elmidae and Britishfinance on expanding and improving.GirthSummit _(blether) 18:44, 20 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Catfish Jim and the soapdish 08:06, 21 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Audrey McGinn[edit]

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

This was created as undisclosed paid editing paid for by the California Innocence Project; appropriate disclosure has now been made. It seems to me that notability here is questionable at best. Discounting the connected sources (California Innocence Project etc) and dross such as LinkedIn, there's very little in the way of in-depth coverage. She gets two real hits on GNews. As an academic, she has no citations on Scholar, though several people have thanked her. Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 23:47, 13 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I should disclose that I am an enthusiastic supporter of the Innocence Project and I am also surprised and disappointed that they would choose to use donated funds to hire a paid editor to write a promotional article about one of their staff attorneys. Most of the refererences are not independent since they are published by the Innocence Project itself, and the attempt to add a LinkedIn profile as a reference is ludicrous. I do not see a single independent, reliable source that devotes significant coverage to this person, as opposed to passing mentions. Unless such sources can be produced, the article should be deleted. For an example of a biography of a notable defense attorney who has spent his entire career trying to exonerate innocent people, please see Tony Serra and its refererences. Disclosure: I worked on that article. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 06:58, 14 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 07:01, 14 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Law-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 07:02, 14 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 14:47, 14 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Gosh, this is such blatant self-promotion. I respect the Innocence Project as well but there's really no indication that this individual is notable. Most of the sources are self-published, including LinkedIn (oh boy), and the only coverage in reliable sources seems to be in the form of passing mentions. This subject doesn't meet the significant coverage aspect of our notability policy. Cosmic Sans (talk) 17:29, 14 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Seems to be one of several along these lines: Alissa Bjerkhoel, Alex Simpson (attorney), Michael Semanchik, Justin Brooks. Bakazaka (talk) 19:22, 14 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Their PR team has certainly been busy. Cosmic Sans (talk) 19:31, 14 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Judging from the inappropriately censorious tone of some of the comments ("oh boy," indeed), I think there is a major lack of WP:GF going on here – not to mention Wikipedia:Civility. And the assumption that a small nonprofit like CIP that relies mostly on the work of volunteers and interns could actually afford a “PR department,” or even want one, is to say the least bizarre.

When I was contacted by the client about this article, I carefully explained to them that any person who would be the subject of a Wikipedia article had to be considered notable to be included in Wikipedia, or I couldn’t work on the project.

The information they gave me about McGinn included these facts: 1) she had been directly involved in the exoneration of a number of convicted persons in California; 2) she had worked in Latin America on a special project teaching attorneys and students about the process of legal exoneration and 3) she had worked for a year as Director of the Wrongful Convictions Division (WCD) of the Iowa State Public Defender’s office. The last appointment was particularly important because it did not involve the California Innocence Project. In addition, the appointment of McGinn by the State of Iowa was very highly publicized. The State of Iowa would never have hired her unless she was considered an expert in determining whether forensic evidence of past Iowa convictions was reliable or not. Primarily because of this third fact, I concluded that she was, in fact, notable, and I decided to take on the project.

It has been pointed out that there are mostly only passing mentions in the media about McGinn relating to her work for CIP exonerating California prisoners. However, it would be very strange if it were otherwise. The CIP attorneys work in teams, and it’s unusual when one is singled out by the media to be profiled, unless they hold an executive post within CIP. Ironically, I found and included one such profile of McGinn here, but the passage and reference had been deleted by a previous editor.

About the high-profile State of Iowa appointment, there was, as I’ve said, very substantial media coverage, but because it was a local not a national story, it was covered by media like The Des Moines Register, not (for example) The Washington Post. This should be taken into account.

There is a profile of McGinn here in Spanish, which I didn’t use, about her teaching Chilean attorneys about exoneration in the context of the American and Chilean justice systems. There’s also this story , also in Spanish, about McGinn training Mexican students how to do oral trials. Can these be used even though they’re not in English?

The sole reason that I included McGinn’s LinkedIn profile as a reference, a fact that some people seem particularly put out by, was because that profile contains her downloadable resume (and I indicated this clearly in brackets in the reference), which provides information about her career history not otherwise available. If this link is considered unnecessary, it should be deleted and I’m fine with that.

Dylanexpert (talk) 13:42, 19 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

For context, this comment was made by the user who was paid to write this article. Cosmic Sans (talk) 21:50, 20 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I've seen quite a number of passing mentions, nothing WP:SIGCOV at this point in time serves only as a promotional piece. Optionally, i would suggest being moved to AFC but thats late now. So next time article creator should consider submitting paid work through AFC. Lapablo (talk) 18:24, 19 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - In addition to what's already been said, the usable sources seem like they are mostly for the specific job she was doing in Iowa. She did this for a year, and this job is, presumably, still just as important even without her participation. These sources do not appear to be sufficient to support an article for Wrongful Convictions Division of the Iowa State Public Defender's office. We do not even have Wrongful Convictions Division or Iowa State Public Defender, and barely have one for Attorney General of Iowa. This illustrates the problem with this kind of paid editing: It inflates the apparent significance of some individuals, while undermining the actual significance of the work they do. Grayfell (talk) 23:01, 20 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. -- RoySmith (talk) 13:29, 21 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Setu Taase[edit]

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

Actor with questionable notability. He has just 2 roles (really shouldn't say partial if that is it) And from what I can tell none of them stand out. Wgolf (talk) 22:55, 13 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Fails WP:NACTOR, with only 3 lines in the IMDb. Only one inline citation giving a dead link. Not every actor in the IMDb gets an article. — Stevey7788 (talk) 00:51, 14 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 07:05, 14 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 07:08, 14 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Fails WP:NACTOR, with smaller parts in the films noted (he doesn't even get listed in the Crank: High Voltage article). Also fails WP:GNG with minor appearences/name-checks in any WP:RS. Zero WP:SIGCOV. Britishfinance (talk) 11:21, 21 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 00:09, 21 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Jessica and Jesse Davis[edit]

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

Another article that has been around forever for someone unotable. A pair of twin actresses that were briefly on a soap opera and that is it. Wgolf (talk) 21:19, 13 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Fails WP:GNG and WP:NACTOR; see also WP:BLP1E. Only one IMDb role. — Stevey7788 (talk) 00:57, 14 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Stevey. No sources have been provided except for IMDb and a fan site for the TV show they were on. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 03:35, 14 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 12:26, 14 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 12:26, 14 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - One minor role each is the definition of not notable. Predictably, there is no coverage of them to support an article and as such, this simply has to go. RetiredDuke (talk) 16:38, 16 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as per nomination.TH1980 (talk) 02:54, 17 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Fails criteria WP:NACTOR. Not enough WP:SIGCOV. Lapablo (talk) 18:39, 19 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Per above, Fails WP:GNG and WP:NACTOR Alex-h (talk) 21:55, 19 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete clear fail of WP:NACTOR.E.M.Gregory (talk) 17:00, 20 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 00:13, 21 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Tim Hayes (screenwriter)[edit]

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

Article that looks like a complete hoax. His name does not appear in any listing anywhere (the IMDB link does not have any credits even, nobody in the Teen Wolf section has this name) Wgolf (talk) 20:52, 13 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - does seem like a potential hoax; I do not see him credited as co-writing Teenwolf except for WP and WP mirrors. ‡ Єl Cid of ᐺalencia ^ᐐT₳LKᐬ 21:01, 13 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Comment-Interesting enough it was prodded before it looks like but taken down by a IP and then since has been forgotten. (This was when we were more strict about our policies, not like the early days, but even then we had our slip ups) Wgolf (talk) 21:10, 13 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Icewhiz (talk) 21:15, 13 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Icewhiz (talk) 21:15, 13 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I can't find anything useful on the person, even the IMDb links don't show any evidence for the work he had supposedly done. I have no opinion if it is a hoax (a link to the person's own blog had been removed and it appears not to have been archived, and it is uncertain whether the other passing mentions found in some sites are just them copying information from Wikipedia), but given the lack of sources, the article fails WP:GNG and WP:NBIO. Hzh (talk) 15:44, 19 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 00:21, 21 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Bruno Belvaux[edit]

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

Actor who has a inherited issue. I've tried to search for stuff about him, but most of the stuff I find are mirror sites or stuff about his brothers. Wgolf (talk) 20:24, 13 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 20:30, 13 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 20:30, 13 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Belgium-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 20:31, 13 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Minor roles in 2 films. Fails WP:GNG, WP:NACTOR. See also WP:MILL. Wikipedia is not the IMDb. — Stevey7788 (talk) 01:12, 14 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Non-notable subject that fails WP:SIGCOV and WP:NACTOR. Lapablo (talk) 20:44, 19 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 00:55, 21 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Amanda and Jessica Gunnarson[edit]

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

Pair of twins who only role was as a baby on a TV show for a couple years (or rather as a kid.) and that is it. Wgolf (talk) 20:16, 13 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 20:33, 13 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 20:33, 13 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 20:34, 13 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 20:34, 13 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Same as Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Jessica and Jesse Davis. Fails WP:GNG and WP:NACTOR. Only one IMDb role. — Stevey7788 (talk) 01:01, 14 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Per norm. Lapablo (talk) 20:48, 19 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Almost 15 years on WP and still a tiny stub with no formal ref. Per nom. Britishfinance (talk) 01:02, 20 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. 78.26 _{(spin me / revolutions)} 17:28, 21 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Lena Ingelsrudøya[edit]

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

Fails WP:NFOOTBALL by not playing in a FPL or senior international football. Fails WP:GNG as well. Her death had some media reports but as she wasn't notable in the first place it's irrelevant. Dougal18 (talk) 19:04, 13 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. – The Grid (talk) 19:23, 13 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Norway-related deletion discussions. – The Grid (talk) 19:23, 13 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sweden-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 20:39, 13 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 20:40, 13 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 20:40, 13 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions.CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 20:40, 13 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete – it's a sad story, but there is not enough significant coverage to meet GNG. I can find about a half dozen articles, all brief mentions, and the most expansive ones are about her tragic death. If we were to write an article about her, it would look like the one we have, and be mostly about how she died, and that's not appropriate for an encyclopedia. More importantly, the subject simply doesn't meet notability criteria for inclusion. Fails NFOOTY, fails GNG, delete. Leviv ich 22:26, 13 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete based on the timing seems to fail WP:MEMORIAL. SportingFlyer T·C 06:17, 14 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - fails WP:GNG, WP:NFOOTBALL and WP:NOTMEMORIAL. Giant Snowman 08:58, 14 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Illogical nomination: there wouldn't be any coverage of her death unless she was notable in the first place! There is clearly extensive, non-routine coverage in national and international media. We can't pretend it is all "irrelevant". As with Katharina Lindner (another who would 'fail' the crackpot WP:NFOOTBALL), the scale of coverage of her untimely death underscores her notability rather than detracting from it. Bring back Daz Sampson (talk) 12:02, 16 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
...but the link you provide is 12 sentences. "Extensive"? Leviv ich 16:24, 16 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Because news sources report on normal people dying, and we are WP:NOTNEWS. Giant Snowman 13:36, 20 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. As far as I can tell, the only coverage is of her unfortunate death, which isn't enough to meet WP:GNG. -- RoySmith (talk) 13:45, 21 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. -- Patar knight - ^chat/_{contributions} 07:37, 21 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

1943 VPI Gobblers football team[edit]

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

No reason to have an article for a team that did not exist. Discussion took place on the talk page but got nowhere. PCN02WPS (talk | contribs) 17:24, 13 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I am also nominating the following related page because VPI did not have a team in 1944 either, and therefore the same reason applies:

