Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2019 January 31

Recent AfDs: Today Yesterday

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

< 30 January	1 February >

Guide to deletion

Purge server cache

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

The result was delete. Ad Orientem (talk) 00:29, 8 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Ralph Weber (businessman)

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

Non-notable businessman. Searches for him pull up a lot of unrelated Ralph Webers (string: "Ralph weber" consultant) as well as name-drops and quotables. The article is also extremely bare on sources and would be even if the sources proffered weren't all useless, being his website, a blog, and two YouTube videos which appear to me to be copyright violations of some stripe. —A little blue Bori v^_^v ^Bori! 23:56, 31 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 02:49, 1 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 02:49, 1 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete a non-notable businessman.John Pack Lambert (talk) 05:15, 2 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: fails WP:BIO, all sources cited are affiliated or run-of-the-mill interviews, my source searches turn up nothing else in the way of significant coverage. SITH (talk) 14:16, 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 keep. After extended time for discussion, there are three firm !votes to keep, premised on a reasonable examination of available sources, two firm !votes to delete, and one !vote leaning delete. Normally, the nominator would be counted as a vote to delete, but in this case User:Balkywrest as nominator has been blocked as a sockpuppet of User:Septrillion. It would be odd to give substantial weight to the opinion of a sockpuppet in a discussion, and no less so as nominator. Thus, although the opinion of the nominator is not discounted entirely, it must be given little weight in the outcome here. Given the previous extension of time for this discussion, and the tendency over the course of the discussion for additional sources to be found, relisting this nomination in expectation of a different consensus seems an unwise use of resources. The article can clearly be improved by the addition of sources raised in the discussion, and those supporting its inclusion should consider taking on this task. bd2412 T 02:02, 15 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Riskified

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Keep. There's a TechCrunch article ([1]) which is a yellow-light source, and can be counted for limited additional notability, on top of sources already discussed above. I don't see any discussion of Globes ([2]) as a source, but it appears reliable and is a national newspaper, so I assume this article can be counted towards notability as well. Lastly, there's a Mother Jones article ([3]) which is definitely a green-light reliable source, and is definitely not biased in favor of this company. That's decent press in two countries. - WPGA2345 - ☛ 01:13, 10 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete None of the sources meet the criteria for establishing notabilty. The Globes article is an interview with the founders, not intellectually independent, fails WP:ORGIND. Both this Jerusalem Post reference and this one are classic chrurnalism - faux "profiles" complete with the usual photo/quotes/vision/growth/funding structure but, you know, no actual "news", fails as not being intellectually independent, fails WP:ORGIND. The MotherJones reference is the best of a bad lot but it is merely commenting on the WSJ reference and doesn't provide and in-depth information on the company and fails WP:CORPDEPTH. This company obviously has a marketing dept but the topic does not appear to be notable and fails WP:NCORP and GNG. HighKing⁺⁺ 12:01, 12 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I feel like there are plenty of sources available that do not amount to churnalism. In addition to the other sources noted on here, there are two articles from The Wall Street Journal (one's a WSJ blog, but it's still a highly reputable source) and there's one from Reuters. Also, a Google News search reveals a number of sources, many of which are funding announcements. I realize that's not a way to contribute to notability, but those sources are at least supplemental. Maybe reworking the draft might help. Gargleafg (talk) 01:06, 15 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was soft delete. WP:REFUND applies. Ad Orientem (talk) 00:32, 8 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Monkey Business Institute

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

This just doesn't have WP:SIGCOV. It's a directory-type listing for a comedy club. The sourcing is all local. No WP:GNG here. Marquardtika (talk) 20:49, 17 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 21:17, 17 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Wisconsin-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 21:18, 17 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, clpo13_(talk) 22:36, 24 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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) 00:32, 8 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Kelli Thomas-Drake

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

Sources are entirely not WP:RS. A BEFORE search finds some quotes in RS but nothing covering the subject of the article herself. Fails GNG. Chetsford (talk) 23:34, 31 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 08:55, 1 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 08:55, 1 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 08:59, 1 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Health and fitness-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 08:59, 1 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete all sources are primary. Best, GPL93 (talk) 20:39, 1 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete a non-notable media personality.John Pack Lambert (talk) 05:11, 2 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: sourced entirely by either self-published, affiliated, or directory-style entries which don't satisfy the independent, reliable source clause of WP:42. SITH (talk) 14:21, 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 move to draft. I will tag the redirect per WP:CSD#R2. Thanks, -- (non-admin closure) DannyS712 (talk) 06:15, 23 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Diva Tommei

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

Not notable person. BEFORE finds little else than the scant sourcing in the article. Chetsford (talk) 23:29, 31 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 08:56, 1 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 08:56, 1 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Italy-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 08:56, 1 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 09:01, 1 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ad Orientem (talk) 00:32, 8 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Move to draft to provide time for evidence of the notability of this subject to develop. If no improvement is made in due time, the draft will be abandoned and deleted as such. bd2412 T 03:07, 15 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Randykitty (talk) 18:29, 15 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete/Draftify. Nothing I can find to support GNG. Tiny company that raised just over $1m in 2017. There is an assumption that I see repeated often at AfD that TED talks imply notability but I don't think that this is the case. Still young so who knows, but for now, not a candidate for a BLP. Britishfinance (talk) 13:58, 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 delete. Ad Orientem (talk) 00:33, 8 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Ian S. Ardern

