Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2019 February 1

Recent AfDs: Today Yesterday

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

< 31 January	2 February >

Guide to deletion

Purge server cache

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

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) DannyS712 (talk) 22:53, 15 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

24 Vesti

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

The result was Keep Statistic articles, merge / redirect discipline articles. Stat articles are kept per consensus, discipline articles are redirected to the most appropriate section in the relevant tournament article. Where no such section existed, I have added in the headline stats from the forked article. Editors are encouraged to use page history to add anything additional that is relevant but are warned about excessive / unreferenced stat listing and giving undue weight to any one section Fenix down (talk) 12:57, 8 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

2002 FIFA World Cup statistics

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

Following this AFD, I am nominating these articles for deletion for the same reason – WP:NOTSTATS. There is no other cases where statistics for individual tournaments have their own page. List of FIFA World Cup records is sufficient. – Ianblair23 (talk) 10:43, 1 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I am also nominating the following related pages:

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. – Ianblair23 (talk) 10:43, 1 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 11:02, 1 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep all - The FIFA World Cup is the biggest international football tournament there is. I think there is scope for a list of records and statistics from each one. – Pee Jay 11:19, 1 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep the 'statistics' articles (as per PeeJay's rationale on coverage) but delete/merge the 'disciplinary record' ones, no need for a separate articles for that. Giant Snowman 11:40, 1 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Comments I am straight down voting Keep for the statistics articles, however I think the disciplinary record articles are way too deep and excessive for wikipedia guidelines and inclined to go with delete per WP:NOTSTATS. Statistics pages should cover a fair amount of discipline information anyway. Govvy (talk) 11:41, 1 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep all World Cup is the biggest international sporting event in the world larger than even Olympics in viewership.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 12:06, 1 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
keep all all passes WP:NOTSTATS and FIFA World Cup is more important than others but can consider merging the disciplinary articles to the main statistic articles Hhkohh (talk) 12:39, 1 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Comment from nominator – I'm concerned that as these article stand at the moment, that they provide far too much statistical infomation, little to no prose, no context, and just about every stat is unreferenced – Ianblair23 (talk) 13:04, 1 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per PeeJay2K3, though agree with GiantSnowman for merging the disciplinary articles to the main statistic articles. S.A. Julio (talk) 13:09, 1 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - Reply Ianblair23 I often think some of these regular contributors of the football project vote with their heart. I often wonder if they bother reading the polices or not. For-instance Hhkohh saying keep because all the articles pass WP:NOTSTATS. Except that policy isn't a pass or fail policy, it's meant to explain what Wikipedia shouldn't have and can have. FIFA World Cup is considered a top rated subject and that would include the statistics so I would hardly call that an indiscriminate article. Govvy (talk) 14:06, 1 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep but delete or merge disciplinary pages Sigh. These fail WP:NOTSTATS as they stand. But I'm voting "keep" because data should be put in context with explanations referenced to independent sources, and these pages could be improved to pass WP:NOTSTATS, especially the coaching sections. I don't think you can do that with the disciplinary stats, though. I used to buy specialised encyclopedias for this exact type of information, which is why I think it's both encyclopedic and improvable. SportingFlyer T·C 20:49, 1 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep statistics, merge disciplinary - Article 3 of WP:NOTSTATS says we can create a separate article for statistics, I think it means we should not have another page for disciplinary record. In my opinion, these information do not lack context or explanation, so they should be kept, and they usually are too massive to be merged into the main articles. Some other tournament articles which have less statistical details can include them and still be readable, but not FIFA World Cup and UEFA Euro ones, unless we choose to remove a major part of these information. Centaur271188 (talk) 17:51, 2 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep all Biggest soccer tournament there is, it's different than a continental competition. This isn't indiscriminate, it's clearly related to a very notable subject. Smartyllama (talk) 16:01, 5 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep statistics/merge disciplinary The stats pages provide a wide range of information about a major event. Many of these stats are excessively granular and could be excised though. The disciplinary stats are also more detailed than necessary and not an independent topic from the rest of the statistics. The By player table should be split into columns like the goalscorers (or we can use discretion to only list those with more than one). Reywas92^Talk 23:42, 5 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Ad Orientem (talk) 03:45, 16 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Michael A. Neider

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Delete. Per nom. Britishfinance (talk) 00:19, 14 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Ad Orientem (talk) 01:52, 17 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Lauren Béa

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

Currently fails WP:MUSICBIO, not enough sources as of now to establish notability. WP:TOOSOON PlotHelpful (talk) 10:35, 1 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Bakazaka (talk) 19:27, 1 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Bakazaka (talk) 19:27, 1 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. Bakazaka (talk) 19:27, 1 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Tennessee-related deletion discussions. Bakazaka (talk) 19:27, 1 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Texas-related deletion discussions. Bakazaka (talk) 19:27, 1 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep as has coverage in multiple christian music reliable sources as shown in the article, thanks Atlantic306 (talk) 14:42, 2 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Keep - Considering the in-article sources: New Release is a weak-fail of Sig Cov; CCM is purely an interview so fails Sig Cov, PRWeb obviously isn't independent/reliable. The Christian Beat is a good pair of sources, but is from the same source. Given that, New Release, I think a WK is appropriate, but a neutral or WD might also suit as it currently is. Nosebagbear (talk) 22:05, 2 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Based on poor coverage. Both keep votes above cite the quality of The Christian Beat as a reliable source, but the article from that source basically paraphrases content from the About section of the subject’s own website ( https://www.laurenbeamusic.com/about/) mixed in with standard new release information. I'm not saying it isn’t third party coverage, but it does appear to be lazy in establishing anything other than what this subject has to say about herself. Investigating the website further, it appears to be a self-described “up and coming” non-professional volunteer effort with the goal to become an important voice in covering the Christian music scene, but as of now it appears to be mostly a venue for passing off rephrased press releases as reporting and volunteer reviews. Has it been source reviewed yet? If I’m wrong, I’ll consider changing my i-vote. CCM magazine, on the other hand, is a good source, but this coverage—an interview—isn’t. Other sourcing problems are pointed out by Nosebagbear (talk) above. ShelbyMarion (talk) 20:56, 7 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
- @ShelbyMarion: hi, Christian Beat is included in this list of christian music reliable sources Wikipedia:WikiProject Christian music/Sources, regatds Atlantic306 (talk) 19:06, 9 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the link. I see The Christian Beat was entered as a reliable source on 16 September 2015 without any evidence of having first—-or since—undergone a source review. (A word search in the reliable sources discussions confirm this.) I’m still sticking with my delete vote; while the site may contain reliable information, it also seems to be indiscriminate in what they publish, adhering to their mission (per their description: “… to point you to music…”) of promoting anything and everything Christian music related. Considering this particular reference essentially rephrases content from the subject's website, regardless of a third parties involvement to me it doesn’t come across as a significant example of notable coverage. ShelbyMarion (talk) 17:07, 16 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, DannyS712 (talk) 00:15, 9 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete The account that created this page (Lyvcreative) seems to have only been created to promote this individual. This page is her only contribution on Wiki and the individual is not notable. Based on the account edit history I believe this is just an individual self promotiong. I vote Strong Delete. Theweekndeditor (talk) 02:11, 9 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Per nom. Britishfinance (talk) 01:38, 17 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Retained due to more than sufficient sources, under various names. I believe titling will need to be raised at Requested Moves, or further talk page discussion, as multiple names are proposed within the AfD and no notable consensus on that issue found (non-admin closure) Nosebagbear (talk) 16:54, 22 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Victoria Ground (Leeds)

