Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2019 March 15

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< 14 March 16 March >

Purge server cache

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

The result was delete. Beeblebrox (talk) 18:31, 22 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

AbdelFattah Rahhaoui[edit]

AbdelFattah Rahhaoui (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Reading over this biography, it just strikes me that this individual is not notable enough for an article on Wikipedia. He seems like an important subject in French media about political issues but he doesn't deserve an article on the merits of what he has accomplished in life. Any fame he might have does not arise from his occupation and role there. Liz Read! Talk! 01:36, 16 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Islam-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 02:03, 16 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of France-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 02:04, 16 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 02:04, 16 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per WP:TNT. The article is a POV mess, and it's impossible to assess notability. WP:CLERGY lacks a guideline about imams. Miniapolis 02:25, 16 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per WP:CRIME. The only thing that this person seems to be notable for is a criminal investigation, and per WP:CRIME this individual doesn't seem to qualify for their own article. The fact that they run a school is not notable. On top of that, the article is terribly POV and bordering on BLP problems. Captain Eek Edits Ho Cap'n!⚓ 07:28, 16 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete all reference in French. Perhaps they need to post this in French version of Wiki as it is more relevant to people in France than worldwide. Peter303x (talk) 02:06, 21 March 2019 (UTC) 20240602124516[reply]
  • Delete not notable, even in France. POV and more POV. --Giorgio69 (talk) 21:52, 21 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nomination. Editors who suggest using the French-Wikipedia article on the subject should know that there is currently no such article there. -The Gnome (talk) 11:38, 22 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
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. no prejudice against recreation as an appropriate redirect Beeblebrox (talk) 18:35, 22 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Israel F-16 Crash[edit]

Israel F-16 Crash (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

I originally moved this one to draftspace for further work, as the writing is so bad that the article would need to be completely rewritten. I then discovered that February 2018 Israel–Syria incident already exists, and so Informed the article's creator. However, they insisted on moving this article back into mainspace. BilCat (talk) 22:51, 15 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. MarginalCost (talk) 23:04, 15 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Aviation-related deletion discussions. MarginalCost (talk) 23:04, 15 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Israel-related deletion discussions. MarginalCost (talk) 23:04, 15 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 23:21, 15 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
It's very unfair which you say most content is not worth keeping, The Article contain reliable sources and only pay to incident.MarginalCost reconsider The Article please.Forest90 (talk) 14:28, 16 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Changing to delete per arguments below about ambiguity of link. Here is a list of Israeli F-16 crashes; no reason to privilege this incident. MarginalCost (talk) 08:46, 19 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
ZLEA, I think the Article totaly is a good Article with reliable sources and only pay to that incident... The writer shape a standard wikipedia Article... If you agree with me support the Article.Forest90 (talk) 14:28, 16 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Forest90 Actually, the article needs a lot of work as it doesn't comply with Wikipedia:Manual of Style. If you want to keep the article, you should move it back to the draft space where you and other editors can contribute until it's ready to be put back into the mainspace. Also, we all know that you were the one who created the article, so refering to yourself as "the writer" or "the author" is not helping. - ZLEA Talk\Contribs 16:39, 17 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
The article also appears to be written in an anti-Israeli point of view, a violation of WP:NPOV. - ZLEA Talk\Contribs 16:43, 17 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect: Per two above !votes. While I would think a duplicate article that is badly written might deserve deletion, along with the fact a copy was archived, there was mention of "a few details about the strike could also be considered for merging". I do agree it does not deserve to remain as a stand alone article. Otr500 (talk) 12:22, 16 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Otr500, I rode you'r comment but if you look at this incident you will find as an important incident. In this Article which you said be delete the autor used reliable sources and only pay to incident. compeletly deserve be a Wikipedia Article I think so....Forest90 (talk) 14:28, 16 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Reply: First, I am glad to see editors working to build a better encyclopedia. Questions to answer:
1)- Is this incident part of February 2018 Israel–Syria incident?
2)- If so why add new stubs or even start-class articles? This would be a split of another article? This is especially true when it would be an improvement to add to what already exists, as part of or an incident related to the other article.
Unless there is some clear reasoning that a separate article should be created it does not make sense to branch off another stub or start-class article, especially when it is so closely related. The idea is to continually improve Wikipedia not just increase the size.
I agree with a redirect because a separate stand alone is not needed. Some editors and admins that close discussions sometimes get a little confused. "Keep" means just that, as well as "delete". All other AFD options are alternatives to deletion, that includes merging, redirecting, and Incubation. In this case (a draft) incubation would be to "keep" in draft space. A redirect (blank-and-redirect), not being part BRD, would normally need a discussion and consensus before reverting. Now, adding in that this article is most definitely problematic the options are more narrow. I mean this with all due respect but the above comments "...is so bad that the article would need to be completely rewritten." is kind wording. The grammar is such that it is very hard to read and make sense of so would definitely have to be completely rewritten. This is not in any way meant to discourage you, or any other editor, but there is so much that would need correction, above the normal editing issues, that it would be impossible to even merge any of the content without a rewriting.
It might be a good idea to activate spell check (if not already being used) and right-click on words underlined in red.
The main issue is that an article already exists and any usable content here could be used in that article. An editor has archived the content so it can be worked on if a redirect is affirmed by consensus. Otr500 (talk) 17:49, 17 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep The ArticleThis is good Article and use reliable sources and only pay to an incident...not more or less...Also the article didn't violated any Wikipedia rolls and I think this sentences are considerable and show the Article value: It is the second time that Israel has lost an aircraft in the invasion to neighbors countries.[1] First one happened in 2006 when an Israeli helicopter was shot down over Lebanon war by a Hezbollah rocket.[1] Forest90 (talk) 13:44, 16 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect Delete (can apply to other crashes). No need for two articles on the same subject. Clarityfiend (talk) 19:03, 18 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Strongly oppose redirect. This is a poor fork of the incident article. As for a redirect - there have been several notable Israeli F-16 crashes over the past 30 years (off the top of my head - a crash of a f16 returning from Gaza with off balanced weapon load exploding on ghe runway and killing the pilot, or the crash of the son of Israel's first astronaut Asaf Ramon would be quite notable) - so the redirect for this certainsly should not be to the 2018 incident (one could have a dab or list - maybe).Icewhiz (talk) 21:01, 18 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
The article would most likely be moved to a more specific name if it is redirected. - ZLEA Talk\Contribs 23:04, 18 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete and re-direct to February 2018 Israel–Syria incident--Petebutt (talk) 21:41, 18 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Not every F-16 crash that is part of a particular conflict is notable. Bohbye (talk) 23:04, 18 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete or redirect to the February 2018 Israel–Syria incident article. No clear solid reason(s) for this downing justifies its own separate article. -Fnlayson (talk) 01:02, 19 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, as far as I can tell the claim to notability is that it was the first IAF jet fighter combat loss in 36 years, but I don't see why that should warrant an article. The event is already (and more coherently) covered at the February 2018 Israel–Syria incident article, and the term is too vague to keep as a redirect - even if the page is moved as ZLEA suggests, we still have the problem of a vague redirect. Better to create a new more-specific redirect and just do away with this. YSSYguy (talk) 06:16, 19 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    Not the first combat loss - e.g. F-16 crashed in 2016 returning from an airstrike in Gaza, which crashed possibly due to load asymmetry (ordnance on one wing, none on the other).[1]. In 2006 a Helicopter was shot down in Lebanon.[2] It is the first jet fighter in 36 years to SAM fire.Icewhiz (talk) 13:30, 20 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete and re-direct to February 2018 Israel–Syria incident as there is a very similar page already there. -- Peter303x (talk) 02:02, 21 March 2019 (UTC) 20240602124516[reply]
  • Delete per nomination. A redirect would not be amiss. -The Gnome (talk) 10:07, 22 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
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. Beeblebrox (talk) 18:30, 22 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

UWS Hockey Club[edit]

UWS Hockey Club (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Non notable student club, references do not indicate notability of subject Aloneinthewild (talk) 22:23, 15 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. Icewhiz (talk) 22:39, 15 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. Icewhiz (talk) 22:39, 15 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Scotland-related deletion discussions. Icewhiz (talk) 22:39, 15 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 12:00, 16 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Lacks proper references for the main sentence on top which is majority of the article. Peter303x (talk) 02:10, 21 March 2019 (UTC) 20240602124516[reply]
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
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) ‡ Єl Cid of ᐺalencia ᐐT₳LKᐬ 13:45, 22 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Lou Sanders[edit]

Lou Sanders (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Does not meet WP:NACTOR requirements. Tyw7 (🗣️ Talk) — If (reply) then (ping me) 22:04, 15 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Tyw7 (🗣️ Talk) — If (reply) then (ping me) 22:04, 15 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Tyw7 (🗣️ Talk) — If (reply) then (ping me) 22:04, 15 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Popular culture-related deletion discussions. Tyw7 (🗣️ Talk) — If (reply) then (ping me) 22:04, 15 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. Tyw7 (🗣️ Talk) — If (reply) then (ping me) 22:04, 15 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. I have added some content and refs. I think she meets all 3 parts of WP:NACTOR. She's been in notable (linked) radio and television series. She evidently has a lot of fans (shown by number of tours and performances). And I haven't tried to put this in the article, but several of the reviews talk about her doing a different style of comedy, particularly in Shame Pig. Also, she won an award at the Edinburgh Fringe. Tacyarg (talk) 23:18, 15 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: regular participant in Radio 4 The Unbelievable Truth, Edinburgh award (verifed, another source added), plenty more coverage: notable. PamD 08:46, 16 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Also meets basic WP:GNG, with WP:SIGCOV in Tier 1 UK WP:RS: Guardian, Guardian, Times, Guardian, BBC. There are more. Britishfinance (talk) 00:42, 22 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Agree that it meets basic WP:GNG Peter303x (talk) 02:17, 21 March 2019 (UTC) 20240602124516[reply]
  • Keep per evidence of notability provided above by Britishfinance, PamD, and others. -The Gnome (talk) 11:41, 22 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. Beeblebrox (talk) 18:37, 22 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Liberal Catholic Church Grail Community[edit]

