Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2019 March 22

Recent AfDs: Today Yesterday

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

< 21 March	23 March >

Guide to deletion

Purge server cache

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

The result was soft delete. WP:REFUND applies. Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 10:01, 30 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

2019 Formula European Masters[edit]

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

On 22 March it was announced that the series has been cancelled. Unlike some championships that have folded mid-season, this one never got started. Mclarenfan17 (talk) 23:17, 22 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 23:27, 22 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Per nom. Corvus tristis (talk) 08:18, 24 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Europe-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 06:39, 26 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. -- RoySmith (talk) 15:26, 30 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Robert Zagar[edit]

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

Fails WP:PROF *Delete (from nominator). Self-aggrandizing article written by the BLP himself. Non-notable, no significant coverage in secondary sources, no evidence of WP:PROF level recognition or general notability, sources are all WP:SPS. Wunderkidding (talk) 15:35, 23 March 2019 (UTC)Wunderkidding (talk) 23:07, 22 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 23:27, 22 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Illinois-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 23:28, 22 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete the article contains bold unsubstantiated claims such as "Zagar's work impacted on the U.S. Supreme Court in..."{{cn}} Almost the entire list of "references" reads like a bibliography of the subject. I would think that someone whose work was praised by President Clinton would have received some mention in RS news. --mikeu ^talk 22:36, 25 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete not WP:ANYBIO not WP:GNG. Lubbad85 (talk) 15:20, 26 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
The subject needs to be evaluated by the standards of WP:PROF rather than news reports, WP:ANYBIO or WP:GNG. I note that his Google Scholar profile shows 1060 citations with an h-index of 18. This would be high in some fields but not in others. Phil Bridger (talk) 18:25, 26 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment FWIW, although published, a very proportion of that list came from "Psychological Reports" which is not quite reputable. Also, having an h-index (of whatever level) is not one of the criteria from WP:PROF, and he doesn't fulfill any other others. Wunderkidding (talk) 22:10, 26 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

WP:PROF#C1 is normally based on citations to a subject's work. Do you have any evidence that Psychological Reports is not a reputable publication? And, anyway, if we are to go by what publications satisfy your definition of reputability we should look at where papers citing Zagar's work are published. It's the citations that determine notability, not the publications themselves. Phil Bridger (talk) 21:02, 27 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Fails all relevant forms of notability.-TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 02:14, 28 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as per above. Self reference.^[1] Unoc (talk) 13:12, 30 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: academic articles often use self references but usually for an assertion of notability instead of just to dump original research on Wikipedia under the guise of a biography. SITH (talk) 14:03, 30 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 nomination withdrawn as an editor in good standing has made enough changes to the article that this can now be resolved by simply revdelling the sockpuppet's contributions from the edit history instead of requiring a full WP:TNT treatment. Bearcat (talk) 15:22, 26 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Marie Curtis[edit]

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

Poorly sourced article about a mayor of a small town. While there is content here that suggests a potential basis to deem her more notable than usual for smalltown mayors, the referencing isn't actually supporting any of it: there are just four footnotes, comprising a primary source, a glancing acknowledgement of her existence in an article that's primarily about other people, a raw table of election results and an obituary, and not one of those sources actually supports the strongest potential notability claim (which is the tax thing, not the "there's a park named after her" thing) at all. This is not enough referencing to demonstrate that she meets an inclusion criterion that specifically hinges on "significant press coverage".
And the other, even more important, problem here is that this article, as written, is fundamentally the work of a sockpuppet of a banned user. It was created as a redirect and then converted into a short, unreferenced stub by two other editors, but then all of the actual substance and sourcing present here was added by the sockpuppet. The banning administrator reverted the article back to the unreferenced stub as part of the standard process of wiping out the sockpuppet's edit history, but then an anonymous IP (who was probably still the banned sockpuppet) unreverted it back to the sockpuppet's version three hours later, and it's gone virtually unchanged since except for routine maintenance.
Since there is a potentially valid basis for a "more notable than usual for this class of topic" claim here, I'm also willing to support draftspacing if somebody's willing to actually take on a fundamental overhaul of the content and sourcing. But content created by sockpuppets of banned users isn't allowed to stick around -- even if a topic actually does clear our notability standards, the article still has to be fundamentally rewritten so the sockpuppet isn't retaining the attribution for it anymore. Bearcat (talk) 23:05, 22 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. Bearcat (talk) 23:11, 22 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Ontario-related deletion discussions. Bearcat (talk) 23:11, 22 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 02:21, 23 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - there is a shortage of bios of women on Wikipedia. The individual was one of a handful of women mayors in Ontario in the 1950s and 1960s so it's worth keeping. Editors are free to improve the article but deleting it would not improve Wikipedia but hurt it. 99.230.241.165 (talk) 16:53, 24 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

— 99.230.241.165 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

As important as it is to improve Wikipedia's coverage of women, being female is not in and of itself an instant notability freebie that exempts a woman mayor from actually having to have enough reliable source coverage to clear NPOL's criteria for the notability of mayors — and her gender does not erase the "created by a sockpuppet of a banned user" issue either. Nothing stops a trustworthy and responsible editor from recreating a new, better-referenced version in the future, but sockpuppet content has to go no matter what, and insufficiently referenced content isn't kept indefinitely either. Bearcat (talk) 00:06, 25 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The article was created by User:Zanimum who 1) isn't a banned user, and 2) hasn't been informed of your deletion proposal. 45.72.208.121 (talk) 00:24, 25 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

— 45.72.208.121 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

We don't care who originally started the article — we care who added the content that constitutes the current version of the article, and the person who did that was a sockpuppet of a banned user. But reverting back to Zanimum's version to erase the banned sockpuppet's contributions would make this a completely unreferenced stub with even less reason to stick around. Bearcat (talk) 00:48, 25 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

You have an obligation to inform the article creator of your proposal so that 1) they can respond, and 2) they can try to improve the article. 45.72.208.121 (talk) 00:51, 25 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Firstly, Zanimum was not the creator of the page. It was created as a redirect by somebody else first, and then converted into an article by Zanimum after the fact. Secondly, Twinkle automatically notifies the original creator of the page as part of the process of creating an AFD discussion — and it's not my responsibility to expend any extra effort into manually notifying anybody else beyond the recipient of Twinkle's automatic notification. That's not how AFD rules work: I have no special responsibility to take any extra steps above and beyond the purely automated process that Twinkle finishes on its own. In fact, even if Twinkle occasionally misses a step because of a system bug outside of my control, I still don't even have any special responsibility to have gone out of my way to review whether it did everything it was supposed to or not. Once I hit save on Twinkle itself, I have no further responsibility to go around giving out extra notifications to anybody Twinkle didn't already notify on its own. Bearcat (talk) 01:08, 25 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - I'm the editor who created the redirect with the intention of eventually making an article, then obviously forgot about it. I do think she is notable, but I've not gotten into researching it enough to be sure. She was one of the first female mayors in Toronto and was mayor during/after Hurricane Hazel, but there might not be enough references to build anything. I am not ready to start on this one. I would be okay with working in the Draft: space. I would prefer that to a full delete at this time. Alaney2k (talk) 15:28, 25 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
- I did some work on the article today. It has a fair number of references although I have not done the entire period she was a politician. The idea that she is behind the regional park system in Toronto has not been fully referenced. Alaney2k (talk) 20:41, 25 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Yep, that's the kind of thing we needed. There have now been enough changes made to the article that we can resolve the issue by simply revdelling the banned user's contributions to the edit history instead of having to delete the whole thing and redo it from scratch, so I'm going to withdraw this. Bearcat (talk) 15:22, 26 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, good referencing on an influential Toronto-area politician. Kudos to @Alaney2k: for salvaging the article......PK T(alk) 00:11, 26 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 no consensus. MBisanz ^talk 17:00, 30 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Sébastien Ruster[edit]

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

Article about footballer who made 2 substitute's appearances for Swindon Town in the fully-pro English fourth level. The only online coverage of this player is routine (e.g., match reports, transfer announcements/controversy, or statistical database entries). There is nothing significant in this coverage, and nothing at all since he left Swindon Town in 2003. Prior consensus (e.g., Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Phakamani Mngadi) is that a nominal amount of play in a fully-pro league doesn't meet WP:NFOOTBALL when an article comprehensively fails WP:GNG - as is the case here. Jogurney (talk) 16:47, 15 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. MarginalCost (talk) 17:32, 15 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of France-related deletion discussions. MarginalCost (talk) 17:32, 15 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 17:56, 15 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Leviv ich 17:56, 15 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions.CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 17:57, 15 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete – no significant coverage to satisfy WP:GNG. The best I can find is this borderline coverage, this routine coverage, and this brief mention. His old team profile says he played 3 games: 2 as a substitute and 1 as a starter 15 years ago. WF and SW confirm he has only played amateur since then, and is now 36 years old. Barely passes NFOOTY but does not meet GNG. Delete. Leviv ich 18:29, 15 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