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

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

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

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

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

Comment This should probably be moved back to Victoria Ground, Leeds, even if it gets merged (since it should still remain in categories), Grange Park, Wetherby uses this form of disambiguation and is standard to use commas, not brackets for places, even if they aren't settlements, see WP:UKPLACE. Crouch, Swale (talk) 13:59, 2 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Notable park. Variously called "Leeds Royal Park", "Leeds New Gardens", "Tommy Clapham’s Park", "Leeds Horticultural Gardens" ([1] (page 2)). Sources to satisfy WP:GNG include [2] p 62-67, [3] p77-79, [4], [5] and [6] It was clearly a notable location in Leeds, not just used for cricket ([7], [8]). It was converted into public gardens and the roads Royal Park Road, Royal Park Grove, Royal Park Road Avenue and Royal Park Terrace were named after it. Appears to have been the site of the first Balloon-related death in the UK, in 1887 ([9]). Cricket-wise it hosted matches involving William Clarke's All-England Eleven ([10]), and regularly Leeds Cricket Club vs e.g. York and Bradford (e.g. [11]), and was regarded by some as the principal cricket ground in Leeds ([12]). A 1902 work of fiction commented on "the bye-gone glories of Tommy Clapham's park, an institution which was at one time part and parcel of the town of Leeds, and which far outshone in popularity the vaunted glories of Roundhay Park or any other of the present-day amusements provided for the toiling masses of the city" ([13]).--Pontificalibus 12:41, 7 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

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

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

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

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

The result was no consensus defaulting to keep and w/o prejudice to a future renomination. The Keep !vote lacks any rational at all. However with only a single pro-delete comment I could not do more than close this as a "soft delete" which is precluded by the sole keep, however unimpressive it is. Ad Orientem (talk) 03:55, 16 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

UK Music Video Awards

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Nosebagbear (talk) 14:11, 8 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 17:07, 15 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Dear Deadly

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

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

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

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

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

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Nosebagbear (talk) 14:11, 8 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: fails WP:GNG and WP:BAND. Article creator (and commenter above) admits that he is the band's lead singer. No reliable independent sources found: the Chicago Reader reference is simply a gig listing, with no prose whatsoever. Richard3120 (talk) 18:14, 12 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
delete I find no significant independent coverage to meet the GNG and I also didn't find anything to show any standards of WP:NBAND are met.Sandals1 (talk) 16:56, 13 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect to First Norfolk & Suffolk. Randykitty (talk) 14:18, 16 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Ipswich Rapid Transit

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

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

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

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

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

Comment it's poorly named. A search for Ipswich guided busway brings up hits. I think it's a sourceable article - first guided busway in the UK, and I've seen a lot of mentions if not significant coverage, including from parliament. SportingFlyer T·C 10:07, 1 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Nosebagbear (talk) 14:11, 8 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

The result was no consensus. No prejudice against an early renomination in case any editor believes that the sources added by JGabbard don't pass notability standards. Lourdes 07:15, 2 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Tamko

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

This article's references do not show that the subject qualifies for a Wikipedia article—that is, they do not show significant coverage (not just passing mentions) about the subject in published, reliable, secondary sources that are independent of the subject (see the guidelines on the notability of organizations and companies). The references are dependent, local and unreliable. As per WP:INTREF Wikipedia referencing guide, the subject's own website is not an acceptable reference. As per WP:ORG, if no independent, third-party, reliable sources can be found on a topic, then Wikipedia should not have an article on it. OliverKianzo (talk) 09:56, 1 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Missouri-related deletion discussions. AllyD (talk) 11:19, 1 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. AllyD (talk) 11:19, 1 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete No neutral sources. UnitedStatesian (talk) 11:27, 1 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Multiple refs added, including two neutral sources. With no further comments during the week, propose close of AfD. - JGabbard (talk) 17:23, 7 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. DreamLinker (talk) 07:08, 13 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