Liberal Catholic Church Grail Community (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Lack of sufficient reliable sources to establish notability. Searching finds one brief mention in a reliable source–David V. Barrett (26 May 2011). A Brief Guide to Secret Religions: A Complete Guide to Hermetic, Pagan and Esoteric Beliefs. Little, Brown Book Group. p. 58. ISBN 978-1-84901-811-1.–but it is a single sentence. That isn't significant coverage. This appears to be a small religious group (a splinter of the Liberal Catholic Church) which hasn't attracted sufficient notice from reliable sources to be considered notable. SJK (talk) 20:14, 15 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. SJK (talk) 20:15, 15 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. SJK (talk) 20:15, 15 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom, as I could also find no coverage. MidwestSalamander (talk) 22:47, 15 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment This strikes me as a miniscule splinter denomination. I think we should either tolerate an article surviving or find a target where it an other similar movements can be briefly merged. Peterkingiron (talk) 17:04, 17 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Total lack of reliable secondary coverage. Also the article is essentially too stteped in how the group would self describe and thus is not really NPOV.John Pack Lambert (talk) 04:20, 20 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete No references provided. Perhaps it is revised to add references it can stay. Peter303x (talk) 02:19, 21 March 2019 (UTC) 20240602124516[reply]
  • Delete per nomination. Editors believing in the resurrection (of the text) can always save & use as appropriate. -The Gnome (talk) 11:44, 22 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
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) Natg 19 (talk) 00:41, 22 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Nikola Tesla Memorial Center[edit]

Nikola Tesla Memorial Center (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Fails WP:GNG.
Nikola Tesla was one of the world's foremost electrical researchers and inventors, but notability is not inherited, and I can find no evidence that this museum has any significant independent coverage in reliable sources. (e.g. Gbooks just throws up pasing mentions). The existing sources are externals links to the museum's own website and other tourism sites (which are not reliable sources, and probably not independent).
The article's creator is a new editor @Silverije, who wrote[3] in a discussion on my talk that the most important fact is that the Memorial Center exists and operates. However, that is clearly not the basis of WP:Notability. Many things in this world exist, but do not meet the criteria for a Wikipedia article. Wikipedia is not a travel guide.
It may be helpful to redirect this page to Nikola Tesla, but I see no reliably-sourced content worth merging. BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 19:18, 15 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Croatia-related deletion discussions. XOR'easter (talk) 19:22, 15 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. XOR'easter (talk) 19:22, 15 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. XOR'easter (talk) 19:22, 15 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Doncram: a) I did not make this nomination for cleanup, b) I did WP:BEFORE, unsuccessfully, c) there is no guideline suggesting automatic notability for museums ... and the essay WP:ITSAMUSEUM is circular-logic childish drivel which should be deleted. (I just went to see who wrote that nonsense, and no surprise, it's a Doncram creation)..
If the sources added do establish notability, then fine. But before they were added, it was just a travel brochure, not an encyclopedia article. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 00:27, 18 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I can vouch for this. It's notable, but the article needed a decent amount of cleanup to get out of the WP:PROMO sphere. SportingFlyer T·C 00:48, 18 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - Though "Nikola Tesla Memorial Center" is not the most fruitful of search terms, the museum easily passes GNG in Croatian-language sources. PROMO et alia don't affect notability, and even if I were a fan of WP:TNT, the article is (in its current form) in no way in need of a complete rewrite. Daß Wölf 00:34, 18 March 2019 (UTC) BTW regarding the article creator being a new editor, a look at the contribs page shows Silverije has been around since 2009 :)[reply]
  • Keep. WP:ITSAMUSEUM - and yes museums tend to be inherently notable (as they get written about by media, travel books, and other books - as institutions open for public display, they tend to be covered). ESSAY arguments aside - SportingFlyer's sources demonstrate GNG (which is what matters). Icewhiz (talk) 06:52, 18 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. I'll go with WP:ITSAMUSEUM too. I see no value whatsoever in deleting pages on significant museums and historic sites like this. -- Necrothesp (talk) 10:09, 18 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Museums and libraries-related deletion discussions. Necrothesp (talk) 10:09, 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 no consensus. Numerically more users commented in favor to keeping the article, but I'm not seeing a clear policy-based argument in there. Beeblebrox (talk) 18:40, 22 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Total Linhas Aereas Flight 5561[edit]

Total Linhas Aereas Flight 5561 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Tragic but not notable cargo plane crash. ...William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 00:57, 28 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. ...William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 00:58, 28 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. ...William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 00:58, 28 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Aviation-related deletion discussions. ...William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 00:58, 28 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Brazil-related deletion discussions. ...William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 00:58, 28 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. If the ATR-42 was carrying passengers and not cargo this probably would've been notable (I think I might update WP:AIRCRASH in this regard). As is - the sources in the article do not establish SIGCOV, and I do not see much else. Icewhiz (talk) 09:07, 28 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. I understand cargo flights are not as notable and SIGCOV is lacking but we do have two fatalities and a destroyed aircraft. Please see Loganair Flight 670A and Skyway Enterprises Flight 7101. I found the final accident report (in Spanish) and if this article survives I'll add detail (and there is plenty) best as I can. - Samf4u (talk) 17:18, 28 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. The article does not mention this, but the aviation-safety.net reference says that the crash led to an airworthiness directive for the ATR-42. However, this fact needs better sources than the air crash databases to establish significance. Notability is not established, but it can be minimally asserted. • Gene93k (talk) 18:04, 28 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ~SS49~ {talk} 12:47, 7 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - I don't hold with the view that cargo flights are not as notable as passenger flights. We have a relatively large airlined that was destroyed. Article needs improvement, but that is not a reason to delete. Mjroots (talk) 14:35, 12 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    Aircraft with passengers generate more news items and subsequent follow on sources. Losing a 19MUSD airframe and 2 crew - well - is not as noteworthy. But what matters are the sources (AIRCRASH is merely an essay) - if you are advocating retention - please provide a few reliable in-depth sources.Icewhiz (talk) 22:04, 15 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - Considering the outcome of the accident, it qualifies the criteria in WP:AIRCRASH, all the article needs is expansion on the current content MegaFlyCraft (talk) 14:40, 20 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 17:31, 14 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
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. Beeblebrox (talk) 18:44, 22 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

McCartney Quinn[edit]

McCartney Quinn (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

No other significant coverage found than sources on page, only one of which is actually about her. Fails WP:GNG. Willsome429 (say hey or see my edits!) 18:16, 15 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. Icewhiz (talk) 22:00, 15 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Food and drink-related deletion discussions. Icewhiz (talk) 22:00, 15 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Missouri-related deletion discussions. Icewhiz (talk) 22:00, 15 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Does not meet basic WP:GNG and lacks proper references. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Peter303x (talk • contribs) 02:22, 21 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy Delete More like a WP:G11. Hardly a single WP:RS on the subject. She was named "one of Kansas City's top 50 Influencers" by Blogger Local: Kansas City, an un-notable KC online blog. Article's main references are spam-links to her various small businesses. Would be surprised if this BLP makes it the full 7 days. Britishfinance (talk) 00:52, 22 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete this promotional text, claimed to be about an "influencer." -The Gnome (talk) 10:09, 22 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
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. Beeblebrox (talk) 18:47, 22 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Sheetal Manufacturing Company Pvt. Ltd.[edit]

Sheetal Manufacturing Company Pvt. Ltd. (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Non-notable company, no coverage, just passing mentions and a potential hit piece in a non-rs, and employing 1500 people in a city of 7 million is not even significant. Note: I looked under Sheetal Group, Sheetal Manufacturing and Sheetal Diamonds, same outcome. Praxidicae (talk) 17:38, 15 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 17:55, 15 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 17:55, 15 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • I haven't looked into notability yet, but must point out that employing 1500 people in Mumbai is just as important as would be employing all 1500 people in a village, so that bit of the nomination statement is invalid. Phil Bridger (talk) 19:35, 15 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
It was in reference to the decline. Stating x company employs y number of people is irrelevant. Praxidicae (talk) 19:46, 15 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Well then, what was the relevance in giving the population of Mumbai? I'll treat that as a rhetorical question and give the answer myself: obviously none at all. Why don't you just present the facts in deletion discussions rather than attempt to poison the well? Phil Bridger (talk) 20:56, 15 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I believe I have explained this. Specifically because the decline was based on the number of employees, which you'd know if you read the history of the article. Take a chill pill. Praxidicae (talk) 00:29, 17 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete – having 1500 employees is enough of a claim of significance to decline an A7, but not enough to save this article. I can't find enough sources to satisfy NCORP. Bradv🍁 19:54, 15 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
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. Beeblebrox (talk) 18:46, 22 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

List of Nepalese billionaires by net worth[edit]

List of Nepalese billionaires by net worth (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

A list of one person doesn't seem very useful. Praxidicae (talk) 17:00, 15 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists of people-related deletion discussions. MarginalCost (talk) 17:30, 15 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Nepal-related deletion discussions. MarginalCost (talk) 17:30, 15 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Out of a few random clicks, I've yet to find one that's sourced (reliably.) Seems a bit silly of a list in any case.Praxidicae (talk) 18:11, 15 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Yeah I just went through the list, most of these aren't sourced even to non-rs, let alone rs. Praxidicae (talk) 18:17, 15 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
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/merge. No -one besides the nominator commented in favor of deletion, whether to merge can be discussed on the relevant talk page. Beeblebrox (talk) 18:50, 22 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Aggravation of class struggle under socialism[edit]

Aggravation of class struggle under socialism (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