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. Icewhiz (talk) 18:23, 13 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of American football-related deletion discussions. Icewhiz (talk) 18:23, 13 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Virginia-related deletion discussions. Icewhiz (talk) 18:23, 13 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete/redirect to List of Virginia Tech Hokies football seasons. What a laughable idea to create this, doesn't seem like there's anything else to be said other than not existing. Reywas92^Talk 19:26, 13 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
comment we have lots of articles about "things that don't exist" such as 1940 Summer Olympics, 1904 World Series, 1994 World Series, 2018 First Responder Bowl, and others. I'm not sure that is the case here with this season, but I'm not ready to dismiss it right away.--Paul McDonald (talk) 19:38, 13 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete upon further investigation, there are no articles that link to these two articles and the navigation Template:Virginia Tech Hokies football navbox skips those two seasons (and has since at least 2011). The navigation tools in the infobox for surrounding season articles skip these two. I think that it's safe to say that those enthusiastic editors for this topic have chosen to skip these two articles and they are remnants that can be deleted. So I say that we go with ignore all rules and delete these two because it will make Wikipedia better.--Paul McDonald (talk) 19:49, 13 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I think this Article violated WP:NOTADVERTISING} and it's Not notable in itself first, and second this Article is too short and need to expand correctly. so I think it should be delete.Forest90 (talk) 20:20, 13 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
- While I agree with you on the end result, how is this "advertising" ?? No one is trying to sell tickets to the Virginia Tech 1943 football season...--Paul McDonald (talk) 20:40, 13 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  - I agree with Paulmcdonald; this nomination had nothing to do with WP:NOTADVERTISING, just that the article was unneeded. PCN02WPS (talk | contribs) 15:05, 14 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete both. ... for obvious reasons already stated. Good catch, nominator. ‡ Єl Cid of ᐺalencia ^ᐐT₳LKᐬ 21:07, 13 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete both per nom. I agree with Paulmcdonald that cancelled sporting events can occasionally be notable, but probably not here. A Newspapers.com search does not turn up much in the way of in depth coverage. There was an initial burst of coverage about Virginia Tech's decision to suspend play for the duration of the war (e.g. here and here) but not much after that. A very large number of teams suspended play at the height of the WWII years, and there is nothing sufficiently notable to warrant stand-alone articles about these particular non-existent football teams. Cbl62 (talk) 00:35, 14 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I've argued for a while that teams shouldn't have articles, but merge is also a possibility Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/1918 Montana Grizzlies football team.-UCO2009bluejay (talk) 13:43, 14 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete fails WP:GNG, WP:NSEASONS. SportingFlyer T·C 23:40, 15 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as a blatant violation of WP:GNG. Should be a speedy deletion. James-the-Charizard (talk) 14:12, 19 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. As WP:BLPPROD Catfish Jim and the soapdish 08:08, 21 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Kamay Lau[edit]

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

Actress with no notability. Out of her roles, she has only had one credited role. Sure the films she has been in are notable, but she was not. Wgolf (talk) 17:21, 13 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Mostly work as an extra or what amounts to an extra role. Further, no roles since 2013. Fails notability and verifiability guidelines per my approximation. ‡ Єl Cid of ᐺalencia ^ᐐT₳LKᐬ 18:07, 13 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Icewhiz (talk) 18:26, 13 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. Icewhiz (talk) 18:26, 13 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 12:22, 14 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Wikipedia is not supposed to be an IMDb mirror.John Pack Lambert (talk) 03:46, 20 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. -- Patar knight - ^chat/_{contributions} 07:37, 21 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Trent McMartin[edit]

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

There's a bunch of fighting over this, going back years--we might as well try to establish whether this is a notable journalist in the first place. (BTW it's entirely possible that one person has, over the years, been blanking this and urging for removal, but that's by the by.) Recently an IP editor added a bunch of links that establish that the subject indeed published some reviews--but they are minor, in minor publications, and they are all primary sources. I can find nothing in the way of secondary sources, and so it seems to me that this subject does not pass our notability guidelines. Drmies (talk) 17:14, 13 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Well this is interesting. I see that a PROD by Boleyn was removed (by User:Aspects) and that there was a previous AfD, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Trent McMartin--that was hard to find in the history. That AfD was closed by User:JIP. It is clear, to me anyway, that that AfD would not stand anymore today (it's from 2005), and at any rate doesn't present a shred of evidence that our notability guidelines are met today (or were met in 2005). Drmies (talk) 17:19, 13 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Icewhiz (talk) 18:27, 13 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Journalism-related deletion discussions. Icewhiz (talk) 18:27, 13 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Alberta-related deletion discussions. Icewhiz (talk) 18:27, 13 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, with regret. Journalists can be hard to source, and this guy clearly has a flourishing writing career, but I can't find third-party sources either. Yngvadottir (talk) 20:47, 13 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Google searches with quotes turned up nothing. Surprisingly, this thing has been around since 2005 and no one has noticed anything. There were lots of edits made from anonymous IP addresses. Probably autobiographical. First deletion attempt resulted in a keep, but that was back in 2005 when notability guidelines were still in development. — Stevey7788 (talk) 01:39, 14 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Doesn't in anyway meet our notability guidelines, Fails WP:RS and WP:GNG. Lapablo (talk) 21:06, 19 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 00:59, 21 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Caterina Bandini[edit]

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

Delete as thoroughly non-notable individual; pure fancruft and COI. Inconceivable this "article" already survived one AFD. Rms125a@hotmail.com 17:06, 13 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Icewhiz (talk) 18:31, 13 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Journalism-related deletion discussions. Icewhiz (talk) 18:31, 13 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. Icewhiz (talk) 18:31, 13 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Massachusetts-related deletion discussions. Icewhiz (talk) 18:31, 13 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Failure to meet BIO or the GNG. As to the prior AfD, a dozen years ago was a different landscape; I bitterly recall the "Seems notable" Keep votes that routinely won headcount-over-policy decisions at AfD. Ravenswing 23:19, 13 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I couldn't find anything about this woman besides the article on the page. Doesn't meet GNG. Mramoeba (talk) 00:10, 14 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Doesn't satisfy WP:N. Violates WP:NOTPROMO. Lapablo (talk) 21:21, 19 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Consensus that, through the French sources, notability is established. Some advertorial concerns are noted and may well be grounds for any extensive rewrite (non-admin closure) Nosebagbear (talk) 18:36, 20 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Net-C[edit]

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

Non-notable product by a non-notable organization. Somewhat promotional. Doesn't have enough coverage in notable articles, someone who knows french might be able to help here. All quoted sources except one are primary. I was about to nominate for CSD A7 but an article on a BNP Paribas site made reconsider that. Daiyusha (talk) 16:27, 13 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. Icewhiz (talk) 18:38, 13 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. Icewhiz (talk) 18:38, 13 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of France-related deletion discussions. Icewhiz (talk) 18:38, 13 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: The French article has reliable sources from L'Obs, Le Parisien, Le Républicain Lorrain which make it pass WP:GNG. Regards, Comte0 (talk) 21:35, 13 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, per above. French article is well cited and demonstrates notability. — Stevey7788 (talk) 01:04, 14 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, as sources show that it meets WP:GNG. However, I almost !voted delete as per WP:TNT, since in its current incarnation it is pretty much simply a promotional brochure.Onel5969 ^{TT me} 11:47, 17 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Procedural. Procedural close, as the article has already been deleted by RoySmith for copyright violations. 78.26 _{(spin me / revolutions)} 17:27, 21 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Landegg International University[edit]

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

Fails WP:ORGCRIT. Esprit15d • talk • contribs 16:07, 13 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. Icewhiz (talk) 16:12, 13 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. Icewhiz (talk) 16:12, 13 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Switzerland-related deletion discussions. Icewhiz (talk) 16:12, 13 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The article could use better sourcing and editing. The university has been cited in numerous books: [7]. Capt. Milokan (talk) 19:31, 13 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Meets WP:NSCHOOL and WP:NORG. See also WP:SCHOOLOUTCOMES. Article needs quite a bit of cleanup and more sources, but the topic itself is notable. Online searches turn up some good potential sources. — Stevey7788 (talk) 02:13, 14 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I agree with all the above. scope_creep^Talk 12:33, 14 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep, on the basis it was a college of further education (which seem to get free passes to Wikipedia articles), though private and very small. Only the first of the Google search list of book references appears to be in any depth, the remainder are mentions, or plugs by affiliated organisations. I'd be happy to see a heavy cull of the miscellaneous info in the article, most of it is WP:UNDUE. Wikipedia isn't an archive for defunct businesses, after all. Sionk (talk) 13:42, 14 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - it can't be verified with reliable and independent sources. Bearian (talk) 17:50, 17 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. Just seeing this article now and wondering why this university is a ghost in general searches for WP:GNG. I do see its name appearing in "Degree Mills" (e.g. bogus private universities issuing degrees to make money), here Consumer Fraud Reporting, and in this book Degree Mills: The Billion Dollar Industry that has sold over a Million Fake Degrees, and even Quora (although it is a repeat of my first ref) Quora: Which online schools are scams. Is this the reason why Landegg is a ghost in general GNG terms? Britishfinance (talk) 10:45, 21 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Also noting that the original creator of this article Monicagellar 08 was blocked indefinately. Is WP being used to support a scam mill? Britishfinance (talk) 10:47, 21 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

It turns out this is all a copyvio (as Earwig clearly showed). The history of https://bahaikipedia.org/Landegg_International_University show that it was developed over time on that site, then two days after it was completed there, copied as the initial version here. I've already deleted it under WP:G12. -- RoySmith (talk) 13:59, 21 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. 78.26 _{(spin me / revolutions)} 19:16, 20 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Kanad bhattacharya[edit]

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

While gallant, simply does not meet either WP:GNG or WP:NSOLDIER. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 14:19, 13 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. Icewhiz (talk) 14:36, 13 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Icewhiz (talk) 14:36, 13 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Junior officer who received a fairly low-level gallantry medal. Fails WP:SOLDIER I'm afraid. -- Necrothesp (talk) 14:58, 13 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Lower-ranking soldier who does not meet WP:NSOLDIER. Original research and uncited sources with plenty of unencyclopedic anecdotes. Sources cited are not significant in any way. Looks like the article creator has a close connection to the subject, although he has made good contributions to some other articles. He has been active only in the last 3 weeks or so. — Stevey7788 (talk) 01:17, 14 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Largely unsourced. No claim of notability under WP:GNG or WP:NSOLDIER. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 01:35, 14 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, does not meet WP:NSOLDIER as medal awarded is not the highest. Coolabahapple (talk) 11:22, 14 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Per norm. Lapablo (talk) 21:29, 19 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. As per WP:PROD Catfish Jim and the soapdish 08:13, 21 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

LaFlora, the Princess Academy[edit]

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

Deadlinks to Thai language websites archive examinations even with translate do not have sufficient GNG passage. Also reads like an advert. Etzedek24 ^{(I'll talk at ya) (Check my track record)} 15:29, 26 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Comics and animation-related deletion discussions. Icewhiz (talk) 15:42, 26 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Thailand-related deletion discussions. Icewhiz (talk) 15:42, 26 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment It's kid's book so it's harder to quantify its GNG (likely coverage would be in mom's or kid's media, not mainstream ones). Here are some news that I found. [8] [9] --Lerdsuwa (talk) 16:23, 26 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep, largely because most of the nominating statement doesn't make much sense to me. Deletion is not cleanup (although I lean toward deletionism); dead links and non-English sources can still meet WP:V, and a promotional tone can be rewritten to meet WP:NPOV. The subject may meet WP:NCOMIC for a series. Miniapolis 17:08, 26 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I felt like I pretty clearly said that the sources I looked at using translate and archive.org did not pass GNG. Etzedek24 ^{(I'll talk at ya) (Check my track record)} 18:19, 26 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, and I linked to the subject-specific guideline; sometimes WP:GNG is too broad. I was concerned about your other caveats (dead links and POV). Miniapolis 23:59, 26 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I mean, I wrote that notability guideline and still don't think that it qualifies. Etzedek24 ^{(I'll talk at ya) (Check my track record)} 00:41, 27 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I didn't realize that. Since you're a better judge of comic notability than I am, I'm changing my vote to delete; sorry for the deprod. Miniapolis 17:57, 27 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 11:22, 6 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 11:49, 13 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Weak delete. I was only able to identify sources similar to Lerdsuwa's, and IMO they don't satisfy the GNG. The subject would warrant a paragraph or a section in an article about the publisher, but I don't think it has real-world notability to stand alone as an article. --Paul_012 (talk) 14:06, 16 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. -- RoySmith (talk) 14:06, 21 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Carl Jacob Hammarsköld[edit]

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

This is a tough one. The article has a truckload of sources, but looking at them more closely, they appear to be in many cases passing mentions (e.g. this is the only mention of him in a book where I expected his exploits to be more fully documented, and in "The Swedish Heritage in America" by kastrup he also only gets one line: "Her son, Carl Jacob Hammarskold, who had become his father's business partner, hastened to join the Confederate forces, but in 1862 he had to resign because of injuries."), primary sources, or sources of very limited reliability and distribution (like specialized genealogical publications). Much of the article is about his family, not about him.