You are correct that he made one start in the EFL Trophy competition. Not a fully-pro league, but I suppose some would argue it's roughly the equivalent (it's not as many clubs don't take it seriously - which appears to be the case with Swindon when he started). Jogurney (talk) 20:01, 15 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Ah–I didn't pick up on that, thanks for point it out. Some might argue otherwise, but not a fully-pro league is not a fully-pro league, so you are correct: 2 NFOOTY game appearances, not 3, and both as a substitute. Leviv ich 22:00, 15 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, the EFL Trophy appearance satisfies WP:NFOOTY as it was between two teams from fully professional leagues (even if it wasn't actually a league match), as would his one appearance in the FA Cup. So he has four appearances in WP:NFOOTY-counting matches, even if only two of them are technically fully professional league matches. Smartyllama (talk) 19:06, 18 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Passes WP:NFOOTY and also scrapes by WP:GNG with the Sky Sports article, a couple articles on his FIFA/CAS case regarding his transfer fee which I added to the article, and several French articles (though they could be interviews, I don't know French.) SportingFlyer T·C 00:08, 16 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Passes WP:NFOOTY and I think the transfer saga means he also passes WP:GNG. Number 5 7 12:07, 16 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Fails GNG. Keep by NFOOTY is irrelevant as NFOOTY merely creates a presumption of SIGCOV - in cases where this is challenged - then absent coming up with the significant, reliable, independent sources - the subject should be deleted. In this case our subject just barely scrapes by the NFOOTY bar (having played 2 games in a borderline league), has since returned to amateur football and is unlikely to garner more coverage as he hasn't been a pro for quite some time. Icewhiz (talk) 14:19, 17 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep there is enough coverage here to satisfy GNG from a quick Google search. This player meets agreed notability criteria, a willing editor with an interest in these teams or leagues can expand this whenever they like seeing as we are not on deadline to finish it. Borgarde (talk) 02:20, 18 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - meets WP:NFOOTBALL, and likely meets WP:GNG. Giant Snowman 09:14, 18 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Passes WP:NFOOTBALL.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 11:42, 18 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - For those arguing that the article meets the GNG, could you please explain why? I don't think the Skysports article gets there, but it is the least routine coverage on the subject. I'm sorry but a name drop in an article about the CAS appeal by Swindon Town isn't significant coverage of this footballer. I tried and came up way short on finding GNG-compliant sourcing. Jogurney (talk) 17:55, 18 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The Sky Sports article on its own wouldn't get any article past WP:GNG, the Gazzette and Herald article isn't bad either, there are several articles on his FIFA/CAS case, several articles in French, and coverage which we'd consider routine for GNG purposes but that could also be considered helpful in fleshing out the article. GNG's not that difficult a bar. SportingFlyer T·C 01:34, 19 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Passes WP:NFOOTY with four appearances (including the EFL Trophy and FA Cup per above) and also WP:GNG thanks to the SkySports source and CAS coverage. Smartyllama (talk) 19:08, 18 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete The sourcing is not there, so ignore the ludicrously low NFooty.John Pack Lambert (talk) 04:04, 20 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - meets WP:NFOOTBALL Peter303x (talk) 03:15, 21 March 2019 (UTC) 20240610121034[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? 23:01, 22 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment @Tymon.r: Why was this relisted? SportingFlyer T·C 23:07, 22 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@SportingFlyer, per WP:RELIST. IMO, basing on comments above, further discussion is definitely needed to establish at least a rough consensus on keeping/deleting this article. Best, Tymon.r Do you have any questions? 23:16, 22 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Tymon.r: Thank you for responding so quickly. Just a reminder per WP:RELIST to write an explanatory note when there have been a number of commentators in the article. SportingFlyer T·C 23:19, 22 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment This one is very borderline. 2 NFOOTY games; there's plenty of precedent that that's not enough. As for GNG, Gazette & Herald is 20+ sentences all about the player, but SkySports is 8 sentences, and BBC is 7 sentences. These really aren't SIGCOV IMO. This article has 2 NFOOTY games and 1 example of SIGCOV going for it. Leviv ich 23:14, 22 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Levivich. WP:NFOOTY is part of WP:NSPORTS which says Please note that the failure to meet these criteria does not mean an article must be deleted; conversely, the meeting of any of these criteria does not mean that an article must be kept. The subject-specific guideline is subservient to the general notability guideline. General notability has not been established and thus the article should be deleted. SITH (talk) 14:07, 30 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I looked at the three sources in the article. None of them actually talk about his playing football. WP:NFOOTY is an absurdly low bar and needs to get rewritten so we can avoid these silly articles. -- RoySmith (talk) 15:32, 30 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Consensus (met only after the two relists, I'd note) that notability is satisfied and there are sufficient suitable sources (non-admin closure) Nosebagbear (talk) 22:56, 29 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Takashi Yuasa[edit]

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

I'm not seeing evidence of GNG--only sources that might count are [1] (some sort of casting database) and [2] (some sort of celebrity news site). Jpwiki's sources aren't any better. Maybe someone who speaks Japanese can find more? Gaelan 💬✏️ 05:34, 8 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Japan-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 05:43, 8 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Washington, D.C.-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 05:43, 8 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 05:43, 8 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Law-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 05:43, 8 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hmm. I recognize the name and he's on TV quite frequently, so I'm guessing this would normally turn out to be a keep based upon those credits alone. For other notability, I'm not sure what sources are best, but this list of Toyo Keizai articles looks promising and this book that he wrote seems to have had good sales. Dekimasuよ! 06:07, 8 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Doing a GNews search for his Japanese name supports the assertion that he's practically a household name. On a loosely related note, @Gaelan: please don't rely on ja.wiki for sourcing for articles like this, or assume that the subject is not notable because ja.wiki doesn't cite sources, because ja.wiki hardly ever cites sources. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 09:53, 10 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)} 13:20, 15 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) 22:00, 22 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

If you want a vision of the future in which I don't !vote Keep, imagine a boot stamping on the relist button, forever. Also I agree with Hijiri88 and Dekimasu about the subject's notability. Bakazaka (talk) 22:57, 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. ~ Amory (u • t • c) 16:45, 30 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Korean Contemporary Christian music[edit]

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

Contested PROD. Short article that is unsourced. If sources show up the content could be moved into a section of the contemporary Christian music article, but there's nothing here to salvage. Walter Görlitz (talk) 21:46, 22 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

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

At first I thought a merge to Contemporary Christian music would be the best bet but after trying to find sources for the content, and failing, I'm coming to the conclusion that there's no encyclopedic content which is worth merging, therefore, delete. SITH (talk) 15:12, 30 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Totally unsourced, so fails WP:V. Whoever unprodded this should have undertaken the work to find sources. -- RoySmith (talk) 15:35, 30 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. Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 10:02, 30 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Mike Salzano[edit]

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

Non-notable American football offensive lineman who never played a game in the NFL. He fails all four points of WP:NCOLLATH and he fails WP:NGRIDIRON (didn't play in a professional league). Thus, his notability must rely on WP:GNG. All of the sources are general transactions or have brief mentions of Salzano. There is no significant coverage within reliable sources to establish notability. « Gonzo fan2007 (talk) @ 21:41, 22 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of American football-related deletion discussions. SportingFlyer T·C 23:03, 22 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Although he didn't play one game of professional football, I consider that he has merits as an important college player:

1) Being selected as a two-time first-team in an important conference like the Atlantic Coast Conference. Which is rare.
2) Being a four-year starter in college which is rare.
3) Being an All-American.
4) Additional to these points, he has one of the longest track records (shot put) in the history of the state of North Carolina. He also set the shot put record in the University of North Carolina.Tecmo (talk) 22:27, 22 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Just to clarify, almost all of your points have corollaries:

All-ACC is a small designation bestowed on many players. It's not rare at all. At the time there were only 8 schools in the ACC. This means he beat out at best, 15 other offensive lineman for this designation.
A four-year starter is not rare, especially for offensive linemen. We are not talking about a QB or RB here.
He was third-team all-American, again not a rare feat in college sports, especially for offensive linemen.
The first point was when he was in high school, so not applicable to his college exploits. It also was a record just for 4-A schools, not for the entire state. Setting school records also does not provide notability. « Gonzo fan2007 (talk) @ 22:38, 22 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

1) from 1953 to 1998 (the only information I have and also put as a reference in the article), there have been less than 30 players in the University of North Carolina to be at least two-time first-team All-ACC.

2) from 1953 to 1998 (the only information I have and also put as a reference in the article), there have been less than 160 players in the University of North Carolina to be named All-American at least once.

3) four-year starters are rare even on the offensive line because it takes durability and skills.Tecmo (talk) 23:24, 22 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete run of the mill collegian, fails WP:NGRIDIRON, fails WP:GNG. Youth sports articles (pre-college) do not count towards notability, either, except in rare circumstances not met here. SportingFlyer T·C 23:03, 22 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Had he been a unanimous first-team All-American it would be a different story, but his achievements as a whole don't pass WP:NGRIDIRON. Best, GPL93 (talk) 15:16, 24 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. Offensive linemen rarely get in-depth coverage seen with players at skill positions. Just taking an initial look. My initial search didn't turn up much here. E.g., "Salzano Set To Challenge Heroes". Just a quick look, though, so reserving judgment. Cbl62 (talk) 15:36, 24 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails WP:NGRIDIRON....William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 16:02, 24 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails to meet either WP:NGRIDIRON or WP:GNG. There's a lack of significant coverage to show notability. Papaursa (talk) 16:38, 24 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as violation of WP:NGRIDIRON, per GPL93. James-the-Charizard (talk) 01:41, 26 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) Tymon.r Do you have any questions? 21:52, 29 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

By The Horns Brewing Co.[edit]

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

Does not meet WP:NCORP. Small business, lack of independent in-depth coverage in RS. One minor incident about a label issue is about it. Other are minor and routine listing-type. Notability tagged for four years. MB 20:52, 22 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per power to the people! Andrew D. (talk) 22:21, 22 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 22:59, 22 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Food and drink-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 23:00, 22 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 23:00, 22 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 13:34, 26 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Meets the GNG. Philafrenzy (talk) 14:11, 26 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Is anyone going to provide any policy-based rational to Keep. The first two refs are primary sources. The third is a dead link, but from the title it was probably just a minor mention. The first is another minor mention, routine local coverage. The fifth is the best ref listed but is just about the one label issue. Turning to the list provided by Richie333, of the nine hits there, eight are routine and minor, most just mentions in lists. The first one has the only real coverage, and the premise of the article is how will Brexit affect small business with some tangential coverage of this brewery. This doesn't add up to WP:NCORP or GNG MB 14:27, 26 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