Keep per most recently added references. Remember, judgments of notability should be based on what sources are out there, not what sources are already in the article. Even the most cursory web search turns up a number of independent secondary sources, not a surprising result for a large, 70 year old company. Sneftel (talk) 15:34, 15 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: With the new added sources it passes WP:NORG. GN-z11 ^☎ ^★ 17:39, 15 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Just a random company not even mentioned in industry related sources or news papers. Came here through random button. BananasReborn (talk) 22:15, 20 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Almost even split, without much discussion about whether or not it is notable but instead focusing on whether the current references show its notability.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, DannyS712 (talk) 17:22, 22 February 2019 (UTC) comment added --DannyS712 (talk) 18:32, 22 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep not a WP:MILL company but a major manufacturer of roofing with operations across a number of states. Many more sources available given it's 70+ year history. Legacypac (talk) 19:51, 22 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Tamko employs 650 people just in the local area, is unquestionably notable regionally and also known nationally, and is one of the largest employers in Joplin. All companies of this size or larger in this area already have articles. - JGabbard (talk) 02:03, 23 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Week keep: There is always the old other stuff argument when that is not only generally a bad argument but not supported by any policies or guidelines. The company has been around a long time and even though likely rated outside the top ten (was #11) I can see some notability although a search seems to be more about the class action lawsuit. That is not abnormal as GAF, Owen Corning, Atlas, CertainTeed, IKO, and Globe Building Materials (probably others) along with Tamko, had these suits over roof failures (and fading), deceptive warranties, substandard roofing shingle manufacturing, false advertising, etc..., for fiberglass, organic, and asphalt shingles. My issue is that because a company has good advertising, as shown by mostly primary sources, does not equate to notability regardless of how much we like it. Adding more primary sources to support notability does not make the case. Otr500 (talk) 14:20, 24 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete if I have to compare it with policies like WP:NCORP and WP:GNG it fails both. I created much better articles that were heavily referenced but deleted. HPlilly (talk) 20:19, 25 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Just about every excuse has been used by the Keep !voters above - except the only measure that counts which is at least two references that pass WP:NCORP. Not a single reference that is either in the article or that I can locate online meets the criteria for establishing notability. If we want to simply ignore our own guidelines, fine, lets keep any article on a company that is 70 years old, a major employer and has been sued in court. Otherwise, lets follow our own guidelines. Topic fails NCORP and GNG. HighKing⁺⁺ 17:59, 26 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Very well explained above, I guess nothing more left to debate. BananasReborn (talk) 12:52, 27 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Came to the article through random tab. I looked from the above search but nothing much, and as far as I know about GNG it's not fully comply. It is an old company which could be a fact but just an age is not enough. This is what GNG says, " If a topic has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject, it is presumed to be suitable for a stand-alone article or list." Serena Sermin (talk) 17:37, 27 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Additional neutral references added. Reevaluation necessary. - JGabbard (talk) 00:15, 28 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Randykitty (talk) 16:19, 23 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

IPhone Backup Extractor

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Keep - Significant coverage in two cited sources: [14], [15] ~Kvng (talk) 01:21, 11 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

Regarding notable award coverage, strong citations are the London Gazette entry here [16] and the Southwark News article [17] (which you mentioned in your comment).

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

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

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

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

Comment. Thanks, from this, I'll add [18], [19] and [20] to my list of sources demonstrating notability. 5 total seems like plenty. ~Kvng (talk) 15:09, 19 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

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

The result was delete. Tone 09:27, 23 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Howza ilmeya jamia jaffria

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

The result was no consensus. N/C, but this article is going straight to BLP/N. It makes painful reading. Black Kite (talk) 21:41, 8 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Devyani Khobragade

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

Earlier the page was CREATED as Devyani Khobragade and nominated for deletion in 2013 and as per discussion Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Devyani Khobragade incident The consensus at that time was clear that person fails WP:BIO notability as an individual however the incident was notble enough and therefore article was renamed and moved to Devyani Khobragade incident. I have gone through this article also, mostly it is news surrounding incident and publicity or limelight she got aftermath of Devyani Khobragade incident. I strongly feel as an individual she non notable. WP:NOTNEWSPAPER and Wikipedia:Too much detail also applies here hence Delete Thanks Jethwarp (talk) 12:00, 25 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. << FR ^(mobileUndo) 12:12, 25 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. << FR ^(mobileUndo) 12:12, 25 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. << FR ^(mobileUndo) 12:12, 25 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment The article Devyani Khobragade was created on December 17, 2013. Later it was moved to Devyani Khobragade incident after being nominated for deletion. This article was recreated independently on January 8, 2014‎. --Auric talk 17:39, 25 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The subject of this article meets WP:GNG. In particular, this diplomat has been the subject of international journalism in many media sources for four unrelated scandals. I just restored the scandal content to this article which was recently deleted. Blue Rasberry (talk) 19:55, 26 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - WP:NOTNEWSPAPER - the controversy about her children passport and her posting are hardly encyclopedic information. The incident in US was notable enough and hence has been given her name as Devyani Khobragade incident. Also the Adarsh Housing Society Scam has many big politicians involved and there are many persons whom the flats were allotted apart from Khobergode. She was never party of FIR or investigation in the scam in fact other IAS officers like Jairaj Phatak were arrested and suspended (again WP:NOTNEWS) applied here. You have added back infos, which are just news stories, PLEASE SEE ALSO Wikipedia:Notability (events) AND Wikipedia:Too much detail, Wikipedia:Libel or much better essay @ Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not - Jethwarp (talk) 10:07, 29 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I prefer to respond to proposals at the article's talk page, and maybe we can do that if this article passes. For a deletion nomination this content and especially the sources cited need to be in the article for review. Blue Rasberry (talk) 11:53, 30 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 07:48, 1 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Thsmi002 (talk) 03:58, 6 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bilateral relations-related deletion discussions. Thsmi002 (talk) 04:04, 6 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Michig (talk) 07:59, 8 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

FreeHeadset.org

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

Second nomination. This appears to have been a short lived organisation and while there are a couple of refs they are basically launch publicity. I can’t find anything more recent to support notability. Mccapra (talk) 07:43, 1 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 08:41, 1 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 08:41, 1 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 08:41, 1 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 08:41, 1 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Clearly fails WP:NWEB, and it is also undersourced as well.Sheldybett (talk) 08:53, 1 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Promotional article WP:SOAP OliverKianzo (talk) 10:09, 1 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as per nomination.TH1980 (talk) 02:45, 3 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was soft delete. WP:REFUND applies. Ad Orientem (talk) 03:47, 16 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

San Diego Film Week

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

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

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

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

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

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 07:42, 1 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

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

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

The result was no consensus. Black Kite (talk) 21:37, 8 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Asian Centre for Human Rights

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

A non-profit that appears to be non-notable. Could not find sources to validate notability and the article itself is poorly sourced with some neutrality concerns. Vinegarymass911 (talk) 18:28, 18 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 19:21, 18 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 19:22, 18 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Asia-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 19:22, 18 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Google gave me eight different sources. Rathfelder (talk) 12:43, 19 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 01:04, 25 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 07:37, 1 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - @Rathfelder: - you can't just say google has references - you need to actually link to a couple of the best ones, even if you choose not to add them to the article. Nosebagbear (talk) 14:16, 8 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I can. The question is "Is the organisation notable?", not "Is it properly referenced?".Rathfelder (talk) 16:57, 8 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. I do not believe that relisting this AfD means that I qualify as WP:INVOLVED since, extending it to NACs, an [editor] who has interacted with an editor or topic area purely in an administrative role ... is not involved. Thanks, (non-admin closure) DannyS712 (talk) 00:30, 24 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Chance Perdomo