All in all, this is a well written article, but about an ultimately non notable figure. Searching for other sources gave no results, there seem to be no independent, reliable sources who have spent more than one or two lines on him. Fram (talk) 10:33, 6 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I suppose you are right. In my zeal, I have not considered the notability of the object. Creuzbourg (talk) 10:58, 6 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sweden-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 12:17, 6 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of North Carolina-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 12:17, 6 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Clearly notable per sources. WP:GNG. This is an historoc article. Its not like we can expect "recent coverage" or coverage that are expected of a subject in 2019.BabbaQ (talk) 14:49, 6 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
- Which sources specifically are reliable and independent, and give indepth attention to the subject? 15:18, 6 March 2019 (UTC)
- As an example, the first source in the "cited literature", Carpenter, doesn't have any information about the subject[10]. The second source, Cole, again doesn't even mention the article subject[11]. The third one, Crenshaw, doesn't mention the article subject[12]. So please, @BabbaQ:, indicate which sources made you go for your "clearly notable per sources, WP:GNG" opinion, as I don't see it. Fram (talk) 16:18, 6 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - I think more research is warranted on the subject before tossing it out. His death reported in an American newspaper is scant, but mentions at the bottom that he was knighted by Oscar II of Sweden. But it doesn't say what for. The knighthood is also in the infobox, with no mention of what it was for. It is perhaps worth it to keep the article, to be researched by someone with the access to Swedish sourcing. WT:WikiProject Sweden seems to be active and might be helpful. — Maile (talk) 17:31, 8 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment − Hammarsköld was not knighted (as in made a nobleman) by Oscar II, he was mad a knight (which is the lowest level) of one of Sweden's state orders (the Hammasköld family as such, however, had been a noble one ever since 1610). /FredrikT (talk) 14:29, 14 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
- About that knighthood - it was an RVO which I don't think is necessarily grounds for notability. I'm not commenting on notability right now; I think he is probably notable but I'll need to look at the sources. --bonadea contributions talk 09:08, 11 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 11:48, 13 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Keep per BabbaQ and — Maile . Mosaicberry (talk) 15:12, 13 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep solidly sourcing, can be usefully linked from such pages as his regiment, Coopersville Iron Works and from an article on Spring Hill Forge that probablby needs to be written - a Confederate iron works is presumably notable, as we all remember, the South lost the war in part because it had so few.E.M.Gregory (talk) 16:42, 13 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per above. Lots of useful historical information from reliable sources. — Stevey7788 (talk) 01:25, 14 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 12:14, 14 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Very fair nomination and it is borderline (particularly after the comments above by FredrikT). However, when +100-year old charachters are still getting chronicled in multiple independent quality sources, then then WP:PRESERVE and WP:NOTPAPER nudges a borderline to a Keep for me. Britishfinance (talk) 12:00, 21 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. TonyBallioni (talk) 16:33, 20 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Treseburg massacre[edit]

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

I am not a fan of the US-centrism in Wikipedia, and I do not like the common one-sided representation of history topics in which the US is involved, but I am afraid this is just unsalvageable POV. Ymblanter (talk) 08:18, 6 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. Icewhiz (talk) 09:33, 6 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. Icewhiz (talk) 09:33, 6 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Germany-related deletion discussions. Icewhiz (talk) 09:33, 6 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Icewhiz (talk) 09:33, 6 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. The name is OR - as only Wikipedia refers to this as a "Treseburg massacre". Finding sources at all for the event (I tried with unit names, dates, numbers, etc) is difficult. Incidents of shooting captures POWs (all sides, including the US) during WWII were rather common which may be why this smaller scale execution (e.g. see Chenogne massacre, or Dachau liberation reprisals for larger events) doesn't not seem to have SIGCOV. Icewhiz (talk) 09:48, 6 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Suggestion. I suggest that the information be incorporated (in reduced form and with adequate sourcing) into Treseburg#History. Doremo (talk) 14:53, 6 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I second this suggestion. There's only about 1 paragraph worth of text on this and that can be covered in the town article, if adequate sources can be found. -Fnlayson (talk) 22:14, 7 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. There are sources listed, so would be worth asking the authors/contributors to expand it. Disagree that's OR. Regards, DPdH (talk) 05:34, 9 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Merge, per Doremo. —Brigade Piron (talk) 14:27, 9 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Source 3, the book, seems to be available online on Google books (in German). The author also has a German WP article. The source which the author uses for this event is a book called Zeitzeugen - Der Harz in 1945; its online too, here (page 32). There are a few additional articles in some local German newspapers; but thats pretty much it. I doubt that there is anyhing substantial in English language sources, it seems to be pretty niche. Dead Mary (talk) 21:24, 10 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete (possibly with a brief merge). This seems to be an unsubstantiated allegation, which was only made 60 years after the event. If it happened, it was very wrong, but did it? At most we have one side of the story from the alleged survivor. Peterkingiron (talk) 17:01, 11 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Looking through the sources, I think there's enough here to meet WP:GNG. Granted, they're all in German, but that, in and of itself, shouldn't matter. If it's not kept, it should definitely be merged/redirected into Treseburg#History in order to WP:PRESERVE the information. Ejgreen77 (talk) 16:29, 12 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Allegations made 60 years after the event with no contemporary corroboration, no contemporary documentation are mere allegations. All that we have here is WP:PRIMARY, and, as we all know, memoirs and memories are often inaccurate. This is not fact; it is not corroborated; and available sourcing therefore fails WP:GNG. E.M.Gregory (talk) 20:05, 12 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Beyond the impossibility of knowing why these young fighters where killed, there is the question of POV-pushing by sources. The Townsfolk interviewed would like to build a memorial that,"Instead of the current inscription "14 unknown German soldiers" would describe dead as "five soldiers" plus "nine shot young people." But these 9 young men were German soldiers; it had become a desperate war for Germany, with the result that the the Hitler Youth, teenage boys as young as eleven, were given guns and sent to the front as soldiers, to kill and to die. Source #1 on the page, the Volksstimmeis pushing revisionist history according to which American soldiers executed unarmed German "boys". The 2nd source describes a retired American Army Captain who came to Treseburg to apologize to the town for American atrocities during the WWII. "I came from America to ask for forgiveness for the murder committed by US forces, to take responsibility for this war crime and to acknowledge the illegitimacy of these murders." I can find no indication that Drucker knows or pretends to know anything that German and American investigators and historians do not know. His appears to be a minor academic and political activist, for world peace and against global warming. But there do not appear to be any records of what went on in Treseburg, no contemporary accounts of why or precisely by whom those young soldiers where shot. Editors shhod be aware that the two newspapers used to source this page are pushing revisionist history in which American war criminals murdered innocent young German boys during what we used to call the invasion of Germany. Could there have been a war crime committed on that date in that place? Certainly. Do we have evidence for what happened? No. Nothing except an assertion made 60 years later.E.M.Gregory (talk) 00:36, 13 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. A non-notable episode based on the lack of coverage in RS.My very best wishes (talk) 02:28, 13 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 11:48, 13 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete the concern with verifying this wartime incident appear to be insurmountable.A.Jacobin (talk) 14:28, 13 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Merge per Doremo. Mosaicberry (talk) 15:14, 13 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - because it's apparently a synthesis of a historical fact (that 9 people were apparently killed) into a named event. I don't like the merge proposal because I am not convinced the event is significantly related to the village's article. Not to be harsh, but it's hard to make note of every occasion on which 9 people were killed during WWII. I... just don't know. ‡ Єl Cid of ᐺalencia ^ᐐT₳LKᐬ 21:05, 13 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment: The merge point isn't whether it is a significant event in WWII (if it were, the suggestion would be to make it a subsection of the WWII article, which would be silly). However, it may be a significant event in the history of Treseburg. Doremo (talk) 12:38, 15 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:NOTRUMOR. In agreement with E.M.Gregory. We don't know what happened, so the article is just a collection of uncorroborated and unverifiable claims, and therefore fails WP:GNG despite having sources. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 02:03, 14 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete this OR, SYNTH, RUMOUR. Unsubstantiated.Tamsier (talk) 12:04, 15 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Per sources and passes WP:GNG treshhold.BabbaQ (talk) 16:59, 18 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) Tymon.r Do you have any questions? 16:48, 20 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Ethan Lindenberger[edit]

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

May violate WP:BLP1E I dream of horses (My talk page) (My edits) @ 06:32, 6 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. I dream of horses (My talk page) (My edits) @ 06:33, 6 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Ohio-related deletion discussions. I dream of horses (My talk page) (My edits) @ 06:33, 6 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. Icewhiz (talk) 09:37, 6 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep If it was just for the media attention from the Reddit post, then yes, I would agree that it was a problem. Once he testified to Congress I think that was enough to pass beyond. Otherwise we would have to remove pages like that boy that was arrested for bringing clock parts to school and then he met President Obama, that was a one-event kinda thing. And also people who are only given Wikipedia pages because they bombed something or committed a crime, or they were a murder victim. They only have the one reason they are notable. So in this case I vote keep. Sgerbic (talk) 21:21, 6 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment The widespread coverage of this individual is barely a month old, so WP:SUSTAINED and BLP1E comes to mind. However one could argue he's not tied to just one event, but rather a series of events driven by his ongoing activism. The first event that gained coverage (early February) was his vaccination in defiance of his family's beliefs. The second event that was covered (this week) was his testimony to US Congress. According to the sources, the committee sought his perspective on penetrating anti-vaxxer culture, rather than just his personal story. His activism continues online and in the media. So clearly he is not a WP:LOWPROFILE individual BLP1E warns us against. I might add that an invitation to speak before Congress, not as a witness or subject of an investigation, is a significant honor for the purposes of WP:ANYBIO. - LuckyLouie (talk) 23:28, 6 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:NOTNEWS, how notable will he be even a year from now? If he becomes a notable activist then we should create an article on him, but this could turn out to just be a blip in the news. As for WP:ANYBIO, that appears to refer to someone who a formal honer is bestowed upon, I don't think testifying in a single congressional hearing counts unless it is a particularly notable hearing. Tornado chaser (talk) 16:37, 7 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Well this appears to be pretty "notable" not "put the President in jail" notable but this is very big news. The Congress reaching out to hear his story is very telling of his notability. His testimony was asked because it will address how best to make vaccine policy and deal with vaccine hesitant or anti-vax parents. Not sure what would impress you Tornado chaser if speaking to Congress is isn't a "particularly notable hearing". Sgerbic (talk) 17:51, 7 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep notable for at least two events (and are now known worldwide).--RekishiEJ (talk) 07:55, 8 March 2019 (UTC) fixed a bit 07:58, 8 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete a clear violation of the not news guidelines.John Pack Lambert (talk) 01:10, 9 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Both his testimony and the topic on which he is becoming a figurehead are significant. What's more, given his age, it's unfair to suggest he should have done more to be notable. I'm personally very interested in the vaccine denial topic. While I have no COI I might have a bias. So I ran a thought experiment to see if I'm thinking clearly. If, for instance, there were an 18-year-old Flat Earth proponent who testified before Congress, I would, despite my personal feelings, consider that person to be notable.DolyaIskrina (talk) 04:31, 9 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Rationale is given as WP:BLP1E but this doesn’t apply as the third criterion isn’t met, clearly the event IS significant and the individual's role WAS both substantial and well documented. One reason why this strikes me as particularly pertinent is whilst the anti-vax “movement” has in recent years spread rapidly through misinformation and social media, it is only now significant numbers of unvaccinated young people are reaching the age of majority in order for this to be important. Clearly this man is something of a landmark case, hence bringing him to congress.

WP:NOTNEWS also doesn’t apply as this has passed from routine news into public debate in multiple sources around the world, including for example Washington Post citing it in a secondary piece describing facebook and instagram’s blocking of anti vax content. Mramoeba (talk) 12:16, 10 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. The wide coverage is two-fold. First the Reddit post about vaccination, and then the Congress testimony. I might be more sympathetic if this was a case of WP:BLPCRIME or WP:AVOIDVICTIM, but it is neither and I have to !vote keep. The individual is not a minor, WP:BASIC is satisfied, and WP:1E may or may not apply. wumbolo ^^^ 10:30, 13 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 11:47, 13 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep There's a stronger case for meeting WP:BASIC than not, given the intense biography-level coverage in major sources and some speculating "something tells me we will be hearing from him again. Soon.". - LuckyLouie (talk) 13:32, 13 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

*Weak Keep It is a news story, a sad one that highlights the backwards thinking some people have toward the scientifically-proven benefits of vaccines. However, enough has been shown above to prove to me this is more than a WP:BLP1E case.White Siddiqah (talk) 16:53, 13 March 2019 (UTC) -- Sock !vote. Tymon.r Do you have any questions? 16:47, 20 March 2019 (UTC) [reply]

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

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

The result was delete. 78.26 _{(spin me / revolutions)} 19:12, 20 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Dillon Danis[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

Subject is a mixed martial artist - the page has been previous AfD deleted see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Dillon Danis and current version is a little longer, but still fails WP:NMMA or BJJ practitioner notability (never placed at a BJJ world championship black belt level nor at the ADCC championship). Event coverage on UFC 229 is only WP:ONEEVENT and does not contributed to WP:N guidelines. CASSIOPEIA^(talk) 11:45, 13 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. CASSIOPEIA^(talk) 11:46, 13 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Martial arts-related deletion discussions. CASSIOPEIA^(talk) 11:46, 13 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of New Jersey-related deletion discussions. CASSIOPEIA^(talk) 11:46, 13 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete He has only 1 MMA fight and that wasn't for a top tier organization. He has not won a medal at the black belt level at the IBJJF world championships, and has no notable success as a grappler at the ADCC championships. Most coverage is for his involvement at the Nurmagomedov-McGregor post fight fracas, but that's insufficient to show notability. At best, it's WP:BLP1E. Papaursa (talk) 23:48, 18 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Randykitty (talk) 19:01, 21 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Rania Khalek[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