"Is anyone going to provide any policy-based rational to Keep." Well, I've been improving the article and additional sources. Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 17:07, 28 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. WP:SIGCOV by Bloomberg News [3]. I know that Daily Mail is depreciated, but it is one of the most widely read papers in the UK and there is hardly any COI/bias in the area of reporting on micro-breweries [4]? This is a keep. Britishfinance (talk) 17:47, 29 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. After some discussion, there seems consensus that there are sufficient good sources to be found, despite a lengthy list of poor quality ones. (non-admin closure) Nosebagbear (talk) 22:57, 29 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Darian calendar[edit]

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

An interesting idea, but not one that has significant coverage in 3rd party reliable sources. It has been referenced, mostly as a curiosity, in a couple of books but in-depth coverage has come from a single source, the man who proposed the system himself. A brief section in timekeeping on Mars is probably warrented here but not a dedicated article. MadeYourReadThis (talk) 20:21, 22 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete According to Issues and options for a Martian calendar the Darian calendar is one of >70! proposed calendars and "there is still no standardised system for expressing the date on Mars." There is already a paragraph on Darian at Timekeeping on Mars. There is not enough significant coverage of this topic in reliable sources to warrant a standalone article nor to merge the bulk of this article to ToM per undue weight. Having said that, the contributors to this article are invited to ping me or ask at v:Wikiversity:Requests for Import should they wish to develop a resource at Wikiversity on this topic. --mikeu ^talk 01:23, 23 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The article is well sourced and includes a considerable number of (non-inline) reliable references such as American Astronautical Society and Journal of the British Interplanetary Society. That it is one of many proposed Martian calendars is all the more a reason to keep it. Markvs88 (talk) 11:58, 23 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
- The sources are certainly numerous, but are they in-depth? Are they independent? Seven of the eleven inline cites and six of the eleven references are to Gangale, the inventor of the calendar, so don't count towards notability. The Allison source just lists it in tables with dozens of other proposals, not in-depth. The Moss source is a deadlink and the claimed archive link has nothing useful in it. I'll take another look tomorrow, but so far, it's not looking good. SpinningSpark 00:07, 24 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Fair points, all. I have broken out a "non-fiction" section, and added two new (definitely independent) sources, as well as moving one of the extant references to inline. Two of the three are in published books. I believe that with a bit more work this will pass wp:gng. Markvs88 (talk) 14:53, 24 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I think an "In non-fiction" section is a terrible idea. Our article is a non-fiction article about a non-fiction subject and anything relevant those sources have to say should be a cited fact in the article. Of the two sources you have added, the Micro Lessons source is useless; it is only a passing mention and goes on to link to the Wikipedia article, thus suggesting that's where they got the information. It's not an improvement and shouldn't be in the article at all. On the other hand, the Encyclopaedia of Metrology has a substantial article and goes a good way towards GNG. One more like that (GNG requires sources plural) and I'll change to keep. The story that Gangale got the idea from a Heinlein SF book is a great out-of-universe fact that could be cited in the "In fiction" section, greatly improving that sections encycloaedic worth. SpinningSpark 18:05, 24 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, if you can come up with a better heading, please feel free to change it. Since not all of the non-fiction sources are academic journals I was stumped. I disagree on "Micro Lesssons": it is not useless because it lends credence to the idea that of the 70 or so proposed Martian calendars that it is one of the "best choices" or "major options" and therefore satisfies wp:NRV. It's not enough for notability alone, but it does help. Yes, they do link to Wikipedia for the reader to get more information, BUT they are an academic group STATING that the calendar is relevant themselves and not due to Wikipedia. In any event, I've added two new finds: the presentation of the calendar at founding meeting of the Mars Society and it being mentioned in the Fortnightly Review. Markvs88 (talk) 02:04, 25 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

~~Redirect~~, no independent, in-depth coverage meeting GNG. It already has a paragraph in Timekeeping on Mars which is sufficient. I'll change my !vote if someone can point to decent coverage. Here is my analysis of the sources in the article;
- Notes
  - Gangale (7 refs), not independent
  - Allison, passing mention
  - Moss, deadlink, including all archives
  - Clancy, not even a mention
  - Aitken, not even a mention
- References
  - Bennett, a work of fiction (Star Trek)
  - Gangale (6 refs), not independent
  - Hale-Evans, barely a paragraph in a lightweight self-help book
  - Rajaniemi, a work of fiction
  - Sakers, one sentence and some passing mentions in a book about science fiction
  - Smith, one brief paragraph

SpinningSpark 09:13, 24 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Changing to keep. There is a substantial article in Astronomy Now which together with the substantial source found by Markvs88 gets it past GNG. SpinningSpark 18:22, 24 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep The article kind of annoys me in the way it drags in every last scrap of passing mention and micro-notability; it's doing a good impression of a non-notable topic frantically trying to prove the opposite (that "Darian calendar in non-fiction" section makes me cringe). Despite this unfortunate presentation, I think there's in fact enough secondary coverage to squeeze through. --Elmidae (talk · contribs) 20:52, 25 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Fully agree with that impression. It was the extremely poor referencing that led me to initially !vote delete. If this is kept, I intend to clean that up somewhat. SpinningSpark 20:02, 26 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Seems to have lots of references and a subject that should have info available on Wikipedia.--AfPEN (talk) 08:57, 28 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. New sources give at least a technical pass of GNG. Large amount of non-RS cover this subject on google searchs, which means that this topic is also interesting to our readers. Britishfinance (talk) 21:16, 29 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. -- RoySmith (talk) 15:36, 30 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Music Gets Me High[edit]

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

Source	Independent?	Reliable?	Significant coverage?	Count source toward GNG?
Source assessment table:
1	Self-published.	~ It depends, basic info, yes; claims of notability, no.	By virtue of being self-published.	✘ No
2	? 404	? 404	? 404	? Unknown
3	? The extensive quotes, promotional language and inclusion of contact details make me think this could be sponsored content.	? Unfamiliar with the publication and considering the aforementioned possibility sponsored content, I'll leave this as unknown.	Covers the company.	? Unknown
4	? 404	? 404	? 404	? Unknown
5	? Appears to be a press-release.	Minor publication.	Mentions the company in passing twice, primarily covers its founder.	✘ No
6	No apparent affiliation.	? Unfamiliar with publication.	Mentions the company's founder in the list, about her, not the company.	✘ No
7	No apparent affiliation.	? Unfamiliar with publication.	Does not mention the company, only Nayan.	✘ No
8	? 404	? 404	? 404	? Unknown
9	No apparent affiliation.	? Unfamiliar with publication.	Quotes Nayan, mentions the company in passing.	✘ No
10	Written by Nayan.	? Unfamiliar with publication.	By virtue of being affiliated.	✘ No
11	? 404	? 404	? 404	? Unknown
This table may not be a final or consensus view; it may summarize developing consensus, or reflect assessments of a single editor. Created using {{source assess table}}.

From this source assessment, it appears the requisite depth of independent, reliable coverage for corporations has not been satisfied to establish corporate notability. SITH (talk) 20:03, 22 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 23:05, 22 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 23:06, 22 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 23:06, 22 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as per all of the above.TH1980 (talk) 03:13, 24 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as per nom . Unoc (talk) 13:07, 30 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. Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 10:02, 30 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Sachin Gole[edit]

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

This is basically a hoax- there is not a single reliable source reporting about this person actually voicing any of these. See also Sanket Mhatre. The only places where this persons name exists is social media and wikia. Praxidicae (talk) 18:48, 22 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 23:07, 22 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 23:08, 22 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 23:08, 22 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Comics and animation-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 23:08, 22 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 23:08, 22 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete – There is no evidence of this person's existence in reliable sources. Clearly fails WP:BIO. Bradv🍁 23:23, 22 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete – Quick search couldn't yield anything which will tell the subject is notable. QueerEcofeminist^{"cite! even if you fight"!!!} [they/them/their] 17:26, 23 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Could not find any reliable sources about the subject. iamvardhana (talk) 15:08, 27 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - as above. Similar comment to WP:Articles for deletion/Sanket Mhatre - it's starting to feel like some promotional / UPE editing is happening around dubbing voice actors and this is a really good example. The handful of sources are specific to a film or from unreliable sources. Ravensfire (talk) 17:48, 27 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Closer - please note Draft:Sachin Gole which is essentially clones of this article. Ravensfire (talk) 00:02, 30 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Does not meet basic WP:GNG and has no reliable sources.--AfPEN (talk) 09:19, 28 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. Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 10:03, 30 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

James Ditson Service[edit]

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

Article about a person notable only as a mayor of a suburban township, not reliably sourced as having enough media coverage to clear WP:NPOL #2: the only reference present here at all is his purely routine paid-inclusion death notice on legacy.com, not actual journalism. As always, the notability test for municipal politicians (even mayors) is not simply the ability to single-source the fact that they existed; it is the ability to write and source a genuinely substantive article about their political impact, and the idea that a mayor whose article isn't doing that still gets an automatic inclusion freebie anyway, just because the town or city eventually surpassed an arbitrary population cutoff, was deprecated years ago as no longer applicable to mayoral notability anymore. Bearcat (talk) 18:34, 22 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. Bearcat (talk) 18:43, 22 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Ontario-related deletion discussions. Bearcat (talk) 18:43, 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. -- Patar knight - ^chat/_{contributions} 14:45, 30 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Sanket Mhatre[edit]