WP:VERIFY. Inadequate sources. No source for the concept nor significance. --Hartz (talk) 16:51, 15 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. MarginalCost (talk) 17:35, 15 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. MarginalCost (talk) 17:35, 15 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment the theory was an important component of soviet thinking for many decades. I’ll se what sources I can find. Mccapra (talk) 19:37, 15 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Social science-related deletion discussions. North America1000 20:20, 16 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge into Class conflict#Socialism. Needs more sources to prove notability on it's own, this article was created in 2004 so I'm not holding my breath. Hydromania (talk) 05:28, 17 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge per above. Raymond3023 (talk) 18:43, 19 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. This is not Marxist concept of Class Struggle. As page correctly tells, this a specific Stalinist concept, one of ideological cornerstones of Stalinist terror in the Soviet Union. The term is more widely used in Russian as "обострение классовой борьбы при социализме", ~17,000 Google books hits [7]. This should be better kept as a separate subpage. My very best wishes (talk) 00:33, 21 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • strong keep. I understand that a random westrrn wikipedian has zero knowledge about stalinism besides it was evil. And aggavation of ignorance under no interest in exercising due diligence. And of course prominent historians like snyder (cited) have no say wor wikipedia. - Altenmann >talk 02:21, 21 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I noticed that a more common term is "intensification" rather than "aggravation". I guess the article better be renamed. - Altenmann >talk 02:41, 21 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Altenmann is correct. ‘Intensification’ is the usual term, and the article should be renamed. Mccapra (talk) 07:49, 22 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge into Stalinism, since the contested subject is a random slogan for a Soviet political program during the Stalin era, without independent notability outside of the wider context. -The Gnome (talk) 11:52, 22 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
That was not a random slogan. As page correctly tells, that "was one of the cornerstones of Stalinism in the internal politics of the Soviet Union". My very best wishes (talk) 16:24, 22 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was speedy keep per WP:SK2. Nom by blocked sock. (non-admin closure) Alpha3031 (t • c) 04:04, 17 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Sungkai (state constituency)[edit]

Sungkai (state constituency) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

The article does not have any sources, and whatsoever it does not meet the WP:GNG. 'ShUbHaMXTalkᗙ 16:12, 15 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Malaysia-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 16:19, 15 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. Flapjacktastic (talk) 18:56, 15 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy keep and improve: it's a constituency of the Perak State Legislative Assembly. A typically boneheaded nomination from another blocked sockpuppet of a serial bad-nomination pest. Flapjacktastic (talk) 18:42, 15 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy keep Second level constituency in a large country, equivalent to a state constituency in the US or a Scottish Parliament constituency, which we have articles for. Number 57 23:13, 15 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment – Struck the nomination atop, which was posted by a confirmed sock puppet (WP:SOCKSTRIKE). North America1000 20:25, 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. Beeblebrox (talk) 19:00, 22 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Under the Influence (Wildside album)[edit]

Under the Influence (Wildside album) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Due to the commonality of both the album and band name, could find no in-depth coverage of this album. Fails WP:GNG and WP:NALBUM. Could be a redirect to the band, but keeps getting recreated as a very poorly sourced article, with no indication of notability. Onel5969 TT me 15:16, 15 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. CASSIOPEIA(talk) 15:32, 15 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. CASSIOPEIA(talk) 15:32, 15 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as per nomination.TH1980 (talk) 02:39, 17 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: fails WP:NALBUM, and no other in-depth independent sources were found. Other editors may say to redirect to the artist's article, but frankly that article is complete OR (the one source in the artist's article turns out to be a user review) and should be put up for AfD as well. Both articles appear to be a band member's attempt at promotion. Richard3120 (talk) 14:49, 18 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
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. Nominator withdrawal due to concerns being met. (non-admin closure) Kirbanzo (userpage - talk - contribs) 21:08, 19 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Spring Awakening (film)[edit]

Spring Awakening (film) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Fails WP:NFILM due to having no sourced claim of notability, as well as only consisting of a lead and a cast listing. Only one source, and WP:BEFORE failed to bring up anything of note (but that may be due to the German military offensive of similar name taking up results). Kirbanzo (userpage - talk - contribs) 15:12, 15 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment: Couldn't notify initial contributor (Lord Cornwallis) due to the fact adding the notification would have exceeded 2048 kilobytes. Kirbanzo (userpage - talk - contribs) 15:14, 15 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 16:23, 15 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Germany-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 16:23, 15 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak Keep because this (in slide #8) from Deutsche Welle calls the film "The first teenage movie ever?" and says, "Richard Oswald's 1929 film 'Spring Awakening' — based upon the play by Frank Wedekind of the same name — concerns sexuality and puberty among some young German students and is believed to be one of the first teenage movies ever made." There may be more coverage in German-language sources, as it does not seem well-covered in the English-language world. Maybe we can ask German-speaking editors to take a look? At minimum, this should merge/redirect to Spring Awakening (play)#Adaptations. Erik (talk | contrib) (ping me) 16:41, 15 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep as it does have a claim of significance as shown above which is from a reliable sources and this is pre-internet so google should not decide whether it is included, thanks Atlantic306 (talk) 17:06, 16 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per all above. It really shouldn't be all that surprising that a silent film from Weimar Germany doesn't have many Google hits. Ejgreen77 (talk) 19:30, 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 delete. Beeblebrox (talk) 19:02, 22 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Leila Lowfire[edit]

Leila Lowfire (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

This article appears to be an attempted promotion for the person's budding podcast career. Her only real claim to fame is being a famous person's date at one event, and her filmography consists of a few minor roles and merely being a candidate for a reality show. Meanwhile,I can find no evidence that her podcasts have received significant coverage in reliable media sources. ---DOOMSDAYER520 (Talk|Contribs) 14:36, 15 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. ---DOOMSDAYER520 (Talk|Contribs) 14:38, 15 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Germany-related deletion discussions. ---DOOMSDAYER520 (Talk|Contribs) 14:38, 15 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. ---DOOMSDAYER520 (Talk|Contribs) 14:38, 15 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 16:24, 15 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
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. WP:BLPREQUESTDELETE, WP:BLPDELETE, WP:IAR - I have checked the sources in the article, and they are all dead links. The article was created by a single purpose account, and the first revision of it looks like vandalism. I think it behoves us to delete the article immediately. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 15:32, 15 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Nick Ahlmark[edit]

Nick Ahlmark (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

An editor (Nlahlmark) who appears to be the subject of the article has been repeatedly blanking the page and calling for its deletion. There is a provision for this at WP:BLPREQUESTDELETE which allows these sorts of deletions for non-public figures, especially when sourcing is poor. The sourcing, indeed, is not amazing; mostly deadlinks, profiles and interviews. Consider this a nomination on Nlahlmark's behalf; I'm still unable to give a fully informed opinion on notability, but as it stands I would lean toward deletion. – Teratix ₵ 14:09, 15 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. – Teratix ₵ 14:11, 15 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. – Teratix ₵ 14:11, 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 keep. I would strongly suggest that more discussion on the talk page about exactly what this is and how it works would be a good thing. Beeblebrox (talk) 19:05, 22 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

List of African American activists[edit]

List of African American activists (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

The term "activist" is so broad that it is meaningless; this list will not assist anyone in finding anything they are looking for. Lists of specific kinds of activists (e.g. LGBT rights) might be useful. Jayjg (talk) 15:58, 28 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 16:26, 28 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists of people-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 16:26, 28 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Africa-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 16:26, 28 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Ethnic groups-related deletion discussions. Bakazaka (talk) 16:45, 28 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: I too think that having seperate articles for specific activism (eg. LGBT rights) would be the ideal solution here. GN-z11 ☎ ★ 17:55, 28 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete An unsourced, vague list of randomly selected people with no description. Trillfendi (talk) 18:56, 28 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. Too broad and hazy a criterion to be of much use. Clarityfiend (talk) 19:59, 28 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep The term "activist" is clearly not meaningless and the nomination doesn't present any evidence to support its absurd assertion. The page in question also clearly passes WP:LISTN as there are many books on the subject. Here's a good example: African-American Social Leaders and Activists. Note that it has a big picture of Martin Luther King on the cover. There's an entry for him in the list but does anyone really think that a reference is necessary? See WP:BLUESKY. Andrew D. (talk) 20:17, 28 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    • Martin Luther King was not a generic "activist", he was a civil rights activist; not an environmental, or animal rights, or anti-smoking, or LGBT, or women's rights, or any of a dozen more actually useful classifications. Jayjg (talk) 21:29, 28 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
      • Our article about Martin Luther King opens by saying that "Martin Luther King Jr. (January 15, 1929 – April 4, 1968) was an American Baptist minister and activist...". That's a high-traffic GA and so the plain use of the term is uncontroversial. Andrew D. (talk) 21:44, 28 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
        • ... an opening that would quite obviously be improved if it were less vague; perhaps ""Martin Luther King Jr. (January 15, 1929 – April 4, 1968) was an American Baptist minister and civil rights activist...", which is clearly better. Jayjg (talk) 22:02, 28 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep for reasons recited by Andrew D.. WP:Not paper. No compliance with WP:Before. Clearly, there are better alternatives than the Wikipedia equivalent of Capital punishment, deletion. That should only be a last resort. 7&6=thirteen (☎) 20:35, 28 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete article contains no substantial content. --Ernesztina (talk) 21:05, 28 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the Article Rescue Squadron's list of content for rescue consideration. Andrew D. (talk) 21:44, 28 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Comment For all the hand wringing over the lack of clear definition of the phrase "black activitist," this is a remarkably short list. 7&6=thirteen (☎) 12:52, 2 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Question. Is this a list of African Americans who are activists or activists who support African-American causes? Clarityfiend (talk) 19:46, 4 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
The first one. Dream Focus 19:52, 4 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - I think the article can be improved, but the need for improvement does not warrant deletion. In my opinion, I think this list can be formatted into a table - listing the name of the activist and the area of activism they are known for, etc. This is a list of notable people who are known activists. The nominator hasn't provided any justifiable reason for deletion.Tamsier (talk) 10:01, 5 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Okay, I have added a lead and table to heading A.[8] Needs to be completed. Hope that will help the reader. Please feel free to help. If anyone has a better way of doing it please help out. Thanks.Tamsier (talk) 10:57, 5 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, DannyS712 (talk) 03:49, 8 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Nosebagbear (talk) 13:59, 15 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
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. Technically this could have been closed as a speedy keep right after it was posted as the nominator failed to provide a reason and turned out to be a sock anyway. However, after discounting both the nomination as well as comments with no basis in policy I still see a consensus to delete. Beeblebrox (talk) 19:11, 22 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Sasha Compère[edit]