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

Delete: as insufficiently notable actor. Maybe just too soon. Quis separabit? 01:17, 25 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Bakazaka (talk) 03:58, 25 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. Bakazaka (talk) 03:58, 25 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep passes WP:NACTOR with at least two prominent roles in notable productions, namely Chilling Adventures of Sabrina (TV series) in main cast listed fourth, and Killed by My Debt as the leading actor, thanks Atlantic306 (talk) 19:38, 25 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 07:34, 1 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Definitely fails the WP:GNG and WP:NACTOR. WP:TOOSOON applies. -- LACaliNYC ✉ 21:22, 3 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Atlantic306's argument. WP:NACTOR would seem to be satisfied - There's been sufficient of the TV series for it to count - it doesn't have to have concluded before it qualifies. Nosebagbear (talk) 14:18, 8 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, DannyS712 (talk) 00:16, 9 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Even split.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, DannyS712 (talk) 00:28, 17 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep as passing WP:NACTOR, specifically per Atlantic306's points. Rubbish computer (Talk: Contribs) 08:09, 17 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep At minimum a technical pass of WP:NACTOR (significant roles in two films that have WP articles; thus notable), but also has some other decent RS, and career is still on a strong upward trajectory, so would be a bit churlish to apply a WP:TOOSOON angle in my view. Britishfinance (talk) 21:13, 17 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - two notable roles Spiderone 15:28, 20 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Coverage in multiple other articles. Receives direct coverage, beyond mention, at https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/whats-on-tv-tuesday-may-29-8v528q0rf, https://deadline.com/2018/02/michelle-gomez-chance-perdomo-netflix-sabrina-the-teenage-witch-series-1202290637/ and https://www.pinknews.co.uk/2018/09/18/netflix-chilling-adventures-of-sabrina-lgbt-pansexual/ thus meets the WP:GNG. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 10:12, 22 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) Jovanmilic97 (talk) 17:16, 8 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Warriors of the Apocalypse (2009 film)

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

I did manage to find one review from a website that has been used as a reliable source in other film articles, but one source just doesn't cut it. Fails WP:NF. SL93 (talk) 05:24, 25 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. SL93 (talk) 05:27, 25 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Science fiction-related deletion discussions. Bakazaka (talk) 06:52, 25 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep It was renamed Apocalypse Female Warriors. [21] wearemoviegeeks.com is a reliable source for films. So with what you have, that makes two, so it passes WP:GNG Dream Focus 04:20, 29 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 07:31, 1 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per the two reviews given - WP:NFILM is satisfied. Nosebagbear (talk) 22:07, 2 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. This is not the strongest consensus that I've seen. But there does not appear to be any appetite for deletion and this has been relisted twice. Ad Orientem (talk) 03:34, 16 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Daniel Grau

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

The result was delete. Tone 09:28, 23 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Private India

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Delete - Clearly a COI problem, not notable for an article. Skirts⁸⁹ 17:51, 15 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Black Kite (talk) 21:37, 8 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Ikonick

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

Don't think this meets the WP:ORG requirement of multiple significant, reliable and independent coverage. The only real one is the Forbes article but it is more about the investment in the start-up as being notable. However, open-minded on this, and regardless, this article is going to be put up for AfD eventually (as it is, at best, borderline), so might as well test now. thank you. Britishfinance (talk) 16:01, 18 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 19:34, 18 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - Noting here that there is a potential COI since the SPA account that created this article also tried to insert information about this company in at least 2 BLP pages that have since been reversed. --Btcgeek (talk) 17:46, 19 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - The references all appear to publicity pieces. The Billboard ref is the only one that I questioned, but it's clear that it's coming from the same material as that of the very poor Forbes ref. --Ronz (talk) 20:01, 23 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletion discussions. Bakazaka (talk) 04:14, 25 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Keep I agree it's promotional, but I was able to find in-depth coverage quickly, and in good sources. This Artnet article is quite good. Coupled with Forbes and Billboard, it's enough... unless someone wants to make the argument that it's all coverage of a single issue. At the very least some editing is required.ThatMontrealIP (talk) 04:28, 25 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Very clearly No - references must be intellectually independent. An article such as Artnet.com that relies pretty much exclusively on an interview with a company officer and on a Billboard reference which is also on the same style (promotional and relying exclusively on quotations/interview with company officers) fails WP:ORGIND and/or WP:CORPDEPTH. In fact, NCORP guidelines were tightened up last year specifically to exclude this type of churnalism HighKing⁺⁺ 14:21, 3 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, clpo13_(talk) 17:35, 25 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. The coverage is pretty much standard level 'startup gets funding' rewritten press-release type, which is not impressive. Artnet is just a bit better, as it cites WP:INTERVIEW from Billboard... plus is Artnet a sufficient-quality and high-profile source to warrant keeping this? I think one source is not sufficient. Nope, to me this is still WP:CORPSPAM. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 18:25, 27 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

FWIW, Artnet is a good source. Check the front page, where there is much evidence of quality reporting. ThatMontrealIP (talk) 20:02, 27 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 06:52, 1 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Not a single reference meets the criteria for establishing notability. The references are entirely promotional, the article provides no indications of why this company is notable. References fails WP:ORGIND and/or WP:CORPDEPTH. Article fails WP:SPIP, WP:NCORP and GNG. HighKing⁺⁺ 14:21, 3 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete and redirect to List of Commodore 64 games (A–M). Black Kite (talk) 21:36, 8 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Manky (video game)

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

Public domain game with one primary source and one minor review. There's nothing here to support meeting notability guidelines. Dgpop (talk) 22:34, 25 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Video games-related deletion discussions. Bakazaka (talk) 22:40, 25 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 06:50, 1 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to List of Commodore 64 games (A–M). Minor game with a lack of references to establish notability. However, the game does exist and is a valid search term. And as it is already on the master list of Commodore 64 games, a redirect there seems to make the most sense. 169.232.162.112 (talk) 17:33, 7 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Michig (talk) 07:56, 8 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Ariana Afghan Airlines Flight 312