There is barely any coverage by reliable sources to substantiate any of the text in this article. Pretty much all the secondary coverage of her is by propaganda outlets such as Sputnik and RT or by fringe sources such as "Shadowproof", "Counterpunch" and "Stepfeed". It's impossible to write an encyclopedia article about her given the dearth of secondary RS about her. She clearly fails WP:GNG: "If a topic has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject, it is presumed to be suitable for a stand-alone article or list." Snooganssnoogans (talk) 10:06, 13 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. ~ Amory (u • t • c) 11:35, 13 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Journalism-related deletion discussions. ~ Amory (u • t • c) 11:35, 13 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Washington, D.C.-related deletion discussions. Icewhiz (talk) 11:37, 13 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note that great swaths of text have been added to and deleted from this page, which has only been here for 2 years.E.M.Gregory (talk) 23:47, 13 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: WP:AUTHOR is defenetly true about her who be reporter in the Nation, the Intercept, Al Jazeera, Salon, Vice, the Electronic Intifada and Alternet stressing on the Israel-Palestine conflict, the Syrian Civil War, United States foreign policy in the Middle East, US presidential elections and the US criminal justice system.Saff V. (talk) 06:37, 16 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Khalek meets zero of the requirements of WP:AUTHOR. She is not (1) "regarded as an important figure or is widely cited by peers or successors", (2) not "known for originating a significant new concept, theory, or technique", (3) has not "played a major role in co-creating a significant or well-known work or collective body of work", and (4) her works have not "(a) become a significant monument, (b) been a substantial part of a significant exhibition, (c) won significant critical attention, or (d) been represented within the permanent collections of several notable galleries or museums." Snooganssnoogans (talk) 09:31, 16 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think so! As nominated in WP:AUTHOR, she is well known for authoring independent articles (e.g. 1, 2 ... ) about the Israel-Palestine conflict, the Syrian Civil War, United States foreign policy in the Middle East, US presidential elections and the US criminal justice system.Saff V. (talk) 11:06, 16 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

There's nothing to indicate that she's well-known for her authorship. There is no secondary RS coverage of her. The fact that she publishes her articles in fringe outlets is also an indication of just how non-notable she is. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 11:13, 16 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

really I am not going to convince you! the admin have to judge by our opinions.Saff V. (talk) 11:36, 16 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: I have to mentione that WP:GNG is true about her. See here and independent sources as to her including INTERVIEW WITH RANIA KHALEK ON HER TIME WITH THE YEZIDI PMF IN IRAQ, Rania Khalek tells us about being part of a religious minority, An Anti-Israel Activist in Syria and Writers, Activists Issue Statement Against Blacklisting in Solidarity With Journalist Rania Khalek. Saff V. (talk) 11:44, 16 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note Only those on the far-right such as Max Boot and the OP would consider CounterPunch "fringe"; cited in the very body of CounterPunch is a piece by a writer from an objectively mainstream outlet calling it a "respected left-leaning" publication. Also see this comment by Binksternet which says it all. This is not to comment on the quality of sourcing for the remainder of the article as it stands; indeed E.M.Gregory is apparently working on a revamp. CaradhrasAiguo (leave language) 15:39, 18 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Caradhras, have you had a chance to check Counterpunch on RS noticeboard?, if you have, could you post the latest, definitive ruling here? I looked, and so many discussions came up that I just decided to ignore CounterPunch and stick to mainstream sources. It would be useful, if it's regarded as reliable. Thx.E.M.Gregory (talk) 15:50, 18 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I perused two discussions, namely the "original" 2008 discussion and the one I linked to, but not any more. My brief reading does not reveal much in the way of a "definitive ruling" as I am inclined to think Binksternet's opinion should carry far more weight than the others. CaradhrasAiguo (leave language) 15:53, 18 March 2019 (UTC) (Thanks - I'll check them out. E.M.)[reply]

The perennial sources list says there is no consensus about the reliability of Counterpunch[13]. It's unclear to me why we should bow to Binksternet on the issue. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 16:17, 18 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

So there is even less of a reason to bow to your warped judgment deeming it a "fringe" source, either. CaradhrasAiguo (leave language) 16:37, 18 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

for the amusement of my fellow editors, Russia Today covers us as we attempt to cover Khalek: 'Reputational assault': Mystery Wikipedia editor Philip Cross targets journalist Rania Khalek . Is it permitted to ping Philop Cross to weigh in here?E.M.Gregory (talk) 15:59, 18 March 2019 (UTC) [reply]
WP:HEY Keep, she's a sort of Russian internet troll, or maybe more of a Kremlin meatpuppet. I'm not actually sure what to call her, but journalist ain't it. American-content-producer-on-Kremlin-payroll might be the most accurate I can mange. She writes, a lot, but for increasingly low-end places; she appears to have been encouraged to leave Electronic Intifada and now produces content for a Facebook channel run by Russia Today. I do think it is useful roll for Wikipedia to host reliably-sourced pages on partisan content-producers who have the RS-coverage to support a page. And this one does. E.M.Gregory (talk) 16:38, 18 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
There were some changes made to the article. Currently, there are two RS in the article: (1) a Jerusalem Post story about criticism that Ilhan Omar faced for retweeting Khalek (i.e. a story about a notable person promoting a fringe individual), and (2) a Daily Beast story about a Kremlin-run outlet that mentions Khalek in two sentences. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 16:43, 18 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The Nation is a reliable source. https://www.thenation.com/authors/rania-khalek/ "Rania Khalek is an independent journalist reporting on the underclass and marginalized. She's written for Extra, Salon, Truthout, AlterNet, In These Times and more. For more of her work check out her blog, Dispatches from the Underclass." Several of which meet WP standards as well. And for The Nation apparently. Not super well-known, but meets the lower WP notability standards, even if you dislike her "interesting" positions. Collect (talk) 16:52, 18 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Author bios are usually written by the authors themselves. Simply authoring articles is not an indication of WP:GNG. Otherwise every single journalist and pundit would get their own Wikipedia page. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 17:02, 18 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I would note that the cite I proffered is that the person wrote for those publications, and if publications are reliable for anything they are reliable for the fact that the person wrote for them. Would The Nation say that a person wrote for them, and that the article they wrote was written by that person and that is not a reliable source because the person who clearly wrote for the publication says they wrote for the publication? And the writer wrote their own statement that they had written for such a publication? That is beyond a reasonable stretch. This person has achieved significant notoriety as you clearly realize. Sory - but my Keep position is intact. Collect (talk) 17:51, 18 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I can not for the life of me understand what you're trying to ask. Are you arguing that anyone who has authored an article for the Nation meets GNG? Simply having an author bio is not a sign of notability. Every journalist... every pundit... has an author bio in the publications where they published something. If I author an op-ed in the Washington Post, and the WaPo can be sourced for that fact... that doesn't mean I meet the criteria for GNG. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 17:58, 18 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

You are doubling down on your position Author bios are usually written by the authors themselves as the reason an author can not be notable even though they have had a reasonable number of articles in "reliable sources"? If you write three articles for The Nation, and quoted in a number of articles on Salon, writing nine articles for Salon, and a bunch of others in other "reliable sources" - they, yes, being published repeatedly in reliable sources is a sign of notability. This is not your "single op-ed for WaPo" example. Not famous perhaps, but meets Wikipedia standards, even if I loathe her "interesting" opinions. Collect (talk) 18:29, 18 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Being published in RS (her op-eds in Salon and the Nation are absolutely not RS) is not being covered by RS. If that's the standard, then every single journalist and pundit with a couple of publications would get their own Wikipedia page. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 18:37, 18 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - per good refs. Per work by E.M Gregory. WP:GNG met.BabbaQ (talk) 16:55, 18 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note that Nom has deleted citations and material material from Commentary Magazine, The Washington Free Beacon and Washington Examiner with edit note: "removing awful sources", but left Electronic Intifada, The Intercept, shadowproof.com, Fairness and Accuracy in Reporting, and CounterPunch in place.E.M.Gregory (talk) 19:40, 18 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The latter sources were used to source "Khalek has written for [insert those outlets]", which is an OK use of those sources (but they don't indicate notability). The first source was an op-ed in Commentary Magazine which made the extraordinary claim that Khalek was "lecturing" at Universities (far better source needed for this claim) - delete. The Free Beacon was redundant, and should not be anywhere on Wikipedia, as it's garbage - delete. The third source was an op-ed in the Wash Examiner (a godawful source) which attacked her - delete. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 20:44, 18 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

These 3 publications are WP:RS for the opinions of writers of the opinion columns. More significantly, your assertion is misleading and inaccurate. What the article in Commentary Magazine, written by Jonathan Marks, a professor of political science at Ursinus College actually said was: "Khalek is not a marginal figure within BDS. She has lectured or been a panelist at events at Columbia University, UC Berkeley, and Arizona State, among other venues." This is not a WP:BATTLEGROUND, lying about sources only makes you look like a POV-warrior who is WP:NOTHERE.E.M.Gregory (talk) 22:55, 18 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

WP:HEY Article has been expanded and sourced to reported coverage in CNN, Daily Beast, Haaretz, Jerusalem Post, and Engadget.E.M.Gregory (talk) 23:41, 18 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: fails WP:BASIC as lacking sources that discuss the subject directly and in detail. Sources are in passing or routine notices, beyond that the subject exists and the jobs she's had. E.g. Daily Beast is two sentences. The article is a form of WP:OR, where the whole topic fails WP:N, and article supports are scrounging for minimum sources on tangential topics. --K.e.coffman (talk) 02:28, 19 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Daily Beast: ‘Grassroots’ Media Startup Redfish Is Supported by the Kremlin: "U.S. journalist, Rania Khalek, frequently hosted as a commentator on Sputnik and RT, the latter identifying her as a contributor. Khalek announced in November 2017 that she had accepted a job as a correspondent for Redfish.". Sources do not have to be longform profiles to be WP:SIGCOV.E.M.Gregory (talk) 09:17, 19 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - The subject fully meets WP:BASIC because

1. Multiple published secondary sources that are reliable - yes: the article has 20 different sources, which include The Jerusalem Post, RT, Al Jazeera, Engadget, The Daily Beast, CNN, Salon, Haaretz, etc.

2. Intellectually independent - yes: clearly established because the sources reflect different events in the biography of the subject at different times (the sources date from 2015, 2014, 2013, 2016, 2018, 2019).

3. Independent of the subject - ye:, no need to elaborate, but clearly zero sources are blogs or owned or controlled by the subject.

These are the the three criteria required by WP:BASIC, which furthermore adds: "People who meet the basic criteria may be considered notable". Article furthermore fully meets WP:GNG. XavierItzm (talk) 07:40, 20 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Per the last comment by E.M.Gregory (despite the moronic and infantile "Russian Internet troll" remark) and XavierItzm. CaradhrasAiguo (leave language) 20:42, 20 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Per above and also note that she is recognised by full WP:RS sources: Washington Post, Washington Post, CNN. Britishfinance (talk) 12:11, 21 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was soft delete. WP:REFUND applies. TonyBallioni (talk) 16:32, 20 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Niko Defence League[edit]

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

With coverage limited to tabloids and YouTube, I'd argue that WP:GNG is not met. _signed,Rosguill ^talk 08:06, 6 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. Icewhiz (talk) 09:34, 6 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. Icewhiz (talk) 09:34, 6 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. Icewhiz (talk) 09:34, 6 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Jovanmilic97 (talk) 09:47, 13 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, Niko has had his little joke. It got a a lot of laughs, it got a lot of Youtube views, but it fails WP:SIGCOV. DELETEE.M.Gregory (talk) 11:29, 13 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was merge to Soul Fresh. merge and redirect. (non-admin closure) Atlantic306 (talk) 21:45, 20 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

JB (Liberian rapper)[edit]

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

Despite my attempts at improving the article, the subject fails WP:GNG and WP:MUSICBIO. Despite the lack of coverage on Liberian musicians, the subject has not done enough to warrant stand-alone inclusion. This, this and this are not enough. Had he won or been nominated for his country's major award, I would !vote keep. Versace1608 ^{Wanna Talk?} 02:10, 27 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. ~SS49~ {talk} 02:19, 27 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. ~SS49~ {talk} 02:19, 27 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Africa-related deletion discussions. ~SS49~ {talk} 02:19, 27 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sheldybett (talk) 07:35, 6 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Jovanmilic97 (talk) 09:47, 13 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. Liberia has a population of 4 million and not that much mass media going on. He wouldn't be notable in California or New York, but in a small place like Monrovia he's going to have at least a semi-notable presence. Should artists from smaller communities have somewhat relaxed notability criteria? WP:SINGER has high standards, but if we look at Category:Liberian singers we won't find that many singers, and many of them don't meet WP:SINGER either. — Stevey7788 (talk) 01:49, 14 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Stevey7788: I am from Liberia and I can confirm that the entertainment scene there lacks media coverage. With the exception of the Liberian Observer, no other newspaper in Liberia covers the Liberian music industry. Having said that, what makes you think "many" of the singers at Category:Liberian singers fails WP:MUSICBIO? I personally created the Takun J and Sundaygar Dearboy articles; both articles meet WP:MUSICBIO. Unlike the singers in the aforementioned category, JB has not done enough as a solo act to warrant stand-alone inclusion. Soul Fresh, the group he was apart of, is more notable. As a solo act, he is not deserving of stand-alone inclusion. Versace1608 ^{Wanna Talk?} 02:44, 14 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Versace1608:. Some Liberian singers do not appear to meet WP:MUSICBIO because WP:MUSICBIO was written from a "WEIRD" (Western) context where media coverage is significant. What I am saying is that for countries and communities where the media situation is very different, I would not recommend applying WP:MUSICBIO strictly to all artists, because many of the most well-known artists are self-made, informal "street" artists who have influenced local cultures significantly, but are not covered by national media. Examples include ethnic minorities in South Asia or Southeast Asia that have big celebrities only within their communities, but are not covered by national media outlets due to bias or indifference regarding ethnic minority entertainment and arts. Thus, I would personally argue for keeping an article that may not seem to meet WP:MUSICBIO but is highly influential in an ethnic minority community of, say, 20,000 people.