Sasha Compère (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
  • Delete Article is too short, does not contain a photo of the person, and is non-notable. --Ernesztina (talk) 20:59, 28 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: The article being short, not containing a photo isn't really a criteria for deletion. Legion X (talk) 19:23, 1 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 20:52, 28 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 20:52, 28 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 20:53, 28 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Haiti-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 20:54, 28 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Michigan-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 20:54, 28 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Clearly passes general notability there are many sources for this person. All the sources are reliable and the article has two references. And to Ernesztina as well as the nominator it is called a stub and therefore does not automatically mean that it should not be on here just because it is "short" or does not have a photo. If the criteria is to have a photo now then we might as well delete 75% of what is on wikipedia. Games of the world (talk) 23:58, 28 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • keep the article I would like to withdraw my nomination for this AFD MrZINE | talk 19:37, 1 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - the actor does not meet WP:NACTOR (though she might in the future). As for WP:GNG, I fail to find anything other than trivial coverage and press releases mentioning her name in cast lists. Of the current sourcing in the article, one source is about her and that is a short notice about her being cast in the TV show, while the other two are again just mentions of her name. --bonadea contributions talk 13:07, 2 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete clearly fails the multiple significant roles in notable productions test, does not pass any other actor notability criteria.John Pack Lambert (talk) 04:08, 5 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 11:30, 8 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, TheSandDoctor Talk 13:26, 15 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Consensus is that winning the Women Transforming India award isn't sufficient to meet GNG -- RoySmith (talk) 01:36, 23 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Shikha Shah[edit]

Shikha Shah (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Claim of notability but appears to have no notable achievements having just set up a minor business in the last year or so. Fails GNG. Too soon for an article. QuiteUnusual (talk) 11:31, 8 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 11:49, 8 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 11:49, 8 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. North America1000 21:34, 8 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom, WP:TOOSOON and smacks of a vanity/promotional article. WCMemail 01:25, 9 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete I can’t find sources to support this. Mccapra (talk) 13:04, 9 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as she does not meet WP:GNG at this time. There is a slight possibility that the article could be redirected to Women Transforming India but that article is IMO on the TOOSOON side as well. MarnetteD|Talk 00:53, 10 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep as recipient of the UN- and Indian government-sponsored Women Transforming India, which recognises only 12-15 women per year. PamD 08:33, 10 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per PamD. She's also one of two recipients of a new Gujarat University award. --Tagishsimon (talk) 12:40, 11 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, TheSandDoctor Talk 13:25, 15 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Sure. The very first additional criteria: The person has received a well-known and significant award or honor. --Tagishsimon (talk) 12:02, 17 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@Tagishsimon: Thanks for clarifying. It's a bit of a stretch to claim that the Women Transforming India award and the Gujarat University award could be categorized as "well-known" or "significant". That claim could be dispelled simply by looking at the very limited coverage the awards themselves have received. I hope you will agree that just because an award or honour is notable enough to have an article on ENWP, it does not automatically qualify them as being "well-known" or "significant". — Nearly Headless Nick {c} 13:27, 17 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
How good are your Indian language skills, Sir Nic? What actual research have you done to make such a claim. I'm going with the good-faith understanding that the award was sufficiently important that people on the ground in India organised an editathon around it. I don't think it is for us to say, from, presumably, several thousand miles away, that the award did not achieve considerable press in India. There is a thread on the WiR talk page should you want to take this up with a local editor - they'd be better informed than me. --Tagishsimon (talk) 17:01, 17 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@Tagishsimon: Did you just assume my location? :) It should suffice to say that I have a very good understanding of the subject. More importantly, notability of the subject has yet to be established in consonance with this project's official policy. — Nearly Headless Nick {c} 17:07, 17 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
That is your view, Sir Nic. Mine is that the multiple references on her article support "consonance with this project's official policy" so far as coverage is concerned, and that the award supports the additional criteria. I'm not sure how much more clear I can be on these points. --Tagishsimon (talk) 17:51, 17 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Clearly, fails WP:GNG. --Rsrikanth05 (talk) 09:02, 20 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete since subject clearly fails WP:NPERSON. -The Gnome (talk) 10:49, 22 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - while exclusivity is important in an award, I don't think that sole criteria is enough to make it a significant, or well-known award. Absent that, doesn't meet WP:GNG.Onel5969 TT me 17:47, 22 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. Beeblebrox (talk) 19:19, 22 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Jagdish Chaturvedi[edit]

Jagdish Chaturvedi (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Twinkling XfD after IP 2401:4900:2503:1A19:4540:B6DA:8AC4:3DF8 tried to ask for speedy deletion (albeit without knowing how to and somewhat butchering the page). IP's rationale was "The article is regrettably pure self promotion. The personality is not note worthy of encyclopedic inclusion. The article may be moved for deletion with immediate effect. The text in the article resembles to a great extent the text in the personality's personal webpage. Such self aggrandizement and promotion ought not to be entertained on an Encyclopedic Platform." Moral of the story: although I don't know if the IP read/was familiar with general notability guidelines, the IP was on to something, and this article may not meet notability (among other problems the article has). Your folks' thoughts? Captain Eek Edits Ho Cap'n! 06:38, 22 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 18:47, 22 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 18:47, 22 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ~SS49~ {talk} 00:11, 1 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep The personality is a notable author and inventor and therefore should have a Wikipedia Page. The article has been edited to remove promotional content. External links have been removed. Reliable sources and unbiased facts have been included. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Vikas222334 (talk • contribs) 07:24, 1 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 02:24, 8 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, 78.26 (spin me / revolutions) 13:19, 15 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. Consensus was they pass WP:NACTOR. (non-admin closure) Onel5969 TT me 17:49, 22 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Patricia Patts[edit]

Patricia Patts (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Non-notable subject. CSD was declined, was told to put in an AfD instead. JAH2k (talk) 13:10, 15 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 16:26, 15 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 16:27, 15 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 16:27, 15 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 16:28, 15 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 16:30, 15 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep as has some prominent roles in notable productions such as at least three Charlie Brown films where she is second in the cast list so passes WP:NACTOR Atlantic306 (talk) 17:25, 16 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep for reasons already mentioned, and the starring role in a significant production of Annie. Not to mention that she played Peppermint Patty and her name is Patricia Patts. Nick Number (talk) 18:17, 19 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Her article shows that she meets WP:NACTOR. Britishfinance (talk) 01:36, 22 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 delete per WP:G12[9]. — Nearly Headless Nick {c} 09:22, 17 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Vinayak Dalmia[edit]

Vinayak Dalmia (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Fails WP:NPOL and WP:GNG. Couldn't find enough references in reliable and independent sources where the subject has been covered in-depth. Hitro talk 12:19, 15 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I checked all the RS-compliant references given in the article and none supports the claims that the subject is that party's spokesperson. All the references are incidental mentions or contributor profiles on citizen journalism portals. Also, the article is so full of WP:PUFFERY that it would require a rewrite from scratch even if better sources are miraculously found. — kashmīrī TALK 12:25, 15 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - The article has been previously deleted for no independent sources, no evidence of notability, autobiography. The article has been recreated without any improvements.--___CAPTAIN MEDUSAtalk 12:29, 15 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - The current referencing is mostly primary sources or article by, not about, Dalmia. The Forbes article is a contributor article which essentially means that there has been no editorial oversight exercised by Forbes on the content, and is it is in essence a glorified blog post. I can find no coverage about this person to establish notability. - Whpq (talk) 14:05, 15 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 16:32, 15 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 16:32, 15 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 16:33, 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. -- Patar knight - chat/contributions 15:35, 22 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Atul Singh[edit]

Atul Singh (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Absolute fluff piece on a non-notable individual. Sources are largely primary and unreliable. Copious amounts of WP:ORIGINALSYN and WP:UNSOURCED material. Fails criteria listed in WP:BIO. — Nearly Headless Nick {c} 11:58, 15 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. Icewhiz (talk) 12:08, 15 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Journalism-related deletion discussions. Icewhiz (talk) 12:08, 15 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Law-related deletion discussions. Icewhiz (talk) 12:08, 15 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Icewhiz (talk) 12:08, 15 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. Icewhiz (talk) 12:08, 15 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - per nom. But interesting side note - much of the article's content comes from a number of user accounts with a similar naming style who have only made edits to this article. I'm going to take a wild guess and say that this article was largely written by its subject. Cosmic Sans (talk) 14:33, 15 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. — Nearly Headless Nick {c} 20:44, 18 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete A cursory search for Atul Singh and Fair Observer (together) throws up no results other than his own and FO. All videos are either uploaded by him or FO. Only other link is an IIT alumni link but that is meaningless. Fails GNG. --Rsrikanth05 (talk) 19:22, 19 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    My mistake. I thought it was an alumni link when I opened it; it was just a general bio. Nothing there to establish his notability there. He does have the blue tick on Twitter, but given the ease with which practically anyone can get a blue tick (and others don't including a Nobel laureate), I stand by my earlier !vote. --Rsrikanth05 (talk) 19:30, 19 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete this promotional and possibly self-penned text trying to pass off as worthy of Wikipedia space, when no evidence supporting the subject's notability exists. -The Gnome (talk) 11:56, 22 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. Beeblebrox (talk) 18:28, 22 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

World Crohn's and Colitis Day[edit]

World Crohn's and Colitis Day (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

World IBD Day for Crohn's and colitis on May 19 appears from a Google search to be the main observance Shillings1005 (talk) 09:43, 8 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. Icewhiz (talk) 10:30, 8 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. Icewhiz (talk) 10:30, 8 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Jovanmilic97 (talk) 10:56, 15 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Could not find any reference to this day online, which is strange given it started post 2007 and by definition should promoted? Tried various combinations of the words in my search, but got nothing. The single reference in the article is a dead link? Feels like this WP article was done as a PROMO-piece for the launch of the day but for whatever reason, it never caught on (did it every happen?). Can't see how this meets any definition of WP:GNG without a single WP:RS on it? Britishfinance (talk) 15:15, 22 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. Did find a reference for 2009 in this book [10], it is just a passing mention from the chrons.org website in a directory. Britishfinance (talk) 15:18, 22 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) Jovanmilic97 (talk) 11:33, 22 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The Threat to Reason[edit]