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

WP:NOTNEWS - article is about a commercial air flight that tipped over, slightly injuring six people Chetsford (talk) 05:02, 1 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. KCVelaga (talk) 05:59, 1 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Afghanistan-related deletion discussions. KCVelaga (talk) 05:59, 1 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 08:13, 1 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Aviation-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 08:13, 1 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Delete Per WP:AIRCRASH this should be a keep because it was a hull-loss (the aircraft was written-off) but I can't find any real evidence of significant, sustained coverage for this accident. Just the ASN listing and the AV Herald piece from 2014. With some more evidence of WP:SIGCOV I could flip to keep, but not with the present coverage. FOARP (talk) 08:15, 1 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. DOesn't pass GNG. AIRCRASH is a well regarded essay - but still an essay. I did find this story (which differs from ASN - no injuries, no damage to the aircraft) - so I'm not sure how correct the ASN report is. Even if we accept the ASN report of 6 minor injuries and substantial damage (ASN itself doesn't support writeoff) - it doesn't pass AIRCRASH. And even if it were to be a hull loss (of the "too expensive to repair an old plane type") - of a 21 year old 737 - that's a bit umm - meh. AIRCRASH is a good essay - but it is a tad too binary - this is the sort of incident (if it passes V - which it doesn't here) - which is in the grey zone. Icewhiz (talk) 10:47, 1 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Doesn't pass GNG,as per icewhiz.--Petebutt (talk) 22:56, 1 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Almost no coverage. Found this[22] it makes no difference. (Dushan Jugum (talk) 08:02, 2 February 2019 (UTC)).[reply]
Delete Fails WP:GNG, also WP:NOTNEWS. Take your choice....William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 13:51, 2 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete not really noteworthy for a stand-alone article, if YA-PIB is a hull-loss then it can be just included in List of accidents and incidents involving the Boeing 737. MilborneOne (talk) 14:40, 2 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails WP:GNG, and nothing extraordinary about this incident such as an unusual cause. Doradafan (talk) 19:32, 6 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Michig (talk) 07:54, 8 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Henriette Huldisch

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

No evidence of notability. Draft moved directly to mainspace without review by its author. Several refs simply note her appointment. Nothing else hints at notability. Fails WP:GNG Velella ^{Velella Talk} 04:48, 1 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I respectfully disagree. I am in no way affiliated with the subject, just an art historian. Significant curatorial work makes this subject worthy of an article, in my opinion. Please see references that include NYTimes, artforum, and The Observer. --Wil540 art (talk) 04:55, 1 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Massachusetts-related deletion discussions. KCVelaga (talk) 05:59, 1 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment This article was nominated for deletion SIX MINUTES after it was moved to mainspace. What happened to WP:BEFORE C2 "If the article was recently created, please consider allowing the contributors more time to develop the article", and C3 "If an article has issues try first raising your concerns on the article's talk page, with the main contributors, or an associated WikiProject, and/or adding a cleanup tag"? RebeccaGreen (talk) 07:45, 1 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I agree, the speed of the nomination is a bit obscene. Velella, have you never heard of WP:BITE?ThatMontrealIP (talk) 09:30, 1 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

This article appeared almost completely formed as a Draft 14 minutes before the nominations. The appearance of completely formed drafts is sometimes a cause for concern so I was doing my searches and finding nothing of significant notability only to find it booted straight from Draft to Mainspace with no review. I felt strongly that this was COI editing and possibly paid editing, and the weakness of the refs strongly suggested that this should be considered as to its appropriateness on Wikipedia. This was produced by an editor who has authored 13 articles, many about people at Whitney Museum of Art and most avoiding review. This is hardly the hallmark of a newbie. Velella ^{Velella Talk} 09:51, 1 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

oh how some editors forget when they were pups or kits

the article creator's 1st edit ocurred on 18 Dec 2018 so has now been on WP for less than 7 weeks which in my books is a newbie (allbeit, one who creates well formed articles:)). Coolabahapple (talk) 15:43, 1 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 08:47, 1 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 09:23, 1 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 09:23, 1 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Keep a couple of the sources in the article are OK, and I see many mentions that are more than passing in a search.ThatMontrealIP (talk) 09:30, 1 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Thank you for the help ThatMontrealIP. I added a source and info from a NYMag article that goes more in depth about Huldisch.--Wil540 art (talk) 16:00, 1 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Keep This shows a number of books the person in question has authored, I don't know at first glance how significant they are, but it might be worth more investigation to see if they would help qualify for WP:NACADEMIC, which will take some time. As far as having a well-formed article, isn't that the whole purpose of the Sandbox? Using it is a positive. I personally have never built an article and had it reviewed prior to putting it in the mainspace. LovelyLillith (talk) 17:53, 4 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I have found and added more reviews of exhibitions she has curated, and catalogue essays she has written. There is certainly non-trivial coverage and reviews in multiple, independent, reliable sources. RebeccaGreen (talk) 14:22, 7 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you RebeccaGreen, nice edit. Would you mind looking at this another article I wrote on a curator that is also flagged? Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Christopher_Y._Lew. Please go ahead and edit/give your two cents if you so desire. thanks again --Wil540 art (talk) 07:49, 8 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) Jovanmilic97 (talk) 16:28, 15 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Christopher Y. Lew

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Keep this one is not so clear cut at first glance. The New York Times article used as the first ref is a namecheck and has no depth; on the other hand this W Magazine article has lots of depth. Enough sources are out there to establish GNG easily. Add to this the fact that he co-curated one of the Whitney Biennales (one of the top ten or twenty art exhibitions in the world) and you could probably make an argument that he meets some part of WP:CREATIVE. The guy is high-level. And let's not forget all the coverage that was generated by the Whitney show, like this article in Time, with a video, this Vogue magazine article, this rather good article in the New York Times, and so on. And those were easy to find.ThatMontrealIP (talk) 09:08, 1 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

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

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

The result was no consensus. Randykitty (talk) 20:58, 23 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Arthur A. Oakman

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

Per source searches, this subject fails WP:BASIC notability standards. Reliable source coverage is limited to minor passing mentions, name checks and brief quotations, none of which establish notability. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 02:18, 1 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 02:19, 1 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 02:19, 1 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 02:19, 1 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep User:Lucifero4

@Lucifero4: Why? 78.26 _{(spin me / revolutions)} 21:20, 1 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The article seem to be used. User:Lucifero4