It's good that you're from Liberia and know more about the situation there. You would be a better person to make a good decision on whether or not this Liberian artist is notable. — Stevey7788 (talk) 17:02, 14 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Merge as part of a new Soul Fresh article, per Versace1608. The band may be notable, but not the solo artist himself. — Stevey7788 (talk) 17:06, 14 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Commenting that there is some coverage of JB, but the coverage of Soul Fresh is comparable and arguably better, and also a major award. Currently building a stub to allow for a partial merge or redirect. MidwestSalamander (talk) 14:05, 16 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. TonyBallioni (talk) 16:31, 20 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Johnathan Simon[edit]

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

Not yet notable per WP:ACADEMIC as a computer scientist, nor WP:BIO as a businessman, nor WP:NTRACK as a youth athlete. He's helpfully swatted a lot of software bugs, but the references cited for this are all just his name as an entry on long lists of contributors. For his business career, the references only mention his name in passing as company founder. I can't find any substantial independent coverage of him online in secondary WP:RS, apart from the cited profile of him in geektime.co.il. Anyone can give a TEDx. There might be more online in Hebrew: I've tried Googling for his name in Hebrew, and looked for him among other people with this name, but have come back empty-handed: a Hebrew speaker might have better luck. Borderline WP:Vanispamcruftisement tone strongly suggests an autobiography, and editor's only contributions so far are this article and the similarly poorly-sourced Simon-Apel about his family history. Flapjacktastic (talk) 09:00, 13 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. Flapjacktastic (talk) 09:05, 13 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. Flapjacktastic (talk) 09:05, 13 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. Flapjacktastic (talk) 09:05, 13 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. Flapjacktastic (talk) 09:05, 13 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Israel-related deletion discussions. Flapjacktastic (talk) 09:05, 13 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. (Self-)promotional article cobbled together from unreliable sources and passing mentions. Searches turn up nothing better. The creator quite obviously has a COI but has declined to disclose it. – Joe (talk) 13:35, 13 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Comment, if deleted, move the page Johnathan Simon (disambiguation) to Johnathan Simon (I only made that redirect seeing that this page went up, since there is bound to be more then one person with that variation of the name) Wgolf (talk) 15:08, 13 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete The sources are terrible, mostly just casual mentions. Have to agree with Joe. Hughesdarren (talk) 03:05, 16 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as per nom's assessment. Searches did not turn up enough to show they pass WP:GNG, and as already pointed out, doesn't meet any of the SN's either. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 11:51, 17 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment according to WP:ANYBIO: "The person has received a well-known and significant award or honor, or has been nominated for such an award several times" As nomination for Forbes 30under30 is clearly a well known award. Furtheremore, he is listed in the Google's Hall of Fame in the link given under perior to 2015. Are there any other Hebrew contributors? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2.55.153.185 (talk) 05:53, 18 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Forbes produces 1740, 30 under 30 lists every year. It is certainly well known, and more common than the number of different teas you can buy but has zero use on Wikipedia. Fails WP:SIGCOV. scope_creep^Talk 11:36, 19 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. TonyBallioni (talk) 16:31, 20 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Vandarth[edit]

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

Does not pass WP:MUSICBIO. Mccapra (talk) 07:50, 13 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Icewhiz (talk) 09:29, 13 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Indiana-related deletion discussions. Icewhiz (talk) 09:29, 13 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom fails Musicbio, no substantive sources. Reywas92^Talk 18:46, 13 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - There is evidence that he and his various albums exist, but existence does not prove notability. He has not been noticed by reliable sources and a search only reveals the typical retail/streaming sites and self-made industry directories. Thus, the article looks like an attempted promotion. ---DOOMSDAYER520 (Talk|Contribs) 17:26, 14 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. TonyBallioni (talk) 16:31, 20 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Sema Hernandez[edit]

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

Fails WP:NPOL, politician running for multiple elections but so far failing to win. Fram (talk) 07:29, 13 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. Icewhiz (talk) 09:30, 13 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Texas-related deletion discussions. Icewhiz (talk) 09:30, 13 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep This politician is a person of whom absolutely qualifies to be a person of whom should be included in Wikipedia. There's quite a bit of content on them, far exceeding the bare minimum for notability. Just because someone lost an election doesn't mean that they aren't notable; she certainly is. SuperChris (talk) 12:54, 13 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. While it's certainly possible for a person who runs as a political candidate but loses to still be notable anyway, this article isn't showing that at all. There are two ways that condition can be attained: either (a) she was already notable for other reasons that would have gotten her an article anyway (e.g. Cynthia Nixon), or (b) her campaign has received such an unusual explosion of media coverage, far beyond the scope of what every candidate in every election always gets, that she has a credible claim to being special (e.g. Christine O'Donnell). But this article demonstrates neither of those things: it makes no claim of preexisting notability for other reasons, but is just the completely routine campaign brochure (complete with a "her opinions on the issues" section) that could be written about absolutely any candidate, and its references are not reliable sources for the purposes of anointing her candidacy as special — it's referenced almost entirely to primary sources and Reddit threads and Twitter tweets and YouTube videos that are not evidence of notability, and the only three references that actually count as reliable sources are not substantively about her, but all just glancingly namecheck her existence within coverage of other people. This is not how you make an as yet unelected political candidate special enough to clear the notability bar despite not passing WP:NPOL — if she wins the seat in 2020, then she'll obviously get an article at that time, but neither the substance nor the sourcing on offer here are enough to already get her over the bar today. Bearcat (talk) 16:00, 13 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 08:44, 14 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete As Bearcat notes there aren't enough reliable sources to establish notability and her campaign itself does not mean that she qualifies as notable. Best, GPL93 (talk) 20:12, 14 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Clearly fails WP:NPOL. An obviousy case of a promotional article.Avidohioan (talk) 10:47, 19 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Strong delete Wikipedia is not meant to be a place for candidates to post their campaign literature.John Pack Lambert (talk) 04:04, 20 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete and redirect to List of Prisoner cast members. TonyBallioni (talk) 16:30, 20 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Rosanne Hull-Brown[edit]

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

Actress with just one role. It looks like this could just be a redirect to the show she was on. As from the looks of it she was only on it for just one year and retired from acting since. Wgolf (talk) 04:24, 13 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Icewhiz (talk) 04:39, 13 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. Icewhiz (talk) 04:39, 13 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete While she seems to be doing okay for herself teaching piano [14], nothing shows GNG. HickoryOughtShirt?4 (talk) 04:42, 13 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to List of Prisoner cast members. PamD 09:07, 13 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Thsmi002 (talk) 02:35, 15 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Wikipedia is not meant to be an IMDb mirror.John Pack Lambert (talk) 04:01, 20 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to List of Prisoner cast members. Not notable in their own right, only one, non controvesial acting role, but a likely search term for interested parties. Aoziwe (talk) 07:58, 20 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy keep. Withdrawn. The rationale for deletion (lack of verifiability) has been remedied, and there will not be consensus that this fails notability guidelines. Some of the "history" section should be a "geography" section - it's the only way I see to discuss physical landmarks identifying the neighborhood without being an advertisement. This is a new article under active development, and keeping this discussion open no longer serves any purpose. (non-admin closure) power~enwiki (π, ν) 15:03, 13 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Polish Hill (Kansas City, Kansas)[edit]

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

Notability issues. "Neighborhoods" are often folklore and are not government-defined subdivisions.

~~This is also a WP:G3 deletion - the post is now sourced to a forum post made today. This is either malice or incompetence by the author.~~ power~enwiki (π, ν) 04:17, 13 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Power~enwiki, please see my edit to the article. Leviv ich 04:20, 13 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
- After checking the references, I see the problem. The original references are ads for something called the "Polski Day Parade". I'll see if anything is left once I remove that. power~enwiki (π, ν) 04:24, 13 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  I don't know anything about the notability rules for neighborhood, so no comment from me as to whether it's notable enough to keep, but it's not a hoax, the place is real. Leviv ich 04:29, 13 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  - I've struck my "hoax" remarks. This may be an ad, but it is not a hoax. power~enwiki (π, ν) 04:37, 13 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. Icewhiz (talk) 04:39, 13 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Kansas-related deletion discussions. Icewhiz (talk) 04:39, 13 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep obviously a real area with real history. I started searching the church names and quickly found photos like [15] which is not a RS but proves that Poles founded the church and settled in the area just like this article says. Legacypac (talk) 05:04, 13 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep validated as a regionally-recognized neighborhood by independent third-party sources. Normally we keep such articles. I added several categories and interested editors can check there to see how it compares to other similar articles. A worthy stub article.--Paul McDonald (talk) 12:41, 13 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep passes WP:GEOLAND. ——SerialNumber54129 12:46, 13 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Much like other articles by the original author (indef blocked since 2015)... looks good but ultimately insubstantial. Catfish Jim and the soapdish 09:52, 21 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

John Ardis Cawthon[edit]

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

Despite the depth, length, and apparent sourcing of the article it doesn't appear that the subject meets notability standards. Cawthon appears to have been a tenured professor at Louisiana Tech University who specialized in the history of Northern Louisiana. Sources used to support this article include unlinked, and in some cases untitled, local newspaper articles (sources:8, 10, and 24); basic records, such as death and cemetery internment records (1 & 11); Notes from the article's since-banned creator that are original research or that simply explain that sources cannot be found (2, 13, & 18); local newspaper obituaries for people other than the subject (6, 7, 9, 21); Cawthon's entrie in local history journals, some of which are not linked (14 &16); a college yearbook (12, used twice); a footnote in some else's book (15); a passing reference to a work of his in a work published on a small town's website (19); a link to the LSU Archives and collections page, which has no mention of Cawthon (20); An article in the LA Tech Alumni magazine about his wife receiving a distinguished service award from the university (22); permanent dead links (23 & 26), one to a list of college alumni and another to the subject and his wife's papers; and a link simply proving that the subject's daughter was a professor at the University of Texas-Arlington (27). While it's possible that Cawthon could meet notability standards it simply isn't established by the sources used, I conducted a further search and didn't find anything that would support passing WP:GNG. GPL93 (talk) 21:12, 5 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Louisiana-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 21:24, 5 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 21:25, 5 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 21:26, 5 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 21:27, 5 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment The page on Eleanor is a bit misleading, I think she may have been more encyclopedic than her husband. In particular, Eleanor was president of the Arkansas Federation of Business and Professional Women and vice-president of the American Association of University Women]. Also, she was national president of the College Placement Council (now National Association of Colleges and Employers) in the early 1970s. Later in the 1970s, she was a Dean of Student Services at Louisiana Tech (all positions according to articles on newspapers.com) while her husband was an academic with a focus on local history. His focus on local history was likely what led to the creation of his article (article creator Billy Hathorn focused on local history of Arkansas and Texas). Eleanor had a more outward focused career, serving in leadership role of somewhat significant national organizations. I'd support keeping an article on Eleanor, but am not sure how to split these. I would not !vote on the current article on John. Is a rename with excise of the material on John a possible outcome? If so, I would be happy to expand the article on Eleanor with the information I noted. Smmurphy^(Talk) 22:06, 5 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Smmurphy I agree that Eleanor has a better chance of meeting notability standards based on her qualifications, but given the current sourcing used it's probably best to WP:TNT and start a new article on her from scratch using sources that actually establish notability instead of obituaries, faculty websites, and alumni magazine articles. Best, GPL93 (talk) 15:45, 6 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per above discussion. The closing admin can move, merge, split, or redirect as needed. Bearian (talk) 23:33, 9 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Bearian:/closing admin - I'm refraining from voting or editing the page under the assumption that the page can be deleted and the page on Eleanor written from scratch (to avoid attribution issues post deletion) after. I'm not sure if this is optimal behavior under WP:CWW, but my feeling is that trying to change the main subject of the article during an AfD is not enjoyable and worsens the AfD discussion. If the consensus were that an article on Eleanor should be written using this current article as a start point, we could move the article (with or without redirect) to draft or (my?) userspace and do it that way. In other words, I plan to write/expand an article on Eleanor after this decision regardless of the outcome of this AfD (unless the AfD outcome were that I definitely shouldn't). Smmurphy^(Talk) 19:25, 11 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Bearian: @Smmurphy: That's why I think it's best the article be deleted and then a separate article be submitted on Eleanor. While I think that there is a chance she meets GNG, none of the sourcing for even that part of the current article really establishes it so you'd more or less have to begin the article from the beginning anyway. Best, GPL93 (talk) 20:11, 11 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete then. Bearian (talk) 00:46, 12 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete -- I do not see much notable in either bio. A series of articles on graveyards, probably listing tombstones is hardly notable, mere local history. Her position as dean and national president might just make the wife notable, but I am far from sure. Peterkingiron (talk) 16:57, 11 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Comment A search of Newspapers.com shows articles about John Ardis Cawthon and his work in 6 newspapers in Louisiana and Texas. Although many of the sources currently included in the article are not reliable (or not relevant), I note that there is a 3 page biography in North Louisiana History. Elenora Albrecht Cawthon should probably not be included in her husband's article - as other editors have noted, there are additional sources for her too. I don't see why the present article needs to be deleted in order to improve the sourcing - why not delete the unreliable sources and the irrelevant content, and add reliable new sources? I will try to do that for John, and then assess his notability. And I believe that there are ways of separating articles into two that maintain the editing history, which could be done for Elenora Albrecht Cawthon. RebeccaGreen (talk) 16:31, 12 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Xymmax ^{So let it be written} _{So let it be done} 03:51, 13 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I have started editing and adding references - there is a lot more to do. RebeccaGreen (talk) 10:36, 13 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I removed the second biography from this article. We simply don't do that and it at least the third time[16] I've seen this tone in a Billy Hathorn article....William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 19:51, 18 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. TonyBallioni (talk) 16:30, 20 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