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

I've done a fair amount of digging and I can find no evidence this person is notable and while they may have done some voice work, it appears that they've done so as self published voice work and was not solicited or selected by any studios - I can't find any truly reliable sources (not even non-RS like iMDB!) reporting on his dubbing. Praxidicae (talk) 18:15, 22 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I take that back, I did find this and this but nothing truly substantial. Praxidicae (talk) 18:57, 22 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - As per nomination, not notable enough, search yields no reliable sources. QueerEcofeminist^{"cite! even if you fight"!!!} [they/them/their] 05:23, 26 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I've got to question that even if they've done dubbing work on multiple films, this isn't WP:NACTOR stuff, it's dubbing. Unless there are good sources ON THIS PERSON, not on the film they've dubbed, they probably aren't meeting notability requirements. There are a fair number of articles on voice actors who do dubbing and it feels like there is some promotional / UPE editing happening around this industry. Ravensfire (talk) 17:01, 27 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 02:11, 23 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 02:11, 23 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. While this person has a lot of credits listed, a quick Google search brings up only some minor sources such as a YouTube interview. Voice of Ben 10 in Hindi is notable! A little more research would be needed. So I am undecided if this should stay or not. If it stays, it definitely needs to have some reliable references.--AfPEN (talk) 14:06, 28 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

If you're talking about the same youtube videos I came across, they're self published and do not indicate in any way that he did anything more than what I indicated in the nom, which is basically the equivalent of self-publishing. Praxidicae (talk) 15:50, 28 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I am sure there are camera operators who can claim an impressive list of WP-notable films they worked on, but without GNG, they don’t get WP articles. The lack of refs in the article tells the story. I could find zero WP:SIGCOV in a good RS on this subject (explains why their core BIO details are non-existent). The extensive list of films clearly raises COI-UDP issues as well. Britishfinance (talk) 13:28, 30 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. Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 10:05, 30 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

VoiceoverPete[edit]

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

Participants in the previous discussion did not address the WP:BLP1E concerns. Yes, there are several articles about him because of his Fiverr ban. But that's it. The rest are self-published sources. An editor asserted that Pete would probably gain continued coverage, but he did not. I recommend a redirect to Fiverr#Criticism. wumbolo ^^^ 09:50, 15 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Icewhiz (talk) 10:10, 15 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Icewhiz (talk) 10:10, 15 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Hi Wumbolo, there seems to be no legitimate reason for deletion in this AfD. In terms of the the WP:BLP1E concerns, VoiceoverPete is not notable for only one event. He is now a YouTuber in his own right with around 1 Million subscribers, just like any other listed on Wikipedia. His article is currently a stub which users can help expand with details of his involvement in PewDiePie vs T-Series, his consistent collaborations with Grandayy and other memers, and any other details of his online career deemed suitable for his article. Stewartmurdock (talk) 12:01, 15 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Snow keep per previous discussion. 142.222.98.158 (talk) 18:15, 18 March 2019 (UTC) [reply]

— 142.222.98.158 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

Delete There is almost nothing substantial in any RS about this person. The previous AFD is irrelevant and I'm in agreement with the nom. Praxidicae (talk) 18:29, 18 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Yes this article could be improved, but how can there be a legitimate reason to delete when the consensus was to keep in the previous discussion on 1 February 2019. Unoc (talk) 11:12, 21 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Very easily. Consensus can change. wumbolo ^^^ 11:54, 21 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nomination. Previous discussions are never prejudicial to AfD outcomes; their content can be referenced, of course. There is no evidence of independent notability. A significant number of Google hits and YouTube popularity are perhaps traits of real-life notability. But Wikipedia has its own rules and guidelines about notability of persons. -The Gnome (talk) 12:01, 22 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: To give time to reach consensus, which is far from clear at this point.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Onel5969 ^{TT me} 17:50, 22 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The first discussion had already discussed WP:BLP1E. There are more sources that can be added to this and we shouldn't base his notability off what is currently used in this article. Handoto (talk) 02:29, 23 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Greetings, Handoto. You're an early, major contributor to the contested article. So why don't you go ahead and put more such sources in the article? If this could be done before the AfD process is over, it could affect its outcome. Take care. -The Gnome (talk) 09:33, 23 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Per WP:NEXIST we should not hold articles hostage to adding more references. Nominators and opinionators should check if sources exist, not if references are in the article. gidonb (talk) 03:04, 27 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Per WP:V we shouldn't have BLPs indefinitely awaiting sources and the primary difference between what you and I cite is that one is a policy and the other is a guideline. Praxidicae (talk) 14:37, 28 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Oh and please read WP:BURDEN re:Nominators and opinionators should check if sources exist, not if references are in the article. The deletes here are on the basis that there aren't sufficient sources to support it's inclusion, so the onus is on those that want to keep it, to provide them. Praxidicae (talk) 14:45, 28 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Only 45 days between uncontested closure as keep and new nomination. gidonb (talk) 03:10, 27 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Meets basic WP:GNG. I see additional sources that has not been used. What is notable in real life should be notable on Wikipedia so long as such notability can be proved, and that includes YouTube. How many times have we seen personalities rise from the likes of YouTube to become independently notable in their own right?--AfPEN (talk) 14:14, 28 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Well if he "rises to notability", then we can have an article. But we don't keep articles on the basis that someone, some day might become notable. Praxidicae (talk) 14:39, 28 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 redirect to Itaú Unibanco. (non-admin closure) Tymon.r Do you have any questions? 21:51, 29 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Credicard[edit]

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

No assertion of notability fails WP:GNG and WP:CORP. Search results I found are related mostly to a Venezuelan company with the same name. Crystallizedcarbon (talk) 17:05, 22 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. Crystallizedcarbon (talk) 17:05, 22 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure what searches the nominator is doing, but I can't see anything about a Venezuelan company, and a simple click on the word "books" above finds, in the first few results, this 171-page book published by the São Paulo Museum of Art to mark the occasion of Credicard's 30th anniversary and other reliable sources describing this as "one of Brazil's biggest credit card companies" and "Brazil's largest credit card company". Phil Bridger (talk) 17:20, 22 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Phil Bridger: I looked in the news and normal results of Google from Spain. According to the article the company was founded in 1978 and the book was published in 2001 (23 years latter). The book does not include any coverage of the company, it seems that the publication was just sponsored by the company according to this and this.

If you were able to find enough independent reliable sources with in depth coverage of the subject to meet either WP:GNG or WP:CORP please provide them. Regards. --Crystallizedcarbon (talk) 23:19, 22 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Brazil-related deletion discussions. IntoThinAir (talk) 17:36, 22 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to the parent company, and make sure it is mentioned in that article. Sponsorship of a book is not notability . DGG ( talk ) 09:11, 25 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. MrClog (talk) 21:50, 26 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect. As a useful product to its parent company, Credicard ought to be covered on Wikipedia. However, it is not notable or qualified on its own right to be a stand-alone page, therefore adding a redirect to its parent company page and section there is most suitable than any other outcome.--AfPEN (talk) 14:18, 28 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect. To Parent company as proposed by DGG. Lapablo (talk) 16:08, 28 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. As an administrative note, please don't strike other editor's comments. -- RoySmith (talk) 15:41, 30 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Mohammed Saeed Al Sheikh Khaz'al[edit]

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

Unsourced biography with vague claims, none of them on their face amounting to notability. Cabayi (talk) 14:04, 22 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Cabayi (talk) 14:05, 22 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

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

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

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

~~Keep~~. .~~this person to claims significance as a major diplomat working for the UAE. i hope that eligible notability but need to source~~ . —Swe123123 (talk) 12:44, 23 March 2019 (UTC

Swe123123 significance is the criterion for speedy deletion, for AFD notability needs to be shown; the article claims "he acted as the middleman" not as a major diplomat; and no sources are provided for any of the claims. Cabayi (talk) 10:22, 23 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete absolutely no sourcing, middle of the road diplomat. Best, GPL93 (talk) 15:14, 23 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Deleted. . not eligible notability & no sourcing . —Swe123123 (talk) 06:19, 24 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Has no sources.--AfPEN (talk) 14:24, 28 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: only just has a credible claim of significance, however, he doesn't seem to have attracted significant coverage in independent, reliable sources, and therefore fails the general notability guideline. SITH (talk) 15:14, 30 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} 14:45, 30 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Shyama Prasad Halder[edit]

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

Fails WP:NPOL, candidate at election, not elected (yet). Fram (talk) 13:47, 22 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. Cabayi (talk) 13:57, 22 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Cabayi (talk) 13:57, 22 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, not yet elected, fails WP:NPOL. Alternatively redirect to Mathurapur (Lok Sabha constituency) when there's a section for the 2019 election. Cabayi (talk) 13:59, 22 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. People do not get Wikipedia articles just for being candidates in elections they have not won — but this offers neither evidence that he has preexisting notability for other reasons, nor evidence that his candidacy has generated an unusually large volume of coverage, compared to what every other candidate also gets, to make his candidacy special. Obviously it can be recreated on or after election day if he wins the seat, but nothing here is a reason why he would already be eligible for an article today. Bearcat (talk) 18:32, 27 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Fails NPOL, Fails GNG (I could not find a single good WP:RS of which they are a main subject). May change in the future, but a straightforward Delete now. Britishfinance (talk) 10:10, 30 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} 13:13, 29 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

J. F. Roux[edit]

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

While accomplished, simply not enough in-depth coverage to show he meets WP:GNG. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 12:49, 22 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Artists-related deletion discussions. Icewhiz (talk) 14:05, 22 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of South Africa-related deletion discussions. Icewhiz (talk) 14:05, 22 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Zimbabwe-related deletion discussions. Icewhiz (talk) 14:05, 22 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as I couldn't find any WP:RS. The article is WP:COI as it was created by TheunisRoux who identifies himself on c:File:Photo of J. F. Roux at his exhibition in Darling, Western Cape.jpg as J F Roux's son. --Theredproject (talk) 14:19, 22 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete a search turned up nothing. GNG fail.ThatMontrealIP (talk) 14:46, 22 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above. My only reservation is the claim that two museums own his work but unsourced and by itself that doesn't seem enough. Major COI and neutrality issues, per the mass of filler I deleted. 2601:188:180:1481:65F5:930C:B0B2:CD63 (talk) 00:58, 23 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as per all of the above.TH1980 (talk) 03:12, 24 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. Article completely rewritten during the AfD. -- RoySmith (talk) 15:45, 30 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