The Threat to Reason (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Non-notable book by a non-notable (red linked) author. The article was created on 5 March 2008 and prodded for speedy deletion the same day on the grounds that it was "simply an advert for a non-notable book". On 3 September 2008 (speedy??) the tag was removed with the comment that it was "clearly not an advert; added references". While I agree that it is not just an advert, there has been nothing added to this article of any substance since 2008 and nothing to suggest it is in any way notable. Besides, two of the "references" are simply reviews, respected to be sure, and the third is to Wikipedia! Emeraude (talk) 10:19, 15 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. Icewhiz (talk) 12:09, 15 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Philosophy-related deletion discussions. Icewhiz (talk) 12:09, 15 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - the book is notable for the multiple reviews it has received in major publications. These include the Financial Times, the Guardian, Prospect magazine, Socialist Review, the BBC, the Institute of Ideas. Chiswick Chap (talk) 17:23, 15 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. The reviews in The Guardian and Financial Times are very solid. The review in The Independent is also very significant. The other sources strike me as passing mentions (I'd add The Spectator) and blogs. The Prospect magazine article cited above is written by the author of this book, which is extremely inappropriate to cite. wumbolo ^^^ 13:38, 17 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Wumbolo: Um, the Prospect review of Dan Hind's book was written by Ayanna Prevatt-Goldstein. Chiswick Chap (talk) 13:49, 17 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Then why does the "review" say "my book, The Threat to Reason"? wumbolo ^^^ 13:51, 17 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
OK, she must just have posted it for him. But we have more than enough reviews to demonstrate notability here. Chiswick Chap (talk) 14:22, 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. -- Patar knight - chat/contributions 15:35, 22 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

John Zangrilli[edit]

John Zangrilli (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Soccer-related person who fails WP:GNG. Page based on articles self-published by page starter by his own admission, thus most likely is an WP:OR. BlameRuiner (talk) 09:28, 15 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Icewhiz (talk) 10:11, 15 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. Icewhiz (talk) 10:11, 15 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Italy-related deletion discussions. Icewhiz (talk) 10:11, 15 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of New Jersey-related deletion discussions. Icewhiz (talk) 10:11, 15 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Leviv ich 18:00, 15 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete – I imagine this is an example of the situation for which NFOOTY was written. The article's subject played for S.S. Lazio on a youth team in Ripi until 1967 when he came to the United States, soon turning from player to referee to coach. He has some local notability, but there seems to be no independent significant coverage to meet GNG. The best I found (searching for John Zangrilli and Giovanni Zangrilli) was this local non-independent write-up and this brief mention. However, S.S. Lazio was and is a fully-professional team, and even to anti-NFOOTY-crusading Levivich, it certainly seems possible that there would be significant coverage of him as a football player, which might be offline and in Italian and thus simply inaccessible to me. However, I can't find any statistics from the 1960s in Italy that would confirm how many pro games he played and thus how far over the NFOOTY bar he crosses. So I'm a weak delete given that there isn't enough data (that I've seen) for NFOOTY or GNG, but I would probably !vote my first "keep per NFOOTY" if it could be shown that he was a regular player for S.S. Lazio in Italy. Fails GNG, fails NFOOTY, delete. Leviv ich 16:30, 15 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete He didn't play for Lazio, he refereed an exhibition between Lazio and the Cosmos. [11] SportingFlyer T·C 00:10, 16 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Damn, I misread it. Thanks for pointing that out. This won't be my first "!keep per nfooty," after all. Leviv ich 00:53, 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 Procedural close. Wrong venue. See Wikipedia:Redirects_for_discussion/Log/2019_March_17#2019_Venezuelan_power_grid_sabotage. (non-admin closure) wumbolo ^^^ 12:54, 17 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

2019 Venezuelan power grid sabotage[edit]

2019 Venezuelan power grid sabotage (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

WP:NPOV and possibly WP:FRINGE. The main article doesn't have any information regarding an attack or a sabotage. Jamez42 (talk) 09:50, 15 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

See also 2019 Venezuelan power grid attack. --Jamez42 (talk) 09:52, 15 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. Jamez42 (talk) 09:53, 15 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Venezuela-related deletion discussions. Jamez42 (talk) 09:53, 15 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. This is a blatant POV fork based on one cherrypicked excerpt from one opinion piece; it is not a likely search term. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 18:11, 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 Procedural close. Wrong venue. Please comment at Wikipedia:Redirects_for_discussion/Log/2019_March_17#2019_Venezuelan_power_grid_attack. (non-admin closure) wumbolo ^^^ 12:52, 17 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

2019 Venezuelan power grid attack[edit]

2019 Venezuelan power grid attack (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

WP:NPOV and possibly WP:FRINGE. The main article doesn't have any information regarding an attack or a sabotage. Jamez42 (talk) 09:50, 15 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

See also 2019 Venezuelan power grid sabotage. --Jamez42 (talk) 09:52, 15 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. Jamez42 (talk) 09:54, 15 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Venezuela-related deletion discussions. Jamez42 (talk) 09:54, 15 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Citing article text:
    • "The administration of Nicolás Maduro blamed foreign US sabotage for the outage"
    • "Prosecutor General Tarek William Saab announced an investigation of Guaidó for sabotage"
    • "China had received reports that the power grid had gone down due to a hacking attack"

emijrp (talk) 10:00, 15 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Citing the same article, "Putting this all together, it is extremely likely that this past week’s blackout in Venezuela was the simple result of the country’s own infrastructure problems rather than a targeted cyber action by the United States designed to oust President Maduro". --Jamez42 (talk) 10:13, 15 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. This is a blatant POV fork based on one cherrypicked excerpt from one opinion piece; it is not a likely search term, is fringe and undue. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 18:12, 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. Michig (talk) 09:03, 22 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

University Magazine[edit]

University Magazine (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Sources provided do not substantiate that the subject is notable ElKevbo (talk) 05:59, 8 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]


  • this page should not be deleted because they are similar to Narcity, and MTL Blog — Preceding unsigned comment added by JessicaUm (talk • contribs) 06:20, 8 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    I have blocked this editor, who is the creator of the article, for advertising and suspicions of an undisclosed financial conflict of interest. MER-C 11:16, 10 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Journalism-related deletion discussions. Icewhiz (talk) 10:31, 8 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. Icewhiz (talk) 10:31, 8 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Ontario-related deletion discussions. Icewhiz (talk) 10:31, 8 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Tymon.r Do you have any questions? 07:48, 15 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Non-notable subject in an article based on "what I did for homework". (So badly written I hope it wasn't accepted.) Emeraude (talk) 10:27, 15 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - Article is written like a advertisement. The article has unreliable sources including their own website.___CAPTAIN MEDUSAtalk 12:32, 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. North America1000 01:08, 22 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Anwar Abdi[edit]

Anwar Abdi (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Sources provided do not establish the notability of this subject ElKevbo (talk) 05:55, 8 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. Icewhiz (talk) 10:32, 8 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Icewhiz (talk) 10:32, 8 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Journalism-related deletion discussions. Icewhiz (talk) 10:32, 8 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Ontario-related deletion discussions. Icewhiz (talk) 10:32, 8 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - as far as I can tell, this subject does not meet WP:BIO. The article is also spam and likely undisclosed paid advocacy, something I've blocked the creator for. MER-C 09:46, 10 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Tymon.r Do you have any questions? 07:48, 15 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete As per nom. Worth pointing out the link with the discussion above. Emeraude (talk) 10:30, 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. It may be possible that the one individual named should have their own Wikipedia article, but that is a separate matter. Beeblebrox (talk) 19:25, 22 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Claery (surname)[edit]

Claery (surname) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Contested PROD. There are no notable persons with the surname per WP:APONOTE. The individual listed as an attempt to contest the PROD does not have a Wikipedia page, a requirement for notability. Jalen D. Folf (talk) 05:33, 8 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Language-related deletion discussions. Icewhiz (talk) 10:32, 8 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists of people-related deletion discussions. Icewhiz (talk) 10:33, 8 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Tymon.r Do you have any questions? 07:47, 15 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Non-notable surname, given that no one in Wikipedia has that name! May have a plac ein a dictionary of surnames, but this is and encyclopeadia, not a dictionary. Agreed that this seems nothing more than promotional of a (non-notable) actress. Emeraude (talk) 10:34, 15 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
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 15:32, 22 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Nate Gold[edit]

AfDs for this article:
Nate Gold (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Non-notable career minor league baseball player. Lepricavark (talk) 04:39, 8 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Lepricavark (talk) 04:39, 8 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Baseball-related deletion discussions. Lepricavark (talk) 04:39, 8 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. North America1000 21:36, 8 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete non-notable minor league player.John Pack Lambert (talk) 01:22, 9 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment What has changed to justify a 2nd deletion nomination for this article since the last AfD resulted in keeping it? Cubbie15fan (talk) 16:48, 14 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    Cubbie15fan, CPBL used to count for WP:BASE/N. It has since been removed from that guideline. – Muboshgu (talk) 23:19, 16 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Nomination's relation to the first AfD needs to be assessed.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Tymon.r Do you have any questions? 07:47, 15 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete When this article was AfD'd the first time, we counted playing in the CPBL as a factor that presumes notability. We no longer do. – Muboshgu (talk) 23:21, 16 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Fails to meet WP:NBASE as currently written. Some local coverage of a minor league players is not sufficient to meet WP:GNG. Papaursa (talk) 00:24, 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. bd2412 T 16:07, 22 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Dan Merklinger[edit]

Dan Merklinger (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Non-notable career minor league baseball player. Lepricavark (talk) 05:07, 8 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Lepricavark (talk) 05:07, 8 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Baseball-related deletion discussions. Lepricavark (talk) 05:07, 8 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. North America1000 21:35, 8 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Tymon.r Do you have any questions? 07:46, 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. Beeblebrox (talk) 19:28, 22 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hardcore Gamer[edit]