List of recordings of songs Hal Blaine played on[edit]

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

Per WP:DEL7. Subject played on over 35,000 sessions and so the list will never be comprehensive. Only two sourced entries since article was created in 2010. This is a project better suited to a record database like Discogs, not Wikipedia Ilovetopaint (talk) 02:36, 13 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2019 March 13. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 02:58, 13 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. The parent article, while far from complete, lists a number of high-charting and Grammy-winning songs and albums on which Hal Blaine played. That should be more than adequate. szyslak (t) 03:55, 13 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. Icewhiz (talk) 04:40, 13 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. Icewhiz (talk) 04:40, 13 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. This was arguably the most important figure to play his instrument in the history of popular music, at least since it began being recorded. This is not an exhaustive list, it is just the list to recordings important enough for Wikipedia to already have articles on them. As such, I would also point out the DEL7 is a crock here, because most of those articles that are linked list him. No, the listing in the article is not sufficient. There is an entire separate discography age for Nancy Sinatra; this guy walks all over her in importance. I'm stunned this would be an issue. I really am. Teikovo (talk) 14:29, 13 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. This musician, as a drummer, did not put out solo or substantially-solo works and so does not have a discography article as, say, a vocalist or keyboardist might. But he was legendary, and part of that is the wide range of styles that this article documents. This article is analogous to a discography for other musicians. It is badly in need of sourcing, but that's not a deletion discussion. TJRC (talk) 20:35, 13 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

As an additional note, I don't think that the stated basis for deletion, WP:DEL7 ("Articles for which thorough attempts to find reliable sources to verify them have failed"), applies here. Yes, the article needs sources, and has been tagged for a very long time. But time alone is not evidence that anyone has undertaken "thorough attempts to find reliable sources" and that those attempts have failed.

A recent edit deleted all the unsourced entries. Ordinarily I'd be okay with that (or even do that myself), but given that the musician's recent death and this AfD, and the concomitant attention both of those things generate, I'd leave that for some period longer to assist the editors who have already begun to add sources, correcting the only real problem this article has. TJRC (talk) 19:13, 14 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. The list on the Hal Blaine article is more specific and is little more than 25% the size of the list in this article. Rather than adequate justification for deletion of this article, it qualifies the continued presence of this article. If it calls for a change, perhaps that change is to move the entries of recordings from the Hal Blaine article and maintain this as the sole location AND expand it. Additionally, few - if any - musicians contributed to the success of so much music without being recognized widely as a "celebrity" in the ways that Elvis, Dolly Parton or Cliff Richard might be, and even when added together, the output of those celebrities doesn't begin to approach the size of Blaine's. The fact that it's unlikely to ever be complete (less than 0.2% of his total contributions) does not mean it's unworthy as a WP article. If it was OK for such as Discogs to be the only repository of the information, there would be a good case for deletion of all articles about individual films or actors, because IMDB does the job already. WP is more encyclopedic than either of those, not an enhanced list, and it's arguably more accurate as it is somewhat sourced and policed more effectively. It makes perfect sense for an article on the man himself and a separately organized article listing his involvement in some of the most well known recordings of music. It lacks sources, but that's not enough to delete it.Twistlethrop (talk) 06:51, 14 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. The volume, the duration and diversity of Hal Blaine's career makes this list notable.--Richhoncho (talk) 11:30, 17 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. TonyBallioni (talk) 16:29, 20 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Stephen Prentice[edit]

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

Screenwriter who has only written one film. I've been trying to find anything else for him, but that is the only one, his other script has apparently be in development hell for years now. Wgolf (talk) 02:30, 13 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete The only claim to notability is that he wrote the screenplay for a low-budget money losing horror film, so WP:BLP1E comes into play. The only refererence is a blog post. My Google search failed to find any significant coverage of Prentice in reliable, independent sources. I see no evidence that he is notable. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 03:34, 13 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Icewhiz (talk) 04:41, 13 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. Icewhiz (talk) 04:41, 13 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. TonyBallioni (talk) 16:28, 20 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

All Together Now (book)[edit]

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

Delete WP:BEFORE shows a couple of perfunctory reviews, but not the depth of coverage required by WP:NBOOK UnitedStatesian (talk) 02:17, 6 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. J 947 ^{^{^(c)}}, at 04:01, 6 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. J 947 ^{^{^(c)}}, at 04:01, 6 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Economics-related deletion discussions. J 947 ^{^{^(c)}}, at 04:01, 6 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. J 947 ^{^{^(c)}}, at 04:01, 6 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note that author's other book Crunch (book), is completely unsourced. I ran some quick searches on All Together Now: Common Sense for a Fair Economy and, as with Crunch I found that columnists, and perhaps some news articles, were engaging with, discussing these books, but didn't see much in the way of reviews. I did not Prod Crunch because it may be that a diligent editor with an interest in the topic could source a good article on each. Maybe. More likely we just delete this; they're already mentioned. But I'll wait a few days and see what other editors find.E.M.Gregory (talk) 12:17, 6 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I've added a reception section to the article, including reviews of the book from two academic journals (New Labor Forum and Community Development of Taylor & Francis), and one magazine (Industrial Worker). Excerpts from the book have also been published in The New York Times. Per these reviews and coverage, I believe that the book passes criteria one of WP:NBOOK. MarkZusab (talk) 19:43, 8 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, but it's not a review in the Times. I looked too, and it didn't get reviews in major media or academic places. I did't find much in the way of discussion of it in later years, either, so...

~~Merge~~ to Jared Bernstein, where it is already mentioned, but whatever is useful on this page can be added there.E.M.Gregory (talk) 16:24, 11 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 02:13, 13 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. User:MarkZusab has shown that the book meets WP:NBOOK because it has been the subject of two non-trivial reviews (in Industrial Worker and Community Development). Someone objected that these are not 'major media or academic places' but they seem to be perfectly respectable, independent published sources. Google scholar lists 53 citations, which also indicates that the book has enjoyed some salience in academic discussion -- not that that this is necessary for it to be notable. Alarichall (talk) 01:07, 16 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

2 book reviews, in minor publictions ≠ WP:NBOOK.E.M.Gregory (talk) 14:44, 19 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Why not? The journals may not be household names, but they're serious publications; WP:NBOOK simply asks, sensibly, for 'non-trivial' coverage. The examples of the kinds of publications that might be trivial listed are 'personal websites, blogs, bulletin boards, Usenet posts, wikis and other media that are not themselves reliable'. These reviews surely meet the notability criteria fine. Alarichall (talk) 19:19, 19 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Because it our usual practice to expect that a notable book will have more than 2 reviews. (we've gotta draw a line somewhere.)E.M.Gregory (talk) 20:46, 19 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I see you've accepted this as a keep, but for future reference: we have got to draw the line somewhere, and the line is 'two or more non-trivial published works'. That is, it is our usual practice to expect that a notable book will have two or more reviews, not 'more than two'. Thanks! Alarichall (talk) 23:10, 19 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

User:Alarichall, what policy are you citing?E.M.Gregory (talk) 23:34, 19 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

WP:NBOOK! Alarichall (talk) 23:49, 19 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep as obvious pass of WP:NBOOK#1. Also reviewed in "A philosophy of failure: YOYOs in charge don't want government to work" by Tom White in The Charleston Gazette, 19 July 2006, p 5A. Also reviewed in "YOYOs had us on a string, but that may be changing" by Gregory Stanford in Milwaukee Journal Sentinel, 17 Dec 2006, p J4. Also reviewed in "Bewitched by bad economics" by M. J. Anderson in The Providence Journal, 23 June 2006, pB5. Not surprisingly, also part of the review essay "How Capitalism Works Now" in The American Prospect (Nov 2006, vol 17, no 11, pp 54-56). Bakazaka (talk) 19:30, 19 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per reviews brought to page during discussion.E.M.Gregory (talk) 20:46, 19 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. TonyBallioni (talk) 16:28, 20 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Sy Rogers[edit]

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

WP:BLP of a person whose claims of notability are not properly referenced. Four of the six footnotes here are organizational blogs, while a fifth is a user-generated wiki -- and the only one that's actually a real notability-supporting media outlet is a glancing namecheck of Sy Rogers' existence in an article that's primarily about other people. While a few other sources were removed last year as reference-bombing overkill, none of them actually bolstered the notability case either, as all of them suffered exactly the same problems as the sources that are still present. This states nothing about the subject that is "inherently" notable enough to guarantee someone a Wikipedia article just because they exist, but the content is not referenced anywhere near well enough to get a person over WP:GNG. Bearcat (talk) 00:17, 26 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Bakazaka (talk) 00:23, 26 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sexuality and gender-related deletion discussions. Bakazaka (talk) 00:23, 26 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. Bakazaka (talk) 00:23, 26 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Bakazaka (talk) 00:23, 26 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Singapore-related deletion discussions. Bakazaka (talk) 00:23, 26 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Whether the references need improvement or not, the traffic is a strong indicator of the notability of this subject. The article currently averages close to 100 daily views, more than enough to justify the article. - JGabbard (talk) 00:46, 26 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

DELETE--What is he notable for? I don't get why a wiki page was created for this guy, a few sources and him being on Youtube does not make him notable. He may be notable where he lives but how many people actually know him. @JGabbard: those 100 daily views may have come from people who have accidentally just clicked on him or pressed the random button on the side bar. I do it all the time. There is actually no proof that this person is actually notable apart from a couple of references. If he was so notable then why is his page a stub? Plum3600 (talk) 14:07, 26 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Randomized views are theoretically spread out across the nearly 6 million articles, so that has no bearing. And no one's notability is dependent on your having heard of them. Most people have never heard of most people. YouTube personalities are a huge thing nowadays, but unnecessary when notoriety was gained decades earlier. And stubs are stubs so they can be developed, not deleted. - JGabbard (talk) 14:57, 26 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Although it is true that articles don't have to already be perfect before they're allowed to exist, they still have to at least contain a credible and properly sourced indication of notability in the first place before they're allowed to exist. If "it might be improvable someday" were all it took to stave off deletion in and of itself, we'd have to always keep an article about every single person who exists at all including you and me and the old lady across the hall. So we don't keep poorly sourced articles just because somebody theorizes that maybe they might become improvable in the future — the key to getting an article into the keep zone in a deletion discussion is to show hard evidence that the quality of sourcing needed to get them over the bar does exist, not just to speculate that it might improve in the future. Bearcat (talk) 17:14, 26 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

~~DELETE~~@Bearcat:Totally agree with you. I'm not very good at trying to get my point across, but everything you said is what I was trying to say.Plum3600 (talk) 18:52, 27 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I have struck what appears to be a duplicate !vote. -Ad Orientem (talk) 01:43, 13 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