American Micro Devices[edit]

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

The coverage (references, external links, etc.) does not seem sufficient to justify this article passing Wikipedia:General notability guideline and the more detailed Wikipedia:Notability (companies) requirement. Deprodded by creator who said "at least as notable as j. random soccer player - deprod, let it marinate for a bit,. Still looking for more data. Notable confusion with the later better known AMD". Sigh. WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS, and no, we don't have WP:NOMARINATE but anyway, if you cannot find good sources, don't create such articles per WP:GNG. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 10:39, 22 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Minnesota-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 10:47, 22 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 10:48, 22 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Commenting that I think it is fine the poster made a starter page, even without solid referencing. We can help. The age of the company of course means digitized newspaper articles are somewhat lacking. That doesn't mean press doesn't exist, just that some additional scrounging behind paywalls may be necessary. I did find an excellent New York Times article from 1961, and various other shorter mentions.
- - "NEW CONCERN FORMED; American Micro Devices to Make Electronic Items". www.nytimes.com. New York Times. 1961. {{cite web}}: Italic or bold markup not allowed in: |publisher= (help)

The research I brought back to page is confusing unfortunately. Some reports say the company ceased to exist in 1980, but other articles cite it as a powerhouse in the 1990s. Either the company was rekindled, or those journalists are ragingly incompetent and are misspelling Advanced Micro Devices. Until we've clarified, hard to argue the company is not of note. If someone with paywall access in Minnesota or California looked through local newspapers, perhaps we could find some clarification. Articles describe the company having offices in Minnesota and Silicon Valley.MidwestSalamander (talk) 14:40, 22 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Unless such sources it's find it's an invalid argument, per WP:THEREMUSTBESOURCES. Also, keep in mind WP:AUDIENCE - if coverage exists only in local newspapers, new or old, that's not enough. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 05:48, 25 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Local may have been a foolish way for me to say it, I know it can be sort of a dirty word in AFD. Of course small city rags or regional trade publications are typically low-profile and local, but major city newspapers like the Star Tribune or Mercury News are notable and read throughout their states, and even nationally. They could help us quite a bit, but the availability of their older articles is dodgier than other newspapers. MidwestSalamander (talk) 13:05, 26 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed. Those would qualify for being regional and if we can find coverage of this company in them that does not look routine/press-release like, it would be a good source for keeping the article. So, now that we agree on what makes for a good source, can we find any? --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 04:35, 27 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I'll do another research round this afternoon, maybe I'll get lucky. If not, then so be it. One New York Times article isn't enough for GNG much less WP:CORPDEPTH, and I can unfortunately can't think of a good redirect or merge location. MidwestSalamander (talk) 15:28, 29 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I did a little bit of digging at newspapers.com, since I have an account there. The most reliable articles seem to indicate that American Micro Devices incorporated in Minnesota in 1961 but did most of its business in Phoenix, Arizona. They made rectifiers for a while, but went out of business in 1965 after Sylvania Electric Products stopped selling American Micro's products. Then, in 1966, American Micro Devices bought Standard Rectifiers of El Monte, CA in 1966, and refinanced and reorganized the company. After that, there's no further news about American Micro Devices except for a couple letters to investment advice columns in 1988 asking if American Micro's stock was still worth anything. The investment advice columnist(s) said that the company went out of business in 1980. So, I'd think that any mentions of American Micro Devices after 1980 are probably confused with Advanced Micro Devices. Based on the fairly minimal coverage I've seen of the 1961-1980 company, they don't look all that notable, so my advice is delete. --Elkman ^(Elkspeak) 16:01, 22 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the helpful research! MidwestSalamander (talk) 13:08, 26 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Article creator says KEEP, naturally. Thanks to all those who've dug up som any references and additional material on this formerly obscure company, much more than it had when nominated. There does seem to be a lot of confusion between this company and the later AMD. It would seem to be a fine thing for an encyclopedia to resolve this confusion. Gosh, can we spare 7 1/2 kilobytes for this tiny article? --Wtshymanski (talk) 05:36, 23 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
- Please see WP:GNG. It's not our job to collect information on stuff that's too obscure to be notable. See also WP:MERCY, WP:ITSUSEFUL. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 05:48, 25 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Probably better argument is WP:NOHARM. – The Grid (talk) 17:19, 27 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. I bit the bullet to get behind the Newspapers.com paywall, easily found enough coverage from the 1960s to argue WP:CORPDEPTH is met. Adding to the page now. MidwestSalamander (talk) 19:47, 29 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. Nomination withdrawn. (non-admin closure) Daiyusha (talk) 05:59, 23 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Vivian Beer[edit]

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

All the notable sources for her state only one thing, that she won the Ellen Designer challenge. I do not believe that winning that contest alone is enough for notablity. There are other "awards" she won like Smithsonian artist research fellowship,listed only on her website, but i'm not sure if it is "highly selective " enough to pass WP:NACADEMIC Daiyusha (talk) 09:01, 22 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Artists-related deletion discussions. CASSIOPEIA^(talk) 09:37, 22 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. CASSIOPEIA^(talk) 09:37, 22 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Coverage and achievements not sufficient for WP:NBIO. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 09:41, 22 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of New Hampshire-related deletion discussions. Icewhiz (talk) 10:18, 22 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I did a quick database search, and found these. I haven't evaluated them (and won't be able to for a few days), but putting them here for others to consider and incorporate:
- Hanus, Julie K. (2011). Curves ahead.(furniture maker Vivian Beer). American Craft, 71(3), 32.
- Harris, P., & Lyon, D. (2016). Vivian Beer: Woman of Steel. Metalsmith, 36(2), 28-35.
- Block, A. (2015). Leaning way in. Interior Design, 86(5), 57.

She was also included in the smithsonian american art museum "40 under 40: craft futures" in 2012 at its renwick gallery [5]. And according to her bio (obv would need to be verified) "Her work is included in the collections of the Renwick Gallery of the Smithsonian American Art Museum, The Museum of Fine Arts, Boston, the Brooklyn Museum of Art, The Metals Museum, The Currier Museum of Art and the Museum of Arts and Design, NYC and public art in the cities of Portland, Maine and Cambridge, Massachusetts." Seems like more research is needed to Verify these claims before anyone !votes further. --Theredproject (talk) 13:31, 22 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per WP:ARTIST 4(d), "The person's work (or works) has ... been represented within the permanent collections of several notable galleries or museums". Per Theredproject, above, I verified that this artist's works are in the collections of the Smithsonian Institution [6], the Museum of Fine Arts, Boston [7], and the Brooklyn Museum [8]. —David Eppstein (talk) 14:10, 22 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Even if it is too much effort for a nominator verify the collections an artist or designer makes on their website, that lack of WP:BEFORE should not result in a AfD. At best a {{cn}} tag was all that was needed. Easily passes WP:ARTIST with multiple collections in notable museums and sufficient coverage (American Craft Magazine has a lot of info) to sustain an article. Vexations (talk) 21:28, 22 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep if she meets WP:ARTIST by virtue of being in several museum collections (thank you David Eppstein and TheRedProject), then this discussion is not really needed and should be withdrawn to save needless discussion Pinging Daiyusha to consider withdrawal on that basis.ThatMontrealIP (talk) 04:06, 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 soft delete. WP:REFUND applies. TonyBallioni (talk) 20:27, 22 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

BE-Bridge[edit]

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

Article unsourced and original Japanese article also unsourced. No reliable independent sources found. Mccapra (talk) 06:19, 15 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Architecture-related deletion discussions. Icewhiz (talk) 08:32, 15 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. Icewhiz (talk) 08:32, 15 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sheldybett (talk) 09:01, 22 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Fails WP:GNG and subguidelines for products/software. It exists. Not enough. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 09:42, 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. ~ Rob₁₃^Talk 02:00, 24 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Strictly Slots[edit]

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

No claim to notability, and no sign of it either. A search for sources found nothing except adverts and Wikipedia clones. bonadea contributions talk 06:51, 15 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Journalism-related deletion discussions. Icewhiz (talk) 08:31, 15 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Games-related deletion discussions. Icewhiz (talk) 08:31, 15 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. Icewhiz (talk) 08:31, 15 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sheldybett (talk) 09:00, 22 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Fails Wikipedia:Notability (media). --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 09:42, 22 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Citing to places you can purchase a subscription do not establish notability. ‡ Єl Cid of ᐺalencia ^ᐐT₳LKᐬ 12:30, 22 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as non-notable promotional material. Cosmic Sans (talk) 13:07, 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. ~ Amory (u • t • c) 13:51, 29 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Nik Omar Nik Abdul Aziz[edit]

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

Does not appear to meet WP:NPOLITICIAN. Losing candidate for political office. Unable to find coverage in reliable sources. Bsherr (talk) 23:17, 7 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 23:25, 7 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Malaysia-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 23:25, 7 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 23:26, 7 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Red Panda 25 22:12, 8 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) 02:12, 15 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment He was appointed as a chief, as seen here: https://www.msn.com/en-my/news/national/nik-omar-named-new-yadim-chief/ar-BBQYnBx. Not sure if this helps. --The One and Only Boothsift 04:12, 15 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sheldybett (talk) 09:00, 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. Withdrawn by nominator. (non-admin closure) J 947 ^{^{^(c)}}, at 01:09, 23 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

George W. Milias[edit]