Hardcore Gamer (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

The only sources used in this article is from Hardcore Gamer itself and there does not appear to be any secondary sources on the website. GamerPro64 04:30, 28 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Video games-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 05:50, 28 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 05:50, 28 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 05:51, 28 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 05:51, 28 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - It does seem like the magazine did get some news coverage in 2009, regarding its attempted sale on Ebay and subsequent buyout. While various gaming news sites covered it, it did notably have an article written about the situation in the New York Times, here. 169.232.162.112 (talk) 19:13, 28 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Also covered by Kotaku. I don't see anything else, and nothing to indicate this subject is notable under the WP:GNG (though it's a need-haystack situation given the number of results for "hardcore gamer"). Add an entry at list of video game magazines (as it did publish in print) and then redirect. --Izno (talk) 15:46, 4 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — pythoncoder  (talk | contribs) 03:08, 8 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Tymon.r Do you have any questions? 07:45, 15 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete for now, without prejudice against recreation with multiple reliable sources showing in-depth coverage to satisfy WP:GNG. At this point, it's an article sourced entirely to the subject's own website. That's no good. My search for sources found one good one, but all other nontrivial coverage is about that single event -- the company's listing itself on ebay. The search terms are hard, though, and I wouldn't quite rule out the idea that more could be out there. For now, though, an entirely self-sourced article about a company is WP:TNT worthy. Specifically Oppose Redirect to the list article, which has been poorly maintained. At this point, it includes only notable examples, rather than being a linkfarm/directory of anything that exists, so if this article ceases to exist, it shouldn't be included there. — Rhododendrites talk \\ 03:25, 18 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
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. Catfish Jim and the soapdish 14:41, 23 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Gateway Group[edit]

Gateway Group (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Fails WP: NCOMPANY, in that there is no verifiable evidence that company has attracted significant/in-depth coverage in multiple independent verifiable secondary sources (see WP:ORGCRIT - which generally follows WP:GNG but puts a greater emphasis on the quality of the sources, in order to eliminate justification on the basis of press and promotional coverage of the company being used as arguements that there is significant coverage in multiple sources. Dan arndt (talk) 05:13, 1 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sri Lanka-related deletion discussions. Dan arndt (talk) 05:18, 1 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Dan arndt (talk) 05:18, 1 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. Icewhiz (talk) 06:32, 1 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Comment, I've searched and can't find any reliable sources that support WP:NCOMPANY - just because the company owns schools in Sri Lanka doesn't make it automatically notable. If you can find evidence that satisfies WP:ORGCRIT then I be prepared to reconsider this nomination. Dan arndt (talk) 09:19, 1 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

References

  1. ^ a b "Syria shoots down Israeli warplane as conflict escalates". bbc.com. BBC News. 10 February 2018. Retrieved 15 March 2019.
  2. ^ ""Gateway Group" Sri Lanka - Google Search". www.google.com. Retrieved 2019-03-07.
Comment, @Nirvanatoday: in accordance with WP:GNG, they need to provide significant coverage not just mentions in passing in press releases or promotional pieces as most of thses appear to be. Can you be more specific as to which reference supports the organization's notability - rather than just a Google search link. Dan arndt (talk) 02:36, 8 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 02:21, 8 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Tymon.r Do you have any questions? 07:44, 15 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: fails WP:NCORP / WP:CORPDEPTH. --K.e.coffman (talk) 00:22, 16 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep There seem to be plenty of sources on various aspects of the group (the schools, the awards organised, etc.) - [12][13][14][15][16][17][18][19][20][21][22], I'm sure there are likely more (perhaps even more in Sinhalese sources). The college itself might have been worth keeping (a number of the sources are about the college), but it has been redirect here, so we ended with this parent group only. It appears to be a significant provider of education in Sri Lanka, and should satisfy WP:GNG and WP:NCORP. Hzh (talk) 23:21, 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. Catfish Jim and the soapdish 14:41, 23 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Matthew C. Levy[edit]

Matthew C. Levy (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

I'm not convinced that this person meets the notability criteria for academics. His H-index on Google Scholar is just 11 ... and I originally thought this article would be a shoe-in because he was a Fellow of the Royal Society, but no, he was a Newton International Fellow, which I see is not enough to claim notability at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Tana Joseph. Graham87 06:53, 15 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. Icewhiz (talk) 08:28, 15 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. Icewhiz (talk) 08:28, 15 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. Icewhiz (talk) 08:28, 15 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. Icewhiz (talk) 08:28, 15 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

References

  1. ^ https://phys.org/news/2014-06-llnl-boundaries-petawatt-laser-absorption.html
  2. ^ http://news.rice.edu/2015/01/27/rices-matthew-levy-becomes-first-u-s-physicist-to-win-newton-fellowship/
  3. ^ http://www.nicolablackwood.com/nicola-swaps-the-green-benches-for-an-insight-into-the-lab-bench/
  4. ^ https://techcrunch.com/2019/03/15/big-data-ai-startup-noble-ai-raises-a-second-seed-round-from-a-chemical-giant/
  5. ^ https://www.chemengonline.com/solvay-invests-in-ai-software-developer-noble-ai/?printmode=1
  6. ^ https://pitchbook.com/profiles/company/227738-26
  7. ^ https://www.crunchbase.com/funding_round/noble-ai-seed--9c6ea36a#section-overview
  • Ref 1 isn't third-party either, since it says "Provided by: Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory" at the end. I don't think that being the first physicist from a Western developed country known for its strong university system to get a fellowship from a competition open to all students outside the UK is particularly noteworthy, in this context. Graham87 03:25, 16 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Notability not yet attained: WP:Too soon. Xxanthippe (talk) 02:37, 16 March 2019 (UTC).[reply]
  • Uncertain Rather than just go by the summary h index, looking atthe citations shows two highly cited articles, (140, 106). This would notrmally be quite sufficient, as we judge notability by someone's most important work, not by the number of unimportant works--except that these are papers where he is part of a fairly large group ( 21 in one case ,26 in the other) so his indidual role is uncertain. The Newton Fellowship is a post-doctoral award only, and therefore nto a major award that indicates notability , DGG ( talk ) 04:14, 16 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: fails WP:BASIC. --K.e.coffman (talk) 03:12, 23 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Borderline but the PROMO aspect of the final part tips it for me (and why this fully referenced article was probably written by WP:SPA Laser001, who only has 11 Wikipedia edits to their name under this username, including the edits at this AfD, which means we probably have a WP:COI and possibly WP:UDP aspect too). Britishfinance (talk) 11:50, 23 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 08:02, 22 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Gourisankar[edit]

Gourisankar (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Actor who falls under too soon (if ever), having a REALLY difficult time finding any notability for him by searching as well. Wgolf (talk) 05:29, 15 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment-gee it was even too soon when the page was made (which this was long after we were not lenient with our policies, it was prodded by a user but removed the creator and not much has happened since)-back on this though I did look up actor for his name, but only found a Youtube video and that is it. Wgolf (talk) 05:31, 15 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Icewhiz (talk) 08:33, 15 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Icewhiz (talk) 08:33, 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 merge to New Town, Missouri. (non-admin closure) wumbolo ^^^ 16:02, 17 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

St. Charles City Streetcar[edit]

St. Charles City Streetcar (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Stalled streetcar proposal unlikely to ever be constructed, lacks WP:RS and unlikely to ever meet WP:GNG Grey Wanderer (talk) 17:09, 27 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. Bakazaka (talk) 17:33, 27 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Missouri-related deletion discussions. Bakazaka (talk) 17:33, 27 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Alpha3031 (t • c) 13:21, 7 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sheldybett (talk) 02:34, 15 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, a merger seems like a fine idea. Grey Wanderer (talk) 15:56, 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 no consensus. Closing as no consensus with no prejudice against speedy renomination. AfD rationale is probably too confusing to attract casual AfD discussion. How about discussing his notability? Catfish Jim and the soapdish 00:13, 21 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Harris Bokhari[edit]

Harris Bokhari (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

The user who has created this page, put it in the Category of 'British Islamists’(https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:British_Islamists). This Category only has 26 individuals and all apart from Harris Bokhari they are all convicted or suspected terrorists. This is clearly libelous. He neither a terrorist or connected with terrorism. This clearly shows the user is trying to damage this person’s reputation using Wikipedia and is personally motivated. The inclusion of this falls under 'original research' which is banned by Wikipedia: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:No_original_research. Ramesh15011986 (talk) 11:18, 20 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Islam-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 12:51, 20 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 12:52, 20 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I created the page and this is a fair point. The category addition was done only because of Bokhari's evident affiliation with the Muslim Association of Britain which many independent third party sources say is an Islamist group. However, the point that the British Islamists mentioned in that category are all terrorists is a fair one and the association is clearly unwarranted. Therefore, I have removed the article from those categories which solves the problem. Other than that the suggestion that the entire entry is libellous is unwarranted as the article has been cleaned up now with input from a range of contributors and editors, and there is nothing contentious there - everything is sourced to independent third party sources and the notability of the subject is not in question from these sources. Therefore the request for deletion is unwarranted and this matter should be closed.Dgjefferson (talk) 15:49, 20 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment This is an invalid AfD reason. If the nominator is unhappy with aspects of the article, the article should be cleaned up and potentially libellous contents removed. They may consider REDVEL for those edits. From what I can see the individual is covered in a variety of media, so may be notable (though I have not really gone to a great length to make a full judgement on this). This all seems more like a case of article clean up / NPOV. pseudonym Jake Brockman talk 09:58, 21 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment The deletion for this page is merited as it is clear the user Dgjefferson is personally motivated in setting up this page which goes against the principals of Wikipedia. The term “Islamist Group” is not once mentioned on the current Muslim Association of Britain Wikipedia page and there are no credible secondary sources to confirm this. Any reference to Bokhari being linked to this organisation after 2008 is not available so the user previous versions/edits show they are personally motivated in trying to presume they are and the edits don’t read as an encyclopedic entry. The only secondary sources available shows the Muslim Association of Britain was working and being funded by the UK Government during the time Bokhari had any known involvement with them. There are no secondary sources to say Muslim Association of Britain is a banned organisation in the UK and searches show their Vice President recently had two meetings with the UK Prime Minister May and recently won a liable court case against the accusation of being a supporter of “Islamist extremism.” Therefore the user did know putting this page in the “British Islamist” category when the only other individuals listed are convicted terrorists would damage this person's public reputation which goes against the policy of Biographies of living persons.