DElete -- unless the article can be expanded to show that he did something notable, he seems a run-of-the mill NN pastor. Peterkingiron (talk) 17:04, 27 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
A considerable amount of additional content has been added. Reevaluation is necessary. - JGabbard (talk) 02:45, 28 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep just added a published book as a reference.--Epiphyllumlover (talk) 23:32, 28 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment a passing mention in one sentence of a book does not amount to WP:SIGCOV. Edwardx (talk) 00:02, 1 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Despite attempts to expand this, we are still a long way off passing WP:GNG. Edwardx (talk) 00:03, 1 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete – doesn't appear to meet requirements for WP:GNG or WP:ANYBIO. Efforts to improve have generally relied on single-sentence, trivial coverage in news outlets that mention Rogers in the context of Exodus. Excluding these, what few other sources remain are not reliable sources – they include user-generated wikis, a blog, and an opinion column in Charisma. I found very little in my searches which provides much additional coverage beyond what's already in the article. —0xf₈e₈ (talk) 01:59, 1 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete – I do not believe this article provides anything worthwhile to anyone interested in the subject. Only credible sources appear to have just singular passing mentions. Unoc (talk) 17:16, 3 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above. -- Willthacheerleader18 (talk) 05:04, 4 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
WP:HEY Keep Nom and delete votes probably happened because not only is the whole ex-gay thing sort of, er... strange, but because he was a thing back in the 80s, so the INDEPTH coverage he got doesn't come up in searches - I ran his name through an archive search, but some of the articles I found I have been able to find open source, like this long 1987 profile in the Orlando Sentinel: If I Can Change, You Can, Former Transsexual Tells Gays, and this Newsweek: U.S.'s Richest Boarding School Admits It Showed Anti-Gay Videos To Students. Also Spin (magazine): [17]. There is news coverage I have not yet added and also several Books of Christian piety with substantive passages about him or his impact on individual lives, I have not added any because I have not sifted through them. Some may be "real" (i.e. not self-published) and contain useful material. E.M.Gregory (talk) 14:35, 4 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: To discuss E.M.Gregory's sources.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 07:00, 5 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Delete per norm. Few passing mentions of which nothing significant, Fails WP:GNG. Lapablo (talk) 10:15, 5 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Passes WP:GNG not only because of multiple secondary sources, but also a documentary about his life. Rogers is a pioneer figure who gained notoriety in the realm at least five to 10 years before associated figures arose such as John Paulk, Anne Paulk, Andrew Comiskey, John Smid, Alan Chambers, Wayne Besen and Joe Dallas, most of whose articles have far less support than this one now has. Relatively speaking, it would make no sense to keep theirs but not his, because Rogers' notability surpasses theirs and they would all likely say the same. All of them early on would have drawn some inspiration from Rogers. - JGabbard (talk) 14:56, 5 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
WP:HEYMANN. I have just removed the low quality sources and material. And added material. Comments made before this 2nd HEYMANN upgrade are obsolete .E.M.Gregory (talk) 19:07, 8 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note that significant, well-sourced information was deleted from the article before it was brought to AfD. E.M.Gregory (talk) 19:38, 8 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: This article has undergone some significant changes that may warrant reevaluation.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ad Orientem (talk) 01:44, 13 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep given new sources found by User:E.M.Gregory. SJK (talk) 05:10, 16 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy keep. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 03:16, 20 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Ryan Strieby[edit]

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

Non-notable career minor leaguer who fails GNG. Lepricavark (talk) 16:50, 6 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Lepricavark (talk) 16:51, 6 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Baseball-related deletion discussions. Lepricavark (talk) 16:51, 6 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Kentucky-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 21:56, 6 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Washington-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 21:56, 6 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. Strieby was a NCAA Division I college baseball First Team All-American in 2006 (1), which, arguably, could be considered to meet WP:NCOLLATH #1 as having won a major national-level award. Ejgreen77 (talk) 17:13, 12 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 01:37, 13 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

In addition to the point raised by Ejgreen77 about passing WP:NCOLLATH, there is a fair bit of in depth coverage found on Newspapers.com. Three examples: here, here/here, and here. Cbl62 (talk) 00:54, 14 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Meets WP:GNG and WP:NCOLLATH #1, per Cbl62's sources. Ejgreen77 (talk) 21:10, 14 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Nomination withdrawn do I think he's notable? No. But given the evident desire to salvage not-particularly-useful articles about college baseball players, I'm apparently in the minority. Lepricavark (talk) 17:32, 16 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. TonyBallioni (talk) 16:27, 20 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Françoise Cactus[edit]

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

WP:BLP of a musician, not properly referenced as having any standalone notability independently of her band. As always, every member of every band is not automatically entitled to have her own separate article just because she exists -- to warrant her own biographical article in addition to already being mentioned in the band's article, she has to be demonstrated as having her own independent notability for other reasons, such as having also released solo albums. The sources here aren't cutting it, however: this is literally reference bombing everything the creator could get their hands on, including product sales pages on Amazon.com and directory entries on streaming platforms and Blogspot blogs -- while the relatively few references that are actually reliable sources all just namecheck that she exists in the process of being about the band. This is not how you establish that a musician is notable enough to spin off a second article about her as a person on top of the band article that already exists. If you need 31 references to support just 90 words of content, because you're stacking eight to ten different references on each individual sentence, then you're doing it very wrong. Bearcat (talk) 18:20, 6 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 21:42, 6 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 21:43, 6 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Germany-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 21:43, 6 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, also notable as an artist and writer. The concerns of the nom can be taken care of without deletion (and do not support deletion anyway, just redirection). Low-quality unnecessary references can be removed at any time by editorial discretion. —Kusma (t·c) 09:48, 7 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Neither artists nor writers get an automatic "notable just because they exist" either. Notability still requires both (a) an actual notability claim to be present in the article in the first place, which "she and her work exist" is not, and (b) actual reliable sourcing to support it. There's not a single reliable source in the article that's covering her in an artistic or literary context — the reliable sources are entirely about the band she's in as a musician, while the art and literature is entirely junksourced to unreliable garbage. Even for artists and writers, the notability test is still "media coverage given to her in the context of accomplishing something significant", not just "she is verifiable as existing". Bearcat (talk) 20:34, 7 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Sure, and there is such coverage. Perlentaucher mentions reviews of two of her books in major newspapers, the tageszeitung talks about her more than a hundred times [18]. Her "Wollita" artwork caused a bit of a scandal in Berlin. The German article has a lot of that info, but with fairly poor referencing. The article definitely needs a lot of work, but the person definitely is notable. —Kusma (t·c) 21:02, 7 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 01:33, 13 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The best of the refererences now in the article are adequate to show that she is notable and that she has some interesting accomplishments independent of the duo. Of course, the article is poor stylistically and the solution to the valid criticism of refererence bombing is to remove the lower quality refererences and expand the article based on what the better refererences say about her. Refbombing is not a valid argument to delete. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 04:31, 13 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Thsmi002 (talk) 02:38, 15 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete and redirect to LGBT culture in Portland, Oregon. TonyBallioni (talk) 16:26, 20 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Sullivan's Gulch Bar & Grill[edit]

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

I can't see how this meets our notability guidelines for companies. It gets two hits on GNews, one because of a robbery there; and no verifiable hits on GBooks. Sources in the page appear to be of strictly local relevance and significance only. Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 18:06, 5 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

~~Just redirect to Sullivan's Gulch, Portland, Oregon. I'd do this myself, but can't with an ongoing AFD. ---Another Believer _(Talk) 18:10, 5 March 2019 (UTC)~~[reply]
- I change my vote. Just redirect to LGBT culture in Portland, Oregon, which mentions the business. ---Another Believer _(Talk) 00:56, 19 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Food and drink-related deletion discussions. Icewhiz (talk) 18:22, 5 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sexuality and gender-related deletion discussions. Icewhiz (talk) 18:22, 5 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Oregon-related deletion discussions. Icewhiz (talk) 18:22, 5 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Even nominator seems open to redirecting. ---Another Believer _(Talk) 20:09, 5 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Indeed, no objection to redirection. I'd have saved time if I'd discussed with the article creator before creating this nomination. Such is life. Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 21:33, 5 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Justlettersandnumbers, Curious if you have any thoughts on redirecting to LGBT culture in Portland, Oregon instead of the neighborhood category? I've raised the question below, and changed my vote above. ---Another Believer _(Talk) 00:57, 19 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 10:36, 7 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect per above discussion and WP:CHEAP. Bearian (talk) 23:38, 9 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Wikipedia isn't a travel guide. I have just noticed the same editor has been adding numerous businesses in the Portland, Oregon area onto Wiki. It's possible they is misunderstanding that it's not intended to be used like a local travel wiki as this business and man of articles they has created lack the elements of general notability for businesses Graywalls (talk) 08:16, 11 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - agree with User:Graywalls' assessment. Deb (talk) 14:43, 11 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Deb, I'm almost afraid to ask, but other editors below have changed their delete votes to redirect, and I'm curious if you oppose redirecting instead of deleting? Trying to get a consensus here. Thank you. ---Another Believer _(Talk) 19:22, 11 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
It amounts to the same thing as far as I'm concerned. I normally actively oppose redirecting only when there is nothing to redirect to or when there seems a real danger of the article being recreated surreptitiously. Deb (talk) 19:37, 11 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
~~Delete~~ fails WP:SIGCOV.E.M.Gregory (talk) 18:01, 11 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
E.M.Gregory, Are you opposed to redirecting to Sullivan's Gulch, Portland, Oregon, which the nominator has supported? ---Another Believer _(Talk) 18:14, 11 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Sullivan's Gulch, Portland, Oregon where the bar's name can be added along with the sources.E.M.Gregory (talk) 18:22, 11 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment The one issue I see with this. It's not an appropriate use of neighborhood page to make it a place to add subsection for every single business editors feel like adding that couldn't muster the requirements for stand-alone article. Do you get the impression that this article should be added into the neighborhood page? Graywalls (talk) 19:13, 11 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Graywalls, No one suggested a standalone subsection or requested mention of every single business. ---Another Believer _(Talk) 19:15, 11 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Another Believer But the real concern is creating an expectation that anyone can crank out a bunch of junk articles about every run of the mill organizations, events, shops, taverns and stores they are interested in creating for whatever reason expectant of weaseling at least a mention into another article if the article can't stand on its own. Graywalls (talk) 21:12, 11 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

~~Delete~~ redirect Another run-of-the-mill venue with local coverage that does not establish notability. A redirect is fine. Reywas92^Talk 19:16, 11 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Reywas92, Then are you comfortable changing your vote to redirect? ---Another Believer _(Talk) 19:17, 11 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you. ---Another Believer _(Talk) 19:20, 11 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - after rethink, and apologizing to everyone whose patience I have tried. User:Graywalls makes an excellent pont above. As I wrote in by my first comment, this neighborhood bar fails WP:SIGCOV, and neighborhood articles should NOT be a DIRECTORY of all businesses in the neighborhood. Notable businesses can be linked to neighborhood article. Only notable businesses.E.M.Gregory (talk) 21:37, 12 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@E.M.Gregory: The redirect !votes above don't seem to advocate a merge. Do you think there's any harm in redirecting if no content is merged into the neighborhood article? Advocating for deletion on the basis that the neighborhood article will become a business directory seems like a straw man argument to me. Lord Bolingbroke (talk) 21:55, 18 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Btw, I agree with you that only notable businesses should be mentioned in the neighborhood article. I personally am leaning towards redirecting but not ~~linking to the redirect in~~ merging any content into the neighborhood article. Lord Bolingbroke (talk) 22:19, 18 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Obviously we wouldn't link the redirect in the target article, per WP:SELFRED. Lord Bolingbroke (talk) 01:23, 19 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