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

Poor sources and overall fails WP:GNG. Walk Like an Egyptian (talk) 08:08, 22 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 08:13, 22 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 08:13, 22 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. The subject of the article is a former member of the California State Legislature who served in the 1960s. Under WP:POLITICIAN, "The following are presumed to be notable:...former members of a national, state or provincial legislature..." OCNative (talk) 09:50, 22 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep – Article is sourced properly and as pointed out by OCNative satisfies WP:POLITICIAN. ShoesssS ^Talk 10:07, 22 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Withdraw --Walk Like an Egyptian (talk) 22:12, 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. Nominator withdrew. (non-admin closure) J 947 ^{^{^(c)}}, at 01:09, 23 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Dennis Carpenter[edit]

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

Extremely short article that fails WP:GNG. Walk Like an Egyptian (talk) 08:07, 22 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 08:15, 22 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 08:15, 22 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Law-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 08:16, 22 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Minnesota-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 08:16, 22 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep – Article is sourced properly and satisfies WP:POLITICIAN. Nothing wrong with short pieces at Wikipedia ShoesssS ^Talk 10:12, 22 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Passes WP:NPOL. Best, GPL93 (talk) 17:14, 22 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. The article could certainly use improvement, but state legislators do pass WP:NPOL and do get media and other reliable source coverage — the difference is that because he held office in the 1970s, his coverage will be in news databases rather than out on the Google. We don't have a blanket ban on short stubs at Wikipedia — we obviously deprecate short stubs that don't have a strong basis for notability, but if somebody does have a strong basis for notability, like having verifiably served in a state legislature, then we don't delete the article just for not already being longer than it is. Bearcat (talk) 21:54, 22 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Withdraw --Walk Like an Egyptian (talk) 22:13, 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. ~ Amory (u • t • c) 13:55, 29 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Duf Sundheim[edit]

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

Lacks significant coverage. A majority of the references are about the 2016 United States Senate election in California. Walk Like an Egyptian (talk) 07:58, 22 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Illinois-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 08:17, 22 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Law-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 08:18, 22 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 08:18, 22 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Failed candidate, party position is not auto-notable, local coverage. WP:TOOSOON at best. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 10:41, 22 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Neither being state-level chair of a political party nor being a non-winning candidate in an election primary constitutes an automatic free pass over WP:NPOL, but this is not referenced anywhere near well enough to get him over WP:GNG in lieu: eight of the 11 references are not support for notability at all, comprising raw tables of election results and a letter to the editor from a non-notable voter and his own self-published campaign advertisement on YouTube — and the three that actually qualify as reliable source coverage are covering him in the not-inherently notable contexts, so that doesn't represent enough coverage all by itself. GNG is not just "anybody who's gotten their name into any newspaper two or more times for any reason whatsoever" — it also tests for the context of what the person is getting coverage for. For example, every candidate in an election primary is always going to get coverage in that context — so coverage that exists specifically in the context of an election primary does not instantly make him more notable than every other candidate in the primary. Which means that "Moderate is state GOP's chief booster" is the only citation here that's actually speaking to his potential notability at all, and that's not enough all by itself. Bearcat (talk) 18:10, 27 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. Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 10:04, 30 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Shawn Steel[edit]

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

Lacks significant coverage. Walk Like an Egyptian (talk) 07:54, 22 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 08:19, 22 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 08:19, 22 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. He has held no political office that confers an automatic WP:NPOL pass just because he exists, but none of the references are helping to get him over WP:GNG in lieu: four of the seven are primary sources that do not count as support for notability at all, two are glancing namechecks of his existence in coverage of other things or people (one of which, in fact, mentions his name only in the photographer credits to its images, without mentioning his name in the body text at all), and the only one that's more than trivially about him is from a student newspaper rather than a general-market media outlet — and even if we overlooked the fact that it's student media, it would still just make him a WP:BLP1E. Bearcat (talk) 18:28, 27 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 withdrawn--Ymblanter (talk) 11:43, 22 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Danish Irfan Azman[edit]

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

The subject never played in a fully professional league, thereby failing WP:NFOOTY. I do not see correspondence to WP:GNG either. Whereas he has a clear potential to start playing professional football, this apparently did not happen yet, and tor the time being he fails our notability criteria. Ymblanter (talk) 07:51, 22 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Singapore-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 08:21, 22 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 08:21, 22 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 08:21, 22 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions.CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 08:21, 22 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - Hi Ymblanter - He appears to have played in 19 games, averaging over 65 minutes per game (see here) for Geylang International FC. Are they not a professional team? Onel5969 ^{TT me} 11:37, 22 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
This one is indeed professional, thanks. I thereby withdraw the nomination.--Ymblanter (talk) 11:42, 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. Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 10:04, 30 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Tom Del Beccaro[edit]

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

Lacks significant coverage. Walk Like an Egyptian (talk) 07:47, 22 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 08:24, 22 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 08:25, 22 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Law-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 08:25, 22 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 08:25, 22 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete He did chair the Republican Party in CA. He did run for Senate and write a book. But the book only got in to the news cycle during the campaign - mentions, into book reviews. Fails WP:AUTHOR, FAILS, WP:NPOL and I'm not findding the sources that could satisfy WP:SIGCOV.E.M.Gregory (talk) 07:36, 27 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per E.M.Gregory. Best, GPL93 (talk) 14:39, 27 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 redirect to 3 (Soulfly album). (non-admin closure) Tymon.r Do you have any questions? 21:50, 29 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Tree of Pain[edit]

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

This song was never released as a single and the main body reads like a review, with descriptions that are not NPOV. As this was never a notable song in the band's catalog, suggesting deletion. KailuaKid (talk) 04:39, 22 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. Icewhiz (talk) 06:26, 22 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 06:40, 22 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect - To respective album 3 (Soulfly album). There’s neither the dedicated sourcing or content to warrant being split into its own article. (It’s very short and mostly consists of some unsourced descriptions of the song’s sound.) It could be a plausible search term though, and content is/could be added at the album article. Sergecross73 msg me 15:20, 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 keep. (non-admin closure) So said The Great Wiki Lord. (talk) 15:28, 29 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Choi Jong-hoon[edit]

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

Non-notable band member of a K-pop group: it's the typical K-pop fancruft, where everything is blown up toward notability. The claim, by someone who gets a kick out of insulting people, is that he passes NACTOR because he's a star in some TV show--but all they can produce is an announcement from 2014, on a Korean entertainment portal, that this will happen in the fall of 2014. Since then, who knows. The rest of the person's acting career consists of cameos and appearances in programs about the band he's in. Do not be misled by "cast member" in Real Life Men and Women--it's just another variety show.

Now, if you start Googling him you'll find some hits, because he just quit the business after having been found--allegedly--sharing sex videos illicitly. In other words, the only thing this person could possibly be notable for is a BLP1 event. We need to restore the redirect. Drmies (talk) 00:28, 15 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Korea-related deletion discussions. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 00:53, 15 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 00:53, 15 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. MyanmarBBQ (talk) 02:29, 15 March 2019 (UTC) [reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. MyanmarBBQ (talk) 02:29, 15 March 2019 (UTC) [reply]

Delete as per the precise evaluation by the nom. The only thing he seems notable for is a BLP violation.Onel5969 ^{TT me} 12:05, 15 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep He is also an actor, he did leading roles in the notable multiple television series [9],[10] such as Prince's Prince (2015), Heroes (2015), 88 Street (2016), and Unexpected Heroes (2017) satisfies WP:NACTOR #1 and WP:GNG. And i found his acting role sources and coverages in some Korean reliable media [11], [12]. If you can't read Korean texts? please use Google web translation tool. Thanks MyanmarBBQ (talk) 14:10, 15 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
- MyanmarBBQ, those last two articles say nothing at all: it's just celebrity news, with two or three sentences confirming that he plays this or that part. And if these two sources are so reliable, please indicate (in English) what these publications are, who is on their editorial board, and what their reputation is. I doubt that you can: they are just news-y entertainment portans that also publish celebrity gossip. These other things you mention are web series--they aren't even properly verified in the article, they are web series that don't have articles and may not even exist for all I know (they may just have been announcements that never panned out). I don't think you know what reliable sources are, or what significant coverage means; the subject does not pass NACTOR. So, in the end, the only properly verified content is the sex scandal. But hey, at least you're not calling me a dog anymore. Drmies (talk) 17:01, 15 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

According to WP:NACTOR, "had significant roles in multiple notable films, television shows, stage performances, or other productions.": He did ✅. To be clear... Please watch his series on YouTube and you will know he is lead or not!! P.s I'm minor editor and i know nothing some Wikipedia rules...plz don't bully me. BTW... "Shutup Dogs" sentence on my user page are mean not you...Anyway I apologise you with my heart ... Sry dear. MyanmarBBQ (talk) 19:54, 15 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. I've made some improvements to this article—it needs a lot of work—but he clearly passes WP:NACTOR. Had a supporting role in the film You're My Pet, and lead roles in the TV series Prince's Prince, Heroes, and Unexpected Heroes. A basic Google search show that these dramas did all air. The series don't have articles, but that is not an indication of non-notability, they simply have no been created yet. Trying to find English-language sources for a Korean subject and automatically brushing aside native-language sources is truly narrow systematic bias. ℯxplicit 03:45, 16 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
- User:Explicit, not counting unreliable sources is good application of Wikipedia policy. You should know that something airing doesn't mean it's noteworthy, let alone notable; reliable sources make it noteworthy/notable. The other user is arguing that "it's on YouTube so yeah", which boils down to the same thing. Also, you cite BIAS, I cite AGF. Come on now. Drmies (talk) 03:27, 23 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  - User:Explicit, Clearly seen, someone have WP:IDONTLIKEIT Korean. (I really want to delete...cuz its Korean I Don't Like it) lol. MyanmarBBQ (talk) 05:46, 23 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 04:32, 22 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per xplicit's accurate interpretation of WP:NACTOR. MidwestSalamander (talk) 06:20, 22 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
- WP:PERX. Drmies (talk) 03:27, 23 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I would favor a keep. He was the first leader of FT Island, and for a damn long time, surely being leader of the band also adds notability. Garlicolive (talk) 01:41, 25 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Consensus that all of these articles should not be considered as a single group, and for at least some of them reliable sources conveying notability do exist. This result does not preclude renomination of individual articles that do not have such sourcing in the future. -- Patar knight - ^chat/_{contributions} 13:12, 29 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Roland JD-990[edit]

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

I'm nominating several articles about Roland synthesisers for deletion. This is because:

they fail WP:PRODUCT, which says: If a company is notable, information on its products and services should generally be included in the article on the company itself, unless the company article is so large that this would make the article unwieldy ... Avoid creating multiple stubs about each individual product (PU-36 Explosive Space Modulator, Q-36 Explosive Space Modulator, R-36 Explosive Space Modulator, etc.) especially if there is no realistic hope of expansion.
they consist almost entirely of original research, with few (if any) good sources
they are largely untouched, and many have had "more sources needed" tags for years
Googling these products doesn't throw up better sources

I haven't necessarily nominated all of them... just the low-hanging fruit so far.