The page was created on 14 January 2019 and is the only page that has been created by this user. This page should be removed as it does not comply with Wikipedia's policy on Biographies of living persons (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Biographies_of_living_persons#Public_figures). The policy states: "All quotations and any material challenged or likely to be challenged must be supported by an inline citation to a reliable, published source. Contentious material about living persons (or, in some cases, recently deceased) that is unsourced or poorly sourced—whether the material is negative, positive, neutral, or just questionable—should be removed immediately and without waiting for discussion." There are a number of inaccuracies and information that is not relevant on this entry and therefore doesn’t read as an encyclopedia entry.

Bokhari is also a low-profile individual for the purposes of Wikipedia their career and achievements are in any way 'notable' as defined by Wikipedia.

Out of the 108 edits, this user has done, 93 of the user's contributions have been in relation to this page, or in editing other pages only in relation to how they are connected to this page. On 5th February 2019, this user spent‪ between 12:01 and 16:24 only editing this page making 37 edits and has made no others‬ edits since that date until this notice was put up and within 3 hours they replied; making no other edits or contributions to any other page during this time period.

This indicates the user knows the individual and the creation of the page and all subsequent edits were personally motivated in order to damage them and their reputation, which is not the purpose for which Wikipedia was created. It is also evident from the edit history that the user has even undone attempts by others to balance the tone and content of the page. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ramesh15011986 (talk) (talk • contribs) 10:33, 21 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The nominating editor did not nominate this for deletion because of lack of notability, but for issues with neutrality. This is clearly something for clean up. AFD is not here to solve content disputes. Consider the article's talk page or WP:ANI instead. I tend to agree that notability may be marginal (again, I did not fully study the subject), so this may be discussed. The edit history of the article creator is secondary. One may argue that the AFD nominator's first ever edit was this AfD, so neutrality may be an issue from two sides of the argument. Again, clean up before AfD. pseudonym Jake Brockman talk 13:50, 21 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Jovanmilic97 (talk) 17:51, 27 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment The article clearly has neutrality issues. The last few sections could have been encapsulated under a single section - controversies. Last section has the same line written twice to emphasize on the subject's position on a particular sect. The article should be up for AfD if the neutrality issues is not resolved. Udaysm (talk) 07:53, 4 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Response: There is ongoing vandalism going on here. I have been accused of having a personal axe to grind against the subject of this entry, for which there is no evidence - I have added both positive and negative material relating to the subject from reliable third party sources, and have been responsive to critical feedback. The above comments also demonstrate ongoing vandalism attempts. The nomination for deletion has been made by on the grounds of lack of notability. It is absolutely clear and not disputed that the subject meets Wikipedia's notability criteria, as justified by a wide number of third party sources. There are therefore no grounds whatsoever for deletion. As that argument fails, users requesting deletion have shifted the goalposts to argue that the article lacks neutrality. This is incorrect. The article is entirely neutral and relies entirely on reliable secondary sources. Some of those sources are positive and some negative, but that is really an inevitable reflection of what is available about the subject from those sources. It is also not a valid basis to seek deletion. If clean up issues are required, that issue can continue, however, I note that after the last rounds of editing there have been no further edits for some weeks indicating that for all intents and purposes a consensus has been reached.

This deletion discussion is therefore mute, and any outstanding issues around neutrality should continue to be addressed on the talk page of the entry as per normal. This nomination should be closed.

As a final point, I note the questionable nature of the last user as an example of ongoing efforts to vandalise Bokhari's entry. The user appears to have some links with various efforts to create a page for an Indian business, indicating they work for the many Indian companies which do paid editing for Wikipedia. This suggests a direct affiliation with the subject, who has likely hired said user to carry out edits on his behalf due to material in the entry which he dislikes. I have documented other direct evidence of vandalism from people affiliated with the subject on the entry talk page. Dgjefferson (talk) 11:10, 5 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 13:53, 7 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment The comment added from my side is clearly misunderstood. I am suggesting clean up before AfD, which a contributor here has already mentioned.Udaysm (talk) 11:38, 8 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Verdict: It seems that a degree of consensus has been reached that this entry should not have been nominated for AfD. The discussion here has concerned the alleged neutrality of the article and issues around clean-up. The nomination for deletion has been premised wrongly on neutrality issues, and the notability of the subject is not in question. Therefore, AfD is the incorrect route and focus should be on clean up if users continue to identify further neutrality issues. The AfD nomination itself appears to have been a form of vandalism by associates of the subject, designed to have the page deleted. This discussion can now be considered closed and the AfD template removed. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dgjefferson (talk • contribs) 12:12, 12 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - no editor can declare a verdict for an AfD, it has to be closed properly. But I'm concerned about the article itself and have taken it to WP:BLPN for scrutiny. Accusations that editors are associates of the subject should be made at WP:ANI or WP:COIN, not here. Doug Weller talk 17:36, 12 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: I very rarely relist discussions for a third time. However, I am extremely unimpressed with this discussion and the dearth of WP:PAG based commentary.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ad Orientem (talk) 02:33, 15 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: I would just like to make clear that if there are any substantive problems with the article that can be pointed out, I will be more than happy to continue working with other editors to improve the article and ensure it is in line with PAG. I would like to add that there is an obvious reason the discussion here has been unsatisfactory - the original nomination for deletion was based on alleged neutrality issues which is of course not in line with PAG for nominations for deletion. As a result, the discussion here has focused on that issue, despite it not really being relevant - and it's only in response to the neutrality claims made here that I've had to make some points about other editors. So far, no one has provided any specific justifiable grounds for being concerned about the article. I would therefore submit that this particular AfD is not a useful route to deal with any concerns, and am still of the opinion that the nomination for deletion was itself a form of vandalism. I believe that this discussion proves my point as no one has provided any justifiable basis for actually deleting the entry. Unless someone can actually explain why it should be deleted, it is not clear to me why this AfD should remain open? And just to reiterate, very happy to take on board any further feedback/criticisms in line with PAG, although that is not really a subject that belongs here. Dgjefferson (talk) 13:21, 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. A little unfair to expect to find much in the way of online sources for a higher education college in a country that ranks 118th out of 140 per the WEF. Catfish Jim and the soapdish 08:01, 22 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Kasama College of Education[edit]

Kasama College of Education (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

PROD declined by Phil Bridger. Original rationale was Per WP:NSCHOOL, schools must comply with WP:NORG. This does not, as it shows no coverage in independent, reliable sources whatsoever. Despite the one source Phil has added, I still consider it to be the case per WP:MULTSOURCES. SITH (talk) 14:00, 1 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 14:18, 1 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Africa-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 14:19, 1 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 14:19, 1 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 01:57, 8 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sheldybett (talk) 02:32, 15 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Does that constitute significant coverage in an independent, reliable source? I would say not. SITH (talk) 11:16, 18 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
"In general, all colleges and universities are de facto notable and should be included on Wikipedia." [23] That is the prevailing view of WP:SCHOOLOUTCOMES, especially when coupled with the fact that it is a government backed institution.Tamsier (talk) 10:16, 19 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Further, it is not necessary to establish notability by use of the internet. As with all older organisations, especially those from developing countries, we should be slow to delete such articles as Google may not know much about them.Tamsier (talk) 11:14, 21 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep higher educational institutions are almost always notable. TonyBallioni (talk) 03:58, 22 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. Catfish Jim and the soapdish 23:17, 20 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Emmanuel House[edit]

Emmanuel House (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Fails WP:ORG. Neil S. Walker (talk) 14:01, 20 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Illinois-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 14:06, 20 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 14:06, 20 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ~SS49~ {talk} 02:38, 27 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. No indications this passes WP:NORG. Sources are primary/self-published or mention it in passing. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 02:52, 27 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • delete Fails to meet the GNG. All references are either to their own webpage or to articles on the Richard Guzman blog. Guzman started Emmanuel House [24] so there is no independent coverage.Sandals1 (talk) 22:39, 5 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak keep Basically, a news search shows a number of hits, though they seem to be referring to a British charity with particular focus on Nottingham, though this one refers to Rhode Island. I was going to close the AfD as "delete" but declined to do so as I think all arguments so far are classic ones to avoid and this needs a relist to see if the article can be sufficiently expanded. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 14:04, 7 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 14:55, 7 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment The problem I see is that there are multiple unrelated charities called "Emmanuel House". The first references are all about one in Illinois and I see nothing to show that one meets any notability criteria. The sources added about the one in Nottingham make a better case for notability. I would suggest this article needs to be split into separate ones, which can then be discussed distinctly. Or, since there seems to be no support for the Illinois charity, perhaps refocus the article on the one in Nottingham. Either way, I think the location needs to be part of the article title(s). Papaursa (talk) 00:46, 9 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: I've added one WP:SIGCOV source, with a small history section. It turns out this organization (the Aurora, Illinois one) has merged with another, to form The Neighbor Project in 2018. The article should probably be renamed if it is kept. The article's other direct sources in the article are all by the subject or family members. (User:Richie333 added a couple independent articles for the Nottingham subject (see below). but they're for the wrong Emmanuel House!) So we're going to have to at find "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject". It appears that Richard Guzman's website, though not independent of the subject itself, points to some potentially-SIGCOV items. The subject here is what was formerly named Emmanuel House in Aurora, Illinois, that runs properties that have a rent-return policy and something called "Networked Savings"; its organization is now called The Neighbor Project, formed by merging with Joseph Corporation; there is or was also something named Bryan House. --Closeapple (talk) 07:05, 9 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    A couple of the Guzman blog items turned out to be copies of potential WP:SIGCOV also. I've re-arranged and fleshed out the external links items to show which contain copies of article. Unfortunately, The Beacon-News of Aurora seems to not have a good searchable archive: Apparently, after the sources here were published, the Chicago Sun-Times sold The Beacon-News and other suburban papers to the Chicago Tribune. I haven't yet searched Google News for any of the newly-discovered organization names though. --Closeapple (talk) 09:22, 9 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    If someone thinks the Nottingham organization called Emmanuel House should have an article and wants to uncomment the Nottingham stuff I commented out in the article, go ahead. For some reason I didn't catch earlier than the Nottingham additions to the article were intentional. --Closeapple (talk) 09:46, 9 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) 02:29, 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 soft delete. WP:REFUND applies. TonyBallioni (talk) 03:56, 22 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Dave Kaplan (talent manager)[edit]

Dave Kaplan (talent manager) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Seems to fail GNG. All of his notability is wrapped up in Surfdog Records. There is nothing here that suggests Dave Kaplan Management is noteworthy enough for a page of their own so I suggest either delete, merge, or redirect to Surfdog Records. It should also be noted that both this page and Surfdog Records have been heavily edited by COI editors since 2012.