WP:CON, WP:CANVASS. Let's have an understanding of vote vs consensus. Votes shouldn't count for much. It doesn't work like an election and it's a critical difference. Yeses and nos without articulation don't carry significant weight and votes are exceptionally cheap especially in these days and ages where people can edit from mobile device and appear like unique users. For example, patrons and friends of a John's Bar & Grill in a small township can have its patrons vote yes and easily gather up 5 or 6 yeses on notability. Unless they each makeup worthy argument, they should not really cocunt.Graywalls (talk) 22:33, 18 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Who are you replying to here? I don't see the connection between this post and the above discussion. Lord Bolingbroke (talk) 22:47, 18 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Lord Bolingbroke ,to whomever reading to avoid foreseeable confusion between consensus vs vote. Graywalls (talk) 23:04, 18 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Ok? I think most experienced users already understand this distinction. Also, I lol'd at "Lord Blongbroke". Lord Bolingbroke (talk) 23:10, 18 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Is it your belief that only experienced users can participate in AfD discussion? I also don't share your assumption. If it was true, we wouldn't have someone like Another Believer supporting "keep" argument at a different discussion making appeal to something like this ~~appeal to "two people said yes to notability"~~ that did not have any explanation. Graywalls (talk) 14:42, 19 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ad Orientem (talk) 01:22, 13 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Whether or not we list businesses in neighborhood articles turs out to be an interesting question. Switching coasts, I note that 1.) Porter Square includes a long list of non-blue-linked local businesses; 2.) Harvard Square, Davis Square, Ball Square include both bluelinked and completely unsourced , non-bluelinked businesses in the text. 3.) Porter Square mention businesses in the text but they seem to be all bluelinked. and does not have lists. 4.) Kendall Square has a long list of bluelinked businesses and mentions other bluelinked businesses in the text. 5.) Powder House Square mentions no business by name. Do we have any sort of policy that applies here? I would have thought that to be mentioned by name in an article, a business ought to be either A.) bluelinked, and appropriately added to the neighborhood where it is located. Or B.) sourced. I am astounded by how many neighborhood articles in the couple of east coast youth-mecca towns that I spot-checked (because similarity to Portland,) are stuffed with completely unsourced local businesses. Opinion anyone?E.M.Gregory (talk) 22:18, 18 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
- @E.M.Gregory: Hmm, that is interesting. I don't have a general opinion on whether non-bluelinked organizations should be mentioned in neighborhood articles—I can imagine some cases where a business is not notable enough for its own article, but could be mentioned in its neighborhood article if reliable sources mention a connection. Unsourced, non-bluelinked businesses should probably be removed. I had a related debate at Talk:Sunderland, Portland, Oregon#Dignity Village about whether the Dignity Village homeless encampment should be mentioned in Sunderland, Portland, Oregon. I argued for inclusion there because Dignity Village is notable by our standards, even though sources don't seem to make a connection between it and the Sunderland neighborhood. Lord Bolingbroke (talk) 22:37, 18 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment/Question: What about just redirecting to LGBT culture in Portland, Oregon instead of the neighborhood article? The business is already mentioned there appropriately. ---Another Believer _(Talk) 00:51, 19 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@E.M.Gregory and Lord Bolingbroke: Thoughts? I should also note, Joq's Tavern and Joq's redirect to LGBT culture in Portland, Oregon. ---Another Believer _(Talk) 00:52, 19 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Another Believer: I think this is an excellent option that makes the whole "neighborhood articles aren't business directories" rationale for deletion moot. I personally see no downsides to this redirect. I'm also fine with redirecting to Sullivan's Gulch, Portland, Oregon as you originally proposed. Lord Bolingbroke (talk) 01:14, 19 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Another Believer/the creator, those shouldn't exist either, IMO but you're by all means welcome to AfD those too. Even within the article itself, the quotation "This Northeast neighborhood joint is just your average blue-collar tavern. Nothing special. And people wouldn't want it any other way." does not assert notability. It's just a damn run of the mill bar and notability even within the local sphere is pale. I think your argument is moot, because Per essay what about article x?Graywalls (talk) 04:19, 19 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Thinking this through, I DO NOT support a redirect of this non-notable bar to neighborhood page.E.M.Gregory (talk) 14:37, 19 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

E.M.Gregory, But what about the LGBT culture in Portland, Oregon article? ---Another Believer _(Talk) 14:59, 19 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

It looks as though all of the establishments in the "Nightlife" section of the page are bluelinked, except Sullivans. Which is sourced, but not bluelinked. I'm frankly not sure it belongs on the page. Portland seems to have quite a lot of nightspots that pass WP:GNG. I don't see the argument for singling our this particular non-notable bar and adding it to the page.E.M.Gregory (talk) 15:23, 19 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

E.M.Gregory, But if there are multiple sources describing Joq's/Sullivan's relationship to Portland's gay community, what's wrong with adding mention of the establishment to the appropriate section? I suppose whether or not to include mention of Joq's/Sullivan's within the "LGBT culture of Portland, Oregon" article is a separate matter. For now, we're just deciding whether the Sullivan's page should be deleted or redirected. Given mention in the current LGBT culture article, I suggest redirecting so easier editor navigation and because redirects are cheap. ---Another Believer _(Talk) 17:26, 19 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The happiest outcome would be to find enough WP:SIGCOV to keep it as a page.E.M.Gregory (talk) 17:31, 19 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

E.M.Gregory, Right, but I'm not sure that's possible at this time, hence adding mention in the LGBT culture article. I've not spent time combing through The Oregonian archives to compile a list of sources and support keeping the standalone article. I believe more research is needed, hence my vote to simply redirect for now, rather than deleting the entire article's history. ---Another Believer _(Talk) 17:35, 19 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

If I'm reading correctly, you're currently voting to delete the article. Do you still believe the page should be deleted, or have I overlooked where you may have changed your vote? ---Another Believer _(Talk) 17:36, 19 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I do a lot of AfD and I usually vote to delete. I work hard to keep and source articles I find at AfD, and often succeed. But the truth is that the majority of articles that get to AfD get here because the sources just aren't there to pass our notability standards.E.M.Gregory (talk) 18:25, 19 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@E.M.Gregory: I understand, but does that mean you still want to delete this page even though the redirect serves a purpose by directing readers to the LGBT culture in Portland, Oregon article? ---Another Believer _(Talk) 18:30, 19 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Yes. But let add that I, too, have created articles that I thought were notable, only to find that I was mistaken, and the sources just weren't there.E.M.Gregory (talk) 18:51, 19 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

OK, thanks for clarifying. I'm not sure I understand why you'd want to delete a page when the redirect would serve a purpose, but that's ok. Thanks again! ---Another Believer _(Talk) 18:53, 19 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

While Another Believer does so with civility, his approach comes across as tenaciously pressuring and manipulating to get his way. Remember, emphasize on the policy based argument and tap into previous noticeboard discussions if needed. Graywalls (talk) 19:27, 19 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Graywalls, What? I'm not pressuring anyone to vote any particular way. Look, my life will go on just fine if this page is deleted. I'm posing a fair question, which is why would we delete a page when the redirect serves a purpose? ---Another Believer _(Talk) 19:29, 19 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I have already expressed my reason for this earlier on in this AfD, therefore I will refer you back to that. Graywalls (talk) 19:34, 19 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

(I wasn't asking you again, I just just replying to your comment accusing me of being manipulative.) ---Another Believer _(Talk) 19:41, 19 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to LGBT culture in Portland, Oregon. The subject is appropriately referenced in the LGBT Culture in PDX article. Since it's covered there, a redirect seems the best option. --Kbabej (talk) 22:20, 19 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. TonyBallioni (talk) 16:25, 20 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

C. R. Kesavan[edit]

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

He is a spokesperson for the party, not an elected politician. Also many references talk about the fact that he is the great-grandson of C. Rajagopalachari, a legendary figure during the Indian independence movement and a little while after. No source mentions how he passes WP:ANYBIO by himself. So I believe this person is not notable enough. Daiyusha (talk) 09:20, 26 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Update: The article creator has been banned for being a sockpuppet, part of a reasonably big sockfarm. Daiyusha (talk) 11:50, 15 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 09:37, 26 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 09:37, 26 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - He presided as the Vice-President of the Rajiv Gandhi National Institute of Youth Development, which is a ministerial position. He also held the post of board member of the Prasar Bharati(India's largest Public broadcasting agency). He is a very prominent TV figure, who gets featured in most national TV debates, as he represents the views of the the Indian National Congress. A lot of national channel debates and discussions show up when his name is video searched. These, I believe, allow the article to satisfy the conditions of WP:NPOL, he has held national office and has had significant press coverage. It is true that he is referred to as the great grandson of C. Rajagopalachari in most news sources. However, I believe this must not be held as grounds for claiming the article as not notable enough. Crayonmush (talk) 12:37, 26 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Is the Vice president of the RGNIYD a ministerial position, I doubt that, based on what I know ministers in India are at the least heads of a department(like transportation, education etc) of a state . Being a board member of a company is not enough to be notable. Being a prominent TV figure, now that could be a sign of notability. TO be considered for WP:NPOL he should be a politician or atleast participated in an election. Daiyusha (talk) 13:01, 26 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I stand corrected, the Vice President/Vice Chairman (used interchangeably ) of the RGNIYD is not a ministerial position, it is held by someone who is "an eminent person in the field of Youth Development to be nominated by the Visitor", as per the Act(source). Doesn't being a spokesperson of a party mean he is a politician, as a Politician is defined as a person active in party politics, or a person holding or seeking office in government. Thank you for the quick response. Crayonmush (talk) 13:47, 26 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

"Politicians and judges who have held international, national or sub-national (statewide/provincewide) office, and members or former members of a national, state or provincial legislature", well that implies elected people are considered politicians as per WP:NPOL. Of course the meaning is a bit vague, but for wiki purposes only elected people are considered so. Daiyusha (talk) 17:04, 26 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with you about this particular article, but the claim that "for wiki purposes only elected people are considered so" is not true. No member of the federal executive branch in the US is elected, apart from the president and vice-president, but senior members clearly pass WP:POLITICIAN by virtue of their offices. Phil Bridger (talk) 11:06, 27 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Blocked sockpuppet: Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Himalayrd. MER-C 09:01, 27 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Vanamonde (Talk) 18:24, 5 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ad Orientem (talk) 01:19, 13 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Fails notability for biographies of living persons. --Rsrikanth05 (talk) 10:19, 15 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete fails WP:NPOL and WP:GNG as there is no substantive coverage on the subject in multiple independent and reliable sources. चाचा विधायक हैं हमारे is not a valid claim to notability. :) — Nearly Headless Nick {c} 11:04, 17 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Anyone is free to create a redirect at editorial discretion. TonyBallioni (talk) 16:24, 20 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

South German Offensive[edit]

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

WP:OR title and scope of article. No such name for this period of World War II is used in secondary sources. (See Google books for 'southern german offensive' and for 'south german offensive'. Kges1901 (talk) 01:10, 13 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. Kges1901 (talk) 01:11, 13 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. Kges1901 (talk) 01:15, 13 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Is not the "general name" of the campaign; the US Army officially calls it "Central Europe" (cf. List of United States Army campaigns during World War II), and our article that covers it is Western Allied invasion of Germany. Nothing of value here. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 01:42, 14 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - While expansion of the role of the 6th Army and battles it fought are possible, this title is OR and seems to incorrectly (in my opinion) treat it as a separate, complimentary campaign to the 12th's. I don't think a redirect to Western Allied invasion of Germany would be any good because the title, "South German Offensive", need not refer to an allied effort during WWII (for instance, it could just as easily refer to Napoleon's southwestern campaign covered at Army of the Danube). Smmurphy^(Talk) 16:41, 15 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
REdirect -- the term is a credible search term, but this article is little more than a dictionary definition. Peterkingiron (talk) 17:17, 17 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. TonyBallioni (talk) 16:23, 20 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

BitGold[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

I don't see how this passes our new and improved notability requirements for companies. Coverage appears to be entirely routine; a source such as The Guardian might be thought reliable, but turns out to be just a blog post. Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 22:05, 5 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 22:55, 5 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 22:55, 5 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Finance-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 22:56, 5 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Delete Classic startup with refs that fails WP:NCORP and WP:ORGIND. No real coverage, usual acquisitions, stock, buyout churnalism. Press releases were previously removed in 2015 and then new press releases added back. Highly promotional. Spam target, wasting editors time constant cleanup/fill with the crap, cycle. scope_creep^Talk 10:49, 6 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I was almost swayed by that Guardian piece! Thanks for noting that it was merely a blog. Fails WP:NCORP. Pegnawl (talk) 14:42, 6 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep The arguments I made in the last AfD still hold. I also strongly object to re-listing an article for deletion after so short a time period - there was no consensus then, so there is no particular reason why there should be a consensus now. The real purpose in listing this article is to have a discussion without all those inconvenient "keep" voices. In terms of "wasting editor time", the real waste of time is in replying to these constant AfDs. Personally, I have largely stopped editing Wikipedia, because I am so discouraged by the power of the deletionists over AFDs - I never know when one of my articles will be nominated for deletion, and my hard work deleted by the whim of some deletionist editor who thinks that almost every company article is spam. I would ask those participating in this discussion how many company articles you have written. If the answer is none, are you really qualified to judge those articles written by others? -Mparrault (talk) 15:03, 7 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hi @Mparrault: How are you? Don't lose hope. Six months is a fair bit of time for a relisting gap. As regards the article, you seem to write in a particularity promotional manner that reflects the language of business, specifically marketing and branding as opposed to the language of Wikipedia, which is neutral, factual, verifiable and free of promotion. scope_creep^Talk 13:07, 9 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Administrator note Almost nine months has passed since the last AfD. That's more than a reasonable wait before renominating. -Ad Orientem (talk) 01:02, 13 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ad Orientem (talk) 01:02, 13 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisting note: Under normal circumstances I might have closed this as a delete. But after reading the last AfD I think this may benefit from some more discussion. -Ad Orientem (talk) 01:07, 13 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: does not meet WP:CORPDEPTH under either name. Sources are not independent, WP:SPIP and / or passing mentions. WP:TOOSOON per review of available sources. --K.e.coffman (talk) 00:25, 16 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Guardian piece is blog, and Forbes piece mentioned in previous AfD is a casual mention, providing no in-depth coverage of the topic. The balance of the article is based on press released, so GNG and NCORP are not met, and I can't think of any other criteria by which this topic achieves notability. 78.26 _{(spin me / revolutions)} 16:05, 20 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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