Articles nominated for deletion:

Roland JD-990 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Roland Alpha Juno (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Roland D-70 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Roland E-20 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Roland JP-8000 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Roland Juno-G (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Roland JX-8P (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Roland JX-10 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Roland JX-305 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Roland SH-201 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Roland SH-1000 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Roland SH-3A (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Roland System 100 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Roland System-100M (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Roland System 700 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Roland U-20 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Roland V-Synth (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Roland XP-30 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Roland SH-01 Gaia (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Roland GR-500 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Roland HandSonic (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Roland R-5 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Roland R-8 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Roland VK-7 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. Icewhiz (talk) 06:27, 22 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. Icewhiz (talk) 06:27, 22 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Perhaps some of these models should be deleted, but I think it is excessive to nominate all of them. Some of these models have prominent status in the music world, and the majority are well-written and referenced. I am not sure if WP:PRODUCT can be easily applied to something like instruments, since they are so often referenced and publicized by bands and musicians. I appreciate the intention but I think it's too broad. Skirts⁸⁹ 16:12, 22 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - I am actually outraged that you would suggest deleting all these. I am a musician hobbyist and know most of these synths. I owned JD-800 the keyword version of JD-990. The JD-990 is one of the most powerful rack mounts ever made and has a huge fan base in the Synth world. The Roland System 100/100m/700 are one of the first modular synths ever made and very power, also has a huge fan base. Also excellent synths: Alpha Juno (I own the rack version MKS50), JP8000, D-70, JX and SH stuff (I used to own SH-1000), etc. I can go on and on about many of these. If you have specific issue with a specific page, please only nominate those pages and raise your issues. Perhaps a few similar synths can be bundled, but if so, you need to suggest that. Finally, the biggest argument is that many of these synths are very notable, maybe not notable to the general public, but there is a huge community of synthesist that have interest in these and search online for info about them, so Wiki should have these info. Regarding your WP:PRODUCT argument, Roland have hundreds of products and it would not be easy to add all in one page, so their products should have their own pages. I will see if I can improve any of them and add more references. I did notice that the JD-990 had only one reference, so I will try to add more. Peter303x (talk) 17:29, 22 March 2019 (UTC) 20240610121034[reply]
Keep - Firstly, as others have pointed out, an absurd amount of articles in the batch nomination to decipher which of the articles are worthy of inclusion. With that the nom is simply not familiar with electronic music gear and the significance these instruments played in the music industry. Lots of these are before the internet age so it’s not exactly ingenuous to target these just because there’s limited current web coverage. But even still many of these are historic and have had significant coverage that can be found on the net easily today. For example, for the R8 the British classic print magazine Music Technology did an extensive contemporary review on it. [13] - not to mention also the R8 MKII a few years later [14] The SH-1000, System 100 and 100M, D-70, JD-800, JD-990, VK-7, JP-8000, R8 and the R5 are featured significantly in the Sound on Sound article “History of Roland” with many of these like the SH-1000 termed as “milestones.” The JD-990 is written there as it was “Roland's best sample-and-synthesis sound module ever in 1993”. [15][16][17][18]. These all have too much topic-specific content to be merged into the Roland page.Oakshade (talk) 21:34, 22 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
- With that the nom is simply not familiar with electronic music gear and the significance these instruments played in the music industry You're talking to the guy who wrote the TR-808 FA.

I am familiar with the Sound on Sound history of Roland series and used it extensively in the TR-808 page. Yes, it covers many (perhaps all?) of the articles I've nominated here, but doesn't provide enough content to create much more than a stub for each article. The same stuff, instead, could be merged into a really good single article about Roland synthesisers.

All that said, clearly this was an ambitious nom, so if and when it fails I will see about other approaches. It would be great if some of the "outraged" gearheads who oppose the deletions could help out, because I'm the only editor I regularly see doing heavy lifting on articles about electronic music gear. They are in an appalling state. They consist almost entirely of original research, excess technical detail, next to no sourcing, and little demonstration of notability. And these articles have sat untouched, unimproved and unthreatened for years. They rot and rot and rot. Popcornduff (talk) 01:22, 23 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I'll give you that you did a ton of work on the TR-808 page. But it's funny you said you used the Sound on Sound history of Roland series "extensively" but then say "but doesn't provide enough content to create much more than a stub." Which is it? Anyway, much more extensive coverage found below. Oakshade (talk) 04:53, 23 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I used the series extensively on the 808 page... along with ten billion other sources. Popcornduff (talk) 04:58, 23 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

(Maybe this isn't the right place for this next thought - feel free to tell me to move it somewhere better, if you can think of one.)

This has got me thinking about what constitutes notability for musical equipment in the first place. We don't seem to have, for example, individual articles for every effect pedal - even though there are numerous reviews from reliable sources (as per WP:ALBUM/SOURCE) to be found of them. For example, here's a recent Guitar World review of new Boss pedals, and here's a recent Guitar Player review of a new Gretsch guitar. Should these have articles? Is this consistent with how we write about synthesisers and drum machines? Popcornduff (talk) 03:21, 23 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - I do believe many guitar pedals are notable enough for their own page, yet they don't have them. I would love to see more of them since many have an extensive history in music. Skirts⁸⁹ 07:53, 23 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I agree that many are notable and could have good pages made of them. But what is the criteria? Would those examples I just linked meet the criteria for notability? If not, why would many of the articles I link above? Seriously, is just "it was reviewed in a magazine" sufficient? (Perhaps it is?) Popcornduff (talk) 07:59, 23 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

This is perhaps getting very meta, but some of the details and minutia in WP instrument pages are what makes it so valuable and insightful. Yes, it's a lot of detail, and yes it sometimes pushes the edge of notability, but as long as an article isn't a COI or too promotional (and it usually isn't with instruments) then I find the info interesting and useful. Sure, maybe a boutique pedal doesn't need a page, but anything from BOSS or Roland or Dunlop probably qualifies. Most car/truck models have a page of their own, for example. Same with cell phones. Skirts⁸⁹ 17:08, 23 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Additional sources - In addition to the above, further extensive print coverage from Music Technology, MusicRadar, Electronic Soundmaker & Computer Music, Sound on Sound and Electronics & Music Maker of the D-70 [19][20], JD-990 [21], JX-8P [22][23], JX-10 [24][25], U-20 [26][[27], GR-500[28], R-5 [29], V-Synth [30][31], JP-8000 [32]], SH-201 [33][34], HandSonic [35] and System 100 [36].Oakshade (talk) 04:53, 23 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep the JD-990, as it now passes WP:GNG. That is from full articles in more than one magazine, which are reliable secondary sources, used as references or further reading. Future Music might also be added, at some point. I'm fairly certain that at least one of the first hundred UK issues did cover it, either in the magazine or in a supplementary book. I'm not willing to discuss the other articles in this thread; they haven't been nominated independently of the JD-990, and are not part of an entire category to be deleted. EP111 (talk) 21:54, 23 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - Future Music issue 61, October 1997, has an article on The Prodigy. This is likely to contain some mention of it, as Liam Howlett used the JD-990 extensively. Mention of a Faithless interview in FM (January 1998 issue?) also describes the "Insomnia" pizzicato as being from a JD-990, which is also mentioned in the "Sustain Pain" answer in FM, p.105, May 1998. EP111 (talk) 02:32, 24 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment, OK, this nom was definitely a stretch. It was a big ask for editors to examine a big list of articles, and I appreciate the efforts that Oakshade and others have gone to to provide additional sources, especially ones that aren't necessarily straightforward to find. Assuming everyone is happy to keep these articles for now, I'll start examining these articles individually in more depth, and individually re-nominate anything I can't find good sources for. Popcornduff (talk) 02:47, 25 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Before nominating anything, please check the SOS archive for any offline articles. This covers quite a big gap of articles which aren't visible on the web, between about 1988-1995. For then-new equipment, Future Music can be assumed to have parallel offline articles, around the same points in time, from 1992 onwards. Future Music has a fairly big collection of back issues at archive.org, though I'm not sure as to the copyright status. Back issues of FM also can be found on eBay, and frequently have a photo of the contents page. There were also quite a lot of equipment reviews in a free magazine called Making Music (the UK version at muzines, not the US version), which was published from perhaps 1985 until at least 1998. EP111 (talk) 05:51, 25 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - I would like to thank you User:Popcornduff for a rational discussion (pretty rare on WP these days!) and also for your ongoing contributions to the subject! More than happy to help with any articles you find lacking. Skirts⁸⁹ 09:21, 25 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Additional Comments Last week I added more sources to JD-990 page and added section on notable users. I see that someone else also expanded on this after me. Peter303x (talk) 17:29, 25 March 2019 (UTC) 20240610121034[reply]
Keep I am not sharing my reasons Lubbad85 (talk) 01:16, 27 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - many of these products, such as the Roland Alpha Juno, have their own identities and histories that warrant their own article. To merge all this content into the main Roland article would make it unwieldy and harder to find information -Taras (talk) 11:07, 27 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I agree with user Taras. Putting these products on the manufacturer page would make it huge and violate Wikipedia policies on length. For musicians thinking of buying vintage instruments, these pages are indispensible. Also for music researchers and understanding music history. These products are important and notable historically. For example, theIbanez Tube Screamer pedal is a really notable product and step in music history. I am an advocate for a huge Wikipedia with articles on everything. For me, that is what I expect Wikipedia to be. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Indigocat (talk • contribs) 16:09, 28 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Note that Peter303x has been canvassing people to this discussion. --valereee (talk) 12:43, 29 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Reinforcements are hardly needed here, surely? Can we close it as WP:SNOWBALL already? Popcornduff (talk) 12:49, 29 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} 14:45, 30 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Graydon K. Kitchens Jr.[edit]