Going through the sourcing: this is an alumni page which just gives a very brief overview of his life. Nothing in-depth. this is less than one paragraph which just talks about MOM. Doesn't even mention Kaplan (further showing he isn't notable on his own). this is a deadlink. this doesn't even mention Kaplan. this is a dead link. this doesn't mention Kaplan. HickoryOughtShirt?4 (talk) 02:19, 15 March 2019 (UTC) HickoryOughtShirt?4 (talk) 02:19, 15 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 02:27, 15 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 02:29, 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. Without prejudice for recreation as a section of the article on Bluth or userfying if requested for further research and improvement. Beeblebrox (talk) 19:36, 22 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Don Bluth's unrealized projects[edit]

Don Bluth's unrealized projects (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Due to the heavy reliance on a random collection of images hosted on imgur and a wiki page from TV Tropes, I can't tell if the things in this article are even real or if it's WP:NFT. Axem Titanium (talk) 21:49, 7 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

  • I just think we need to collect better citations/references for this page. Some of the films have suitable citations/references, but it is in dire need of more.Cardei012597 (talk) 22:00, 7 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: GameSpot and Polygon aren't exactly the gold standard of sourcing but they're the most reliable citations we've got in this article. If all the content which references unreliable sources such as Imgur and TVTropes is removed, we're left with so little content it might as well be redirected to Don Bluth. A dynamite case methinks. SITH (talk) 22:02, 7 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: I think if we just try to surf the web, gather better sources and citations, we can improve the page. We shouldn't give up. Cardei012597 (talk) 22:33, 7 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • I appreciate that you feel personally invested in improving this article, but I suggest you take a good long look at WP:RS for what qualifies as reliable. Adding unreliable sources to the article isn't going to change anyone's mind, or improve the article. I also agree with SITH's suggestion that you start by making a well referenced section on the topic in the article on Don Bluth rather than jumping straight to a separate article that needs to meet independent notability requirements. Axem Titanium (talk) 23:15, 7 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 22:38, 7 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 22:38, 7 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Even if this were better sourced, it's overly detailed listcruft (yet missing the details of how far into the production phase these actually got and if it is actually worth mentioning) that is better summarized in the main article. Reywas92Talk 23:24, 7 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: I gathered better sources with production information. All I need to do is reword segments to fit Wikipedia's guidlines and add in new production information. Cardei012597 (talk) 23:37, 7 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Anyway, I gathered better sources with production information. I also reword segments to satisfy Wikipedia's guidlines and added in new production information. You can check it, maybe even add to my repairs. Cardei012597 (talk) 01:39, 8 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • I do not consider these sources to be "better" or more reliable. Some of them do not support the sentences they are supposed to be referencing (e.g. the NYT source). Others are trivial mentions that do not assert notability. Still others are citations to other wikis or circularly cited to Wikipedia itself. Once again, I encourage you to make a "Unproduced projects" section on Don Bluth and incubate this topic there until it warrants a separate article. It's clear that forking it to its own page is not making it easy for others to collaborate to find high quality sources to support the topic. Axem Titanium (talk) 02:44, 8 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Ok, fine, then help me gather better sources. Assist in finding sources for the page, instead of giving up, going for the easy route by deleting every imperfect page. Find reliable sources for the page.Cardei012597 (talk) 07:12, 8 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • I have given you an out in the form of a section within Don Bluth. I'm even happy to let an admin WP:USERFY this page in case there's something worth keeping here. You and I and we all should be looking for an affirmative reason why this article should exist. If there is none, then it should be deleted. Axem Titanium (talk) 19:41, 8 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: This is a courtesy relist for the benefit of Cardei012597 who is trying to save the page. But unless something can be found that rings the WP:N bell over the next week, I am afraid it is going away.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ad Orientem (talk) 02:18, 15 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
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. If there is any evidence Wikiversity actually wants this I'd be happy to provide a copy. Beeblebrox (talk) 19:39, 22 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Characteristics of epic heroes[edit]

AfDs for this article:
Characteristics of epic heroes (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

This was nominated for deletion previously on the grounds that it is a University essay, rather than an encyclopedia article - and I think that fact deserves to be considered more carefully than it was in that first discussion. It is original research and duplicates the discussion at Hero#Antiquity. The title implies an article about all epic heroes (probably impossible to generalise about without OR) but the article itself is limited to (some) Greek heroes... Furius (talk) 23:45, 7 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Language-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 12:55, 9 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 12:55, 9 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) 02:10, 15 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • I don't see how this this personal "essay" is going to improve Wikiversity. Britishfinance (talk) 17:33, 22 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Essay material and WP:OR / WP:SYN territory; needs WP:TNT. WP has individual quality articles on many of the "heros" listed in this article. We don't need an under-sourced, inferior, potentially POV'ed stub versions as well. Don't redirect/copy/merge etc. This is just not useable material. We are fully covered on these mythical characters. Britishfinance (talk) 17:30, 22 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
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. Michig (talk) 08:56, 22 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Anne Quito[edit]

Anne Quito (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

References are all the author's own works and profile pages, with the exception of one press release. Fails WP:NAUTHOR. See WP:RESUME. — Stevey7788 (talk) 00:41, 15 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 00:54, 15 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 00:55, 15 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep The page has multiple new sources, including one that points to a second award won from an international body. We have difficulty with journalists because few people write about them, but in this case we have two awards. --Theredproject (talk) 15:27, 15 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep as per previous comment. The awards seem readily to fulfil the WP:JOURNALIST criterion 'The person's work (or works) has ... (c) won significant critical attention'. Alarichall (talk) 02:06, 16 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 06:15, 16 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Journalism-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 09:13, 16 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: It was poorly sourced when I first nominated it. It's improved a lot now. I think it's a good idea to give the contributor the benefit of the doubt for now. After looking over this more closely, I think it could be worth keeping. — Stevey7788 (talk) 19:20, 20 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep I have added a mention of the awards in the lead. Mary Mark Ockerbloom (talk) 02:29, 21 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. This BLP seems very PROMO to me (list of her articles?). I can't find any real WP:RS on the subject that would meet WP:GNG outside of her Quartz articles (just being a journalist for a lower tier outlet does not make you notable) and coverage in trade publications. Not a mention in the NYT? I don't see any WP:SIGCOV on her in a Tier 1 WP:RS. I can't see her meeting NAUTHOR/NJOURNALIST as she is not an "important figure"/not "known for originating a significant new concept, theory, or technique"/not has "collective body of work"/not won "won significant critical attention". Her awards don't seem notable to me, and certainly not enough to swing the dial on NJOURNALIST give how weak everything else is. Struggling to see where the consensus for such a little known journalist for a lower-tier/trade publications is coming from; particularly given the strong PROMO-COI-UDP nature of this article? Britishfinance (talk) 01:09, 22 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. No wonder I could not find anything on her award, it seems that she was the winner of the first "Inaugural" 2017 Steven Heller Prize for Cultural Commentary. This award is not the a main award of the AIGA, it is just a side-award for a specific category. Britishfinance (talk) 01:17, 22 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • 'Comment. The author of this article has a dormant WP account for almost a decade (with zero edits), and after re-activating it in March 2019, was inspired to write this article three days later on such a niche BLP subject in a WP:PROMO fashion? Britishfinance (talk) 01:20, 22 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. (non-admin closure) Spirit of Eagle (talk) 21:44, 15 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

PewDiePie vs T-Series[edit]

PewDiePie vs T-Series (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Is this even notable and important enough to warrant its own article. Maybe mention it as a section on both pages, but I don't think it should warrant its own page. Thenabster126 (talk) 17:53, 15 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment - I fixed up the nomination; no opinion on its merits. ansh666 18:02, 15 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy keep This article is very well references and you have provided no evidence why this should be deleted.  Nixinova  T  C  18:14, 15 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Keep - As per above, the article is well referenced and there is no given reason as for a deletion. Plus, this war is notable for just how far it's reached. It's gone from a inside joke within PewDiePie's fanbase to a somewhat legitimate far-reaching activism program that's taken seriously. AwesumIndustrys (talk) 18:23, 15 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy keep per above. Etzedek24 (I'll talk at ya) (Check my track record) 19:02, 15 March 2019 (UTC)![reply]
  • Speedy keep per above - well-written, well-referenced article about one of the longest running and most notable events in internet culture's history. Buttons0603 (talk) 19:33, 15 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy keep per above. Cramero — Preceding unsigned comment added by Cramero (talk • contribs) 19:57, 15 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy keep per above, but a regular "keep" might have a stronger effect on staving off a possible merge proposal timesink. FWIW, this has got a lot of WP:CONTINUEDCOVERAGE and there are dozens of in-depth reliable sources over the span of multiple months. This is one of the biggest Internet memes ever and is comparable to many classic memes. wumbolo ^^^ 20:41, 15 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy keep. No valid reason for deletion given. epicgenius (talk) 21:15, 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.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Log/2019_March_15&oldid=1142224718"