Thanks. I'm not sure what "used" means, although a high-traffic article, or articles with numerous incoming links may indicate a topic for which large numbers of people seek encyclopedic information. In this case there are several incoming links, but only as a result that Oakman is included on the Template:CofCApostles template. Regarding pageviews, before this AfD the page was averaging about 30 a month, or one a day, just barely more than what a page will receive from "Random article" traffic. I'm not giving a !vote here because I'm not sure he isn't notable in the same way that U.S. State legislators are notable (may only have local coverage, but actions demonstrably affect large numbers of people,) but although I appreciate the position I can't agree with it. However, I appreciate the explanation. 78.26 _{(spin me / revolutions)} 14:09, 6 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete insufficient sources to show notabable.John Pack Lambert (talk) 02:26, 2 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Comment For RLDS a good place to look for sources is the John Whitmer Historical Association Journal, and indeed, Oakman's role in the European church leading into WWII is discussed in "National Socialists and Social Idealists: The RLDS Church in Nazi Germany, 1933-1945", R. Ben Madison, The John Whitmer Historical Association Journal Vol. 16 (1996), pp. 15-30, and less extensively (though as "a towering figure in RLDS history") in "Forgotten Outpost: The Reorganized Latter Day Saints of Poland" by the same author in the same journal, Vol. 13 (1993), pp. 31-50. He's mentioned briefly in several other articles on RLDS history, though mostly in one paragraph or a few sentences. There's also the entire biography of Oakman listed in the sources, though of course one might dismiss that as not independent. Bakazaka (talk) 01:37, 6 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. I've added some sources and expanded/reworked the article a bit. Bakazaka (talk) 19:02, 8 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - sourced added by Bakazaka (Madison, Parker) meet WP:GNG. 78.26 _{(spin me / revolutions)} 19:17, 8 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Black Kite (talk) 21:36, 8 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Jovanmilic97 (talk) 00:41, 16 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. RL0919 (talk) 03:04, 8 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Chicken Girls: The Movie

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

None of the actors and actresses are famous outside of the internet, and only one has their own Wikipedia article. Plus, there are not many sources included in this article to show a strong sense of notability. Andise1 (talk) 00:46, 1 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Adequate coverage in reliable sources for notability. http://www.latimes.com/business/hollywood/la-fi-ct-brat-youtube-funding-20180718-story.html (Los Angeles Times) and https://decider.com/2018/07/19/chicken-girls-the-movie-youtube-stream-it-or-skip-it/ (Decider) Eastmain (talk • contribs) 01:40, 1 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 01:42, 1 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per Eastmain. Also, per WP:ATD, it could be merged/redirected to Brat (digital network) if there's consensus that the movie is not sufficiently notable for its own article. Thsmi002 (talk) 03:38, 1 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 08:51, 1 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep also per Eastmain. I would be ok with a merge as well if others agree. Stefka Bulgaria (talk) 10:50, 1 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Small articles do not have to be deleted. PointsofNoReturn (talk) 16:35, 1 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as a standalone article as it has coverage in reliable sources and passes WP:GNG and WP:NFILM, thanks Atlantic306 (talk) 15:15, 2 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. The discussion indicates the subject currently lacks sufficient coverage that is independent and significant. RL0919 (talk) 03:02, 8 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Benjamín De Hoyos

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

A non-notable subject that does not meet the bar of WP:BASIC. Primary sources, passing mentions, passing quotations and name checks do not establish notability. WP:BEFORE searches have provided no better. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 21:29, 16 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 21:29, 16 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 21:29, 16 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Mexico-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 21:29, 16 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

If you came here because someone asked you to, or you read a message on another website, please note that this is not a majority vote, but instead a discussion among Wikipedia contributors. Wikipedia has policies and guidelines regarding the encyclopedia's content, and consensus (agreement) is gauged based on the merits of the arguments, not by counting votes.

However, you are invited to participate and your opinion is welcome. Remember to assume good faith on the part of others and to sign your posts on this page by adding ~~~~ at the end.

Note: Comments may be tagged as follows: suspected single-purpose accounts: {{subst:spa|username}}; suspected canvassed users: {{subst:canvassed|username}}; accounts blocked for sockpuppetry: {{subst:csm|username}} or {{subst:csp|username}}.

Delete – I checked a few Mexican sources and they only mention him in passing. No in-depth coverage from third-party (non-LDS affiliated) sources. MX (✉ • ✎) 21:50, 16 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep His leadership of Latter-day Saint opposition to the redefinition of marriage in Mexico made major headlines in multiple locations. See here [23], here from the Religion News service [24], the article from the Salt Lake Tribune already linked to in the article. Here is a very biased against De Hoyos source that leads with a half-page photo of him [25]. This is multiple locations, multiple coverage. We have multiple sources mentioning him and his actions. This is clearly enough to pass any reasonable reading of the general notability guidelines.John Pack Lambert (talk) 22:51, 16 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Comment from nominator – The sources presented above demonstrate that this is a WP:BLP1E situation, whereby the coverage is all about one event, specifically, Hoyos being against gay marriage. All of the articles linked above are from June 1-2, 2016. Regarding content in the sources presented directly above:

[26] – contains some content, but I feel that it falls short of significant coverage. There's a quotation, there's a mention of where the quote occurred, a mention of the LDS Church asking local bishops to parrot Hoyos' comment, and a mention that Hoyos "encouraged members of the church to join family and religious advocacy groups who oppose same-sex marriage." That's it.
[27] – A single passing mention, not much more than a name check: "Signed by the Area Authority president, Benjamin De Hoyos, and his two counselors, Paul B. Pieper and Arnulfo Valenzuela, the statement exhorted Mexico’s Mormons to push government leaders to “promote those measures designed to strengthen the family and to maintain it as the fundamental unit of society." This is not significant coverage. The subject signed something; no other information about the subject is presented.
[28] – Provides marginally significant coverage. So, this is one source.