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

Fails WP:GNG and WP:NPOL local elected judge who never held a seat on a major court or appellate court. All sources are local newspaper articles, none of which are linked and some of which are untitled, profiles on attorney rating websites, basic government records, and obituaries (some of which aren't even his). GPL93 (talk) 02:39, 22 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 02:42, 22 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Law-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 02:42, 22 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Louisiana-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 02:43, 22 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I have to admit I am beggining to be tempted to say we should just mass delete the mess that Hathon has given us. Even in the cases where articles are on notable people, that is more an accident than design, and they tend to be bogged down by sourcing to non-reliable and primary sources.John Pack Lambert (talk) 01:30, 24 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Johnpacklambert: At times I've thought that too, especially given that I nominate a lot of his articles for deletion (I started out trying simply clean up/get rid of promotional articles of politicians and then Hathorn articles obviously turn up in abundance when searching for WP:NPOL fails). But the problem is that he has created a lot of articles that pass NPOL/GNG and have since been greatly improved, such as a bunch of congressmen senators and governors. It would probably never fly but I think a good solution would be temporarily setting up a deletion sorting category just of his articles so that editors could analyze the AfD's in one place and decide meets standards and what to delete. Best, GPL93 (talk) 17:27, 26 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I had to laugh at the idea of Hathorn getting his own deletion sort. Of course I have seen lots of articles I created be deleted, although to be fair at least 2 of those I nominated for deletion, actually at least three.John Pack Lambert (talk) 00:36, 27 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I know its ridiculous but when you come across a bunch of articles of long-dead Louisiana city councilmen sourced only with obits and high school yearbooks you think of ridiculous solutions sometimes. GPL93 (talk) 03:58, 27 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I've been sorely tempted at times to just comprehensively blow out anything Billy Hathorn ever created too, but we don't yet have a consensus that "created by Billy Hathorn" is an automatic speedy criterion in and of itself — the guy did occasionally happen to hit on legitimate notables (e.g. actual Louisiana state legislators) even if he didn't actually source them very differently than the junk, so we have to be careful. If somebody really wants to take on a project of getting his stuff cleaned up properly, another option would be to specifically run the "only show edits that are page creations" filter on his contribution history, so as to systematically root out the junk at the source. But I digress. This is a smalltown local figure who never held any office at a high enough level to clear WP:NPOL or our notability standards for judges, and is not referenced anywhere near well enough to be a valid special case over and above the thousands of other non-notables who've served at the same level. Bearcat (talk) 23:07, 27 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Bearcat: I actually tried that system briefly but its going to take someone with more perseverance than I have, there's just so many junk articles, even most of the ones that meet inclusionary standards should probably be TNTed and re-written from scratch with proper sources. I originally tried proposing articles for deletion but he checks in once or twice a week and de-prods everything using IP socks. The craziest part of all of this is that the guy appears to be a professor, or at least PhD, of history and couldn't appear to understand the basic concept of using proper sources to support his writing. Best, GPL93 (talk) 00:58, 28 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Good nom. Very well constructed article of a non-notable person (hence the construction). Zero WP:SIGCOV in any solid RS on them. Job does not automatically qualify for SNG. Clearly there are serious issues per above comments with other articles by this author. Britishfinance (talk) 13:21, 30 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. TonyBallioni (talk) 03:59, 22 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Nicole Oppermann[edit]

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

Former web model who had one role in a film that was once considered "up and coming" that has done not much since. I can't find much notability (looked around and couldn't find much on her) Yet another old page from here-back when anything went, even too soon. Wgolf (talk) 23:07, 14 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 08:41, 15 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 08:41, 15 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Georgia (U.S. state)-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 08:52, 15 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fashion-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 20:44, 16 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CASSIOPEIA^(talk) 01:26, 22 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Fails WP:GNG with almost zero WP:RS on her (forget SIGCOV). Fails WP:NMODEL, nothing here. Fails WP:NACTOR as she was not one of the leading actors in Stay Alive; she has nothing else. Britishfinance (talk) 01:32, 22 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Britishfinance, can't find anything on her either. SportingFlyer T·C 02:55, 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. -- RoySmith (talk) 15:55, 30 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Mateusz Skutnik[edit]

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

Fails WP:BIO. There are plenty of sources, but they're all primary/self-published, JayIsGames references (which per WP:VG/S cannot be used to demonstrate notability), or "awards" from spammy, unreliable gaming/tech sites. The single almost reliable source—GeeDisplay—is spun as a "Game of the Month" award but it's actually a single-paragraph trivial mention in that month's issue. Note that none of these sources are actually about the subject, Mateusz Skutnik. Woodroar (talk) 01:20, 22 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Artists-related deletion discussions. CASSIOPEIA^(talk) 02:28, 22 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Video games-related deletion discussions. CASSIOPEIA^(talk) 02:28, 22 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Poland-related deletion discussions. CASSIOPEIA^(talk) 02:28, 22 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete (or one-line Stub it). Jay Is Games is apparently notable for Wikipedia, but that review site for games provides sources for only very little text in the article. The other refs, again backing very little, are 'dead' or 'fail', or are Skutnik self-referencing. I can see no multiple cites from serious, independent publications reviewing his life and work, in fact none at all. This is a classic case of allowing what is basically only a one-line stub, if that, to survive, with a loads of subsequent stuff and lists uncited to any sources added-in on its back. The article is basically this:
Mateusz J. Skutnik is a Polish graphic artist and game developer. He won awards for flash game design in 2007, 2008, 2009, 2010 and 2012.[add in here the Jay Is Games cites]
Is that enough for a Wikipedia encyclopedia?.. I don't think so, but others might. Acabashi (talk) 09:58, 22 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The problem with Jay Is Games is that it's Jay Bibby—the epoynymous "Jay" and a former writer at Joystik magazine—plus a bunch of pseudonymous writers with no background in games journalism or reputation for reliability. Our own sourcing guidelines at WP:VG/S specifically say that "[u]se of this site should be restricted to casual games and only if the review is written by Jay Bibby. This site cannot be used to demonstrate notability." These aren't reviews (or even awards) given by Jay Bibby, but are voted on by the pseudonymous writing team and as pay-per-vote by the readers. So they're not reputable awards by any stretch of the imagination. Woodroar (talk) 12:49, 22 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Point taken. Thanks. Acabashi (talk) 13:02, 22 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I really love Skutnik's games. I have spent so many hours playing Submachine which is a brilliant series of games, and so this feels a tad disloyal, but I just can't find any sources. I looked at the Polish WP article but couldn't find anything useful there, either. If the article is kept, it needs to be cut down in any case. The long lists of games - especially the games he didn't even produce - are out of place. --bonadea contributions talk 20:31, 25 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} 13:08, 29 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Craydawn[edit]

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

Fails WP:MUSIC. Unsourced since creation in February 2006. The only reference is to an Encyclopaedia Metallum bio. However, they have no notability threshold for inclusion; it is described as "a fully-exhaustive list of pretty much every metal band ever" - in other words if a band of that genre has existed it gets a profile. Delete. Just Chilling (talk) 00:42, 22 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. CASSIOPEIA^(talk) 02:33, 22 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. CASSIOPEIA^(talk) 02:33, 22 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Finland-related deletion discussions. CASSIOPEIA^(talk) 02:33, 22 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - I could find only this - the free download of their Promo CD on the net and nothing much else after the band formed 12 years ago. Fails WP:NBAND. CASSIOPEIA^(talk) 02:39, 22 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - The nominator and previous voter are correct. The band's existence has been listed in a few genre directories and they have been briefly named a few times in Blabbermouth, but only in articles about other people plus one album announcement. Otherwise they can only be found in the usual retail/ streaming sites. ---DOOMSDAYER520 (Talk|Contribs) 12:32, 22 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Did the band exist? Yes. Did it in any way meet Wikipedia notability guidelines? No. Can it be redirected to the English Wikipedia article for fi:Antti Wirman? No, because there is no English Wikipedia article for Antti Wirman. Bakazaka (talk) 00:39, 27 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. Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 10:04, 30 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Kunni[edit]

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

Lacks significant coverage in reliable sources and no evidence of satisfying WP:NFILM. GSS (talk|c|em) 12:23, 8 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. GSS (talk|c|em) 12:23, 8 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. GSS (talk|c|em) 12:23, 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 13:25, 15 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: there does seem to have been some Times of India coverage, attested here. Unfortunately I can't read it, but the English header says 'kunni musical short cinema by kadumkappi team goes viral on youtube', so it's clearly relevant coverage of the film. And this Times of India piece from February notes the upcoming release of the film. I know that doesn't itself show notability, but it suggests that we could give this article some time before deleting it so as to see what other coverage emerges. @Ajuremesh007: I'm very aware that you created this article and may have access to Malayalam reviews, or other sources in the languages of India, which could be cited to demonstrate notability? Alarichall (talk) 02:46, 16 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 00:32, 22 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete no evidence of notability. Trillfendi (talk) 06:04, 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.