However, the fact remains that this is a WP:BLP1E situation, meaning that the subject is not notable as per Wikipedia's standards. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 00:14, 17 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Leaning toward keep. I may come up with other reasons later, but it should count for something that Elder De Hoyos has spoken thrice in General Conference. DavidLeeLambert (talk) 11:26, 17 January 2019 (UTC) — Note: An editor has expressed a concern that DavidLeeLambert (talk • contribs) has been canvassed to this discussion. [reply]

A primary source stating that a subject has given speeches does not confer notability on English Wikipedia. Primary sources are not usable to establish notability. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 18:03, 17 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete First, community consensus is that LDS leaders have to meet WP:GNG (see discussions in 2014, 2016, 2017, and 2018). Most of the sources in the article are not independent (lds.org, MormonNewsroom.org, Church News, Liahona, Ensign, the Almanac that says Deseret News on the label but is actually assembled by official Church News staff) or not reliable ("Grampa Bill"). Search finds mostly passing mentions and routine coverage (e.g. this person was at the temple opening), plus some quotes reprinted from church press releases. However, there is also coverage of this subject's leadership in opposing the constitutional amendment to legalize same-sex marriage in Mexico. (Note that I have removed the "traditional definition of marriage" POV from the article that did not reflect the cited source's characterizations.) But, as the nominator notes above, that simply makes this a WP:BLP1E issue, as the individual is otherwise low-profile and the event itself was not even significant enough to merit a mention in the The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints in Mexico article. So, even though some coverage exists, WP:BLP1E policy trumps guidelines. Bakazaka (talk) 21:32, 23 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep This source, from a non-LDS source, says De Hoyos is the highest LDS Authority in South America. Whether that's true or not, it attests to notability and is well outside the same-sex marriage timeframe. jj (talk) 05:41, 24 January 2019 (UTC) https://www.eltribuno.com/salta/nota/2018-9-25-19-4-0--urtubey-se-reunio-con-autoridades-de-la-iglesia-de-jesucristo-de-los-santos-de-los-ultimos-dias — Preceding unsigned comment added by JasonJack (talk • contribs) 05:41, 24 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

A matter, though, is that religious subjects do not have any presumed notability on English Wikipedia. Also, the source you provided is only a one sentence, passing mention that states, "There was also Elder Benjamín De Hoyos, member of the Seventy and highest authority in South America." This is not significant coverage, which is needed to qualify notability. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 14:48, 24 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, DannyS712 (talk) 08:23, 24 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - This subject is non-notable and fails WP:BASIC and WP:GNG. Skirts89 (talk) 15:11, 24 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ad Orientem (talk) 00:37, 1 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I respectfully disagree with Northamerica1000: this doesn't even rise to BLP1E. There is no significant coverage of the subject independent of the church in which he has a leadership position, hence failure of WP:BIO. The leadership position does not by itself imply notability. Lagrange 613 10:29, 3 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Ad Orientem (talk) 03:35, 16 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Abner Orick

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Comment Good enough for me, thanks all! valereee (talk) 20:49, 15 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Black Kite (talk) 21:35, 8 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Listonic

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

Most of the sources are PR and not independant Arthistorian1977 (talk) 14:59, 17 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 18:07, 17 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 18:07, 17 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Poland-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 18:07, 17 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

delete unambiguous promo, fails WP:NORG, the listed awards are insignificant/nottotable. Staszek Lem (talk) 21:54, 18 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Arthistorian1977: We added also independent sources - book and academic article.

@Staszek Lem: Listonic is an established and well-rated app that has been available to the public for the last 9 years. For more information, please find us on Google Play and Apple App Store, or visit our website www.listonic.com. As we're an established company with a product that has a worldwide reach, we think that we would benefit from a presence on Wikipedia in English, alongside our listing on the Polish version of the website which has already been accepted by Wikipedia (https://pl.wikipedia.org/wiki/Listonic)." ````Kart8989

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: New sources have been added, so those should be examined.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, clpo13_(talk) 17:38, 24 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Staszek Lem: It seems it's been covered in scientific publications https://scholar.google.pl/scholar?start=0&q=listonic&hl=en&as_sdt=0,5 quite often. As it's used in serious articles, not only PR ones, and it's made for worldwide audience, I think readers would benefit from more info about about it here. Also, the style of writing is ok, doesn't sound salesy ````Alemale — Preceding unsigned comment added by Alamale (talk • contribs) 10:32, 25 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Both Kart8989 and Alamale are single-purpose accounts with likely conflicts of interest. The article itself reads very much like an advertisement, padded with non-notable awards. I haven't reviewed the sources completely, but the ones I've looked at are either unreliable or do not cover the app in-depth. I'm holding off on a !vote for now, but I'm pretty sure this will fail WP:NCORP. – Teratix ₵ 07:24, 26 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ad Orientem (talk) 00:31, 1 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. RL0919 (talk) 02:58, 8 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Glen Town Center

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

More malls that fail GNG. all WP:MILL and nothing substantial Praxidicae (talk) 00:28, 1 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: As per nom. Anything on Google are either local news or passing mentions. –eggofreason^talk 01:16, 1 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete No significant coverage. Non-notable. Jmertel23 (talk) 01:48, 1 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Illinois-related deletion discussions. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 03:17, 1 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Shopping malls-related deletion discussions. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 03:17, 1 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Non notable, more of a mega centre than a shopping mall. Ajf773 (talk) 07:48, 1 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete This is a quotidian subject. ―Susmuffin ^Talk 08:34, 3 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Delete This is a borderline WP:GNG candidate. I think this is a fairly common strip mall of minor to no notability based on the evidence at hand.-TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 14:37, 6 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. RL0919 (talk) 02:57, 8 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

LITIengine

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

Fails WP:GNG. Cannot find any reliable secondary sources, with zero hits at all with WP:VG/S's custom search. Zero news on Google, can't really seem to find even unreliable secondary coverage. -- ferret (talk) 00:24, 1 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Video games-related deletion discussions. -- ferret (talk) 00:25, 1 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Looks to fail WP:GNG. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 02:14, 1 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete The article seems only a piece of paper. User:Lucifero4.
Delete per nom. Videogameplayer99 (talk) 23:24, 1 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. 78.26 _{(spin me / revolutions)} 21:15, 8 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Barks Babes & Bros

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

Not a notable event. Local coverage of a fundraiser for rescue dogs. power~enwiki (π, ν) 20:12, 24 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Animal-related deletion discussions. Bakazaka (talk) 22:00, 24 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. Bakazaka (talk) 22:00, 24 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Florida-related deletion discussions. Bakazaka (talk) 22:00, 24 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Could this possibly be merged to Salty Dog Paddle? – The Grid (talk) 20:56, 25 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment It has been mentioned in magazines and draw attention of Dog lovers and celebrities, so I thought it is a good contribution but I leave it to experts to decide. Thanks 'The Grid' for this idea. BananasReborn (talk) 22:45, 26 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Cleaned up text and added sources to meet Wikipedia acceptable standards. I believe it reads to be a substantive subject now. ClintonCimring (talk) 15:26, 29 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hm, article history shows that Clintoncimring, who has a highly-focused editing history around Salty Dog Paddle, made the recent changes to this article. ClintonCimring has an interesting SPI/COIN history, though. Which one are you? Bakazaka (talk) 05:05, 31 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

A good candidate for CheckUser. – The Grid (talk) 15:05, 31 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as WP:PROMO. The sources are either primary (Salty Dog Paddle site), routine local announcements (Palm Beach Post announcement, duplicated for effect), local admag photo galleries (Jupiter), actual news releases (Newswire) or about guests but not the actual event (Maxim, IMDb). It's promotion. The article is promotion. Wikipedia is not a means of promotion. If someone wants to add non-promotional info to the Salty Dog Paddle article they can do that, but there isn't encyclopedic content here to merge, so there's no good reason to keep the editing history. Bakazaka (talk) 04:49, 31 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ad Orientem (talk) 00:24, 1 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Sounds like a good cause, but that has no bearing on notability. Promotional, and lacking in reliable, independent sources. Fails WP:EVENTCRITERIA. Jmertel23 (talk) 02:19, 1 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Randykitty (talk) 18:56, 15 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Bajju Rajput

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

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

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

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

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

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

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ad Orientem (talk) 00:22, 1 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

The result was delete. GNG is our bottom line and I find the argument that the subject fails that to be persuasive. Ad Orientem (talk) 03:40, 16 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Naresuan F.C.

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

Fails [29]. Sportsfan 1234 (talk) 21:18, 24 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

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

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

My apologies, I wanted to link [30]. It has been corrected above. Sportsfan 1234 (talk) 00:47, 25 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ad Orientem (talk) 00:21, 1 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, 78.26 _{(spin me / revolutions)} 21:15, 8 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Per my above assessment, fails the WP:GNG. WP:FOOTYN is not a guideline. --Paul_012 (talk) 04:40, 14 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Randykitty (talk) 18:52, 15 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Firepower Records

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

The result was delete. RL0919 (talk) 17:44, 8 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Tricycle Records

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

~~See talkpage ~ Amory (u • t • c) 22:45, 24 January 2019 (UTC)~~[reply]

Non-notable company (tagged >3 years). It has always been little more than self-pronouncements and lists of releases. A {{db-corp}} was declined as having a list of notable associated performers is a potential claim of notability, but notability is not inherited. DMacks (talk) 05:12, 25 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 00:30, 25 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 00:30, 25 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Notability is not inherited, but record labels are known for the product they release, and by those releases their impact on musical culture. That said, I'm not convinced this label has a significant roster of notable artists. The Union Trade may be notable, but the label was started by that band, so in and of itself having this band on its roster does not help establish its notability. The Stripmall Architecture article does not mention the article at all, and the album mentioned in the Tricycle Records article is unsourced, so it fails WP:V. The Blacks (band) also does not mention the label, and likewise their entries on the Tricycle article are unreferenced. Everyone Is Dirty at least features that they are on Tricycle Records, but I'm not seeing by the references that this band is notable. Therefore there is one notable band, directly tied to the label. It therefore not "one of the more important independent labels" by WP:NMUSIC #5. An effort to find significant coverage in independent, reliable sources revealed only directory listings. The label therefore fails WP:GNG as well insofar as I can tell. 78.26 _{(spin me / revolutions)} 15:55, 25 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ad Orientem (talk) 00:19, 1 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete User:Lucifero4
Comment. This is the best coverage I found. Local and not particularly in-depth. The label seems to have local significance, but I'm not sure there's enough to support an article. --Michig (talk) 08:12, 8 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Perhaps US Attorneys should be notable, but the sources to show it seem to be lacking in this instance. RL0919 (talk) 02:51, 8 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Carlie Christensen

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

Doubtful that being a United States Attorney confers notability; certain that being only an acting one doesn't. Fails WP:BIO. Clarityfiend (talk) 23:10, 24 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Utah-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 00:24, 25 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 00:24, 25 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Law-related deletion discussions. Bakazaka (talk) 00:37, 25 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep being US attorney, especially for a district like that of Utah, in which the person covers all operations of enforcing federal law for a district with 3 million inhabitants is clearly a sign of notability. This applies as much to acting US attorney's as those who are regularly nominated.John Pack Lambert (talk) 00:56, 27 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

So where's the press coverage? The newspaper article "Triumvirate of women take lead in federal law enforcement in Utah" says she's the first woman to hold that position, but that's the only mention she gets. Clarityfiend (talk) 23:43, 27 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Lacks significant coverage, can't find anything useful apart from a couple of short announcements of her appointment, fails WP:GNG. Hzh (talk) 15:11, 30 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: United States Attorney links its U.S. Attorneys offices to the District Court articles. Only some of these articles list U.S Attorneys, and those I've seen don't provide any biographical information, and are partially bluelinked 1, 2. Ideally there'd be a standardised treatment of U.S. Attorneys. ^~Hydronium^~Hydroxide^~(Talk)~ 10:59, 31 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ad Orientem (talk) 00:17, 1 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Lack of significant coverage causes the subject to fail WP:BIO. I suspect fully confirmed U.S. Attorneys ought to be considered notable, but that would not necessarily apply to those filling the role on an acting basis. Lagrange 613 10:17, 3 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Simply being a US Attorney does not confer notability by the job title alone. Cosmic Sans (talk) 18:17, 7 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Randykitty (talk) 18:47, 15 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The Grove (Downers Grove, Illinois)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

delete I don't see any coverage that looks like it qualifies for meeting the GNG. Of the four references given one is from the management company, one doesn't mention the center at all, one gives it a passing mention as one of the closing Ultra locations, and the final one says it's been foreclosed on and will be put up for sale (WP:NOTNEWS). Sandals1 (talk) 17:01, 13 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Fails WP:SIGCOV.E.M.Gregory (talk) 19:06, 13 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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