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

Non-notable subject that fails WP:BASIC notability standards. Searches for independent, reliable sources with significant coverage have provided nothing. Coverage found consists of fleeting passing mentions, name checks and brief quotations, none of which establish notability. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 23:17, 31 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 23:18, 31 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of New Zealand-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 23:18, 31 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 23:18, 31 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete possibly a very important person in the church but I can find no good independent sources. fails WP:BASIC. (Dushan Jugum (talk) 02:55, 1 February 2019 (UTC)).[reply]
Delete Undersourced and not enough web coverage despite well known important person in the Church community, as I agree with User:Dushan Jugum. Sheldybett (talk) 05:34, 4 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: agree with above, BLP concerns arise about the lack of sourcing. Potentially notable, but source searches on Google and WorldCat turn up little. SITH (talk) 14:26, 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. Ad Orientem (talk) 00:34, 8 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Carl B. Cook

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

Non-notable subject that fails WP:BASIC. Searches for independent, reliable sources are only providing minor passing mentions, brief quotations and name checks, none of which establish notability. No significant coverage appears to exist at all in said necessary sources. Primary sources found are not usable to establish notability. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 22:43, 31 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 22:43, 31 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Utah-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 22:43, 31 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of New Zealand-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 22:43, 31 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 22:43, 31 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete possibly a very important person in the church but I can find no good independent sources. fails WP:BASIC. (Dushan Jugum (talk) 02:56, 1 February 2019 (UTC)).[reply]
Delete: exactly the same as points raised here. SITH (talk) 14:27, 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. Ad Orientem (talk) 00:35, 8 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Bradley Commons

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

WP:ROUTINE coverage in hyper-local sources only, not notable. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 22:33, 31 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

Delete for failing WP:GNG. As the nominator pointed out, the coverage is local and routine. Can you imagine if every strip mall with this level of coverage were included in the encyclopedia? Jmertel23 (talk) 23:37, 31 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Non notable mall, 32 stores is hardly noteworthy. No significant coverage in secondary sources outside of local mentions. Ajf773 (talk) 07:50, 1 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. WP:MILL shopping center. MB 18:10, 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 redirect to Church Educational System per WP:BLP1E (non-admin closure) ―Matthew J. Long -Talk-^☖ 02:57, 23 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Paul V. Johnson

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

A non-notable subject, the article qualifies for deletion per WP:BLP1E. The subject is notable only for one event, being appointed as commissioner of the LDS Church Educational System. WP:BEFORE source searches are providing no significant coverage in independent, reliable sources other than this article about the subject's appointment. Fleeting passing mentions, name checks and brief quotations found in source searches do not establish notability. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 22:24, 31 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 22:26, 31 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 22:26, 31 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 22:26, 31 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Church Educational System per nom. My BEFORE isn't turning up anything substantive. b uidhe 23:04, 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) 00:36, 8 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Randykitty (talk) 18:30, 15 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Per nom, clear fail of WP:GNG. Britishfinance (talk) 13:54, 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 delete. After extended time for review, consensus is clear. bd2412 T 16:33, 14 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Friary Bowling Club

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

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

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

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

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

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

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ad Orientem (talk) 00:37, 8 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete -- an undistinguished amateur sports club, so far as I can see, even if older than many. Peterkingiron (talk) 20:00, 10 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as I couldn't find a single informative source outside of Wikipedia. Gargleafg (talk) 01:52, 12 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Ad Orientem (talk) 00:37, 8 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Brosix Instant Messenger

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

Previously deleted here and here. Article is obviously promotional; references in the article aren't reliable/significant; don't see evidence of notability via WP:GNG or WP:NCORP. GirthSummit _(blether) 22:07, 31 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. It is promotional, and the sources (to borrow the plain speaking of a nominator at another Afd) are appalling. There could perhaps be an actual encyclopedia article in this subject's future, but this isn't it. – Athaenara ✉ 22:23, 31 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
- Appalling? So Forbes, PCMag, The Next Web, Entrepreneur, CIO Аpplications, TechPrevue, and all the others are all "appalling" sources? For real? --Daimyo2 (talk) 22:59, 31 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete it's spam and has already been afd'd 3 times and nothing has changed. Praxidicae (talk) 22:33, 31 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
- There's no reason why all the other Instant Messenger tools around have their own page, including minor ones no one cares about and others that are much more blatantly promotional, while Brosix cannot. It seems more like someone really doesn't want this page to exist for unknown reasons. By the way, I don't even know how the other pages were made in the first place, but much of the arguments in favor of deleting have now been addressed. The page has several notable sources and reviews (such as one from PCMag - which even gave a negative review which I cited for the sake of neutrality), The Next Web, Forbes, Entrepreneur, and there's nothing really promotional here. The other pages have been deleted ages ago before all these reviews were published. --Daimyo2 (talk) 22:59, 31 January 2019‎ (UTC)[reply]
Keep I tried to keep it as neutral as possible by showing all the negative aspects that emerged from the most authoritative reviews out there. I made sure that every single source was authoritative this time, and that the assertion of notability was significant enough to justify a page. I checked a lot of reviews around the web, I found that the software is used by some pretty important organizations (such as the Harvard University), and I tried to stay as neutral as possible. I did all I can to provide a balanced overview of this tool, I really can't understand why it should be flagged as "promotional". I mean, if there's something that looks like it's promotional, please, let's work on it and let's revise it. --Daimyo2 (talk) 22:59, 31 January 2019‎ (UTC)[reply]

@Daimyo2: You're presenting policy-based arguments in defense of a neutral encyclopedic page. If that position is strongly defensible, more editors will support it. If that happens I may change my own. – Athaenara ✉ 23:46, 31 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. Bakazaka (talk) 23:18, 31 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Just to give a bit more detail on my thinking with regard to the sources. Some of them give quite trivial coverage - Business2Community, NextWeb, Tech Times, Entepreneur and Business.com just have a few sentences in '5 ways to...' type articles - not enough coverage for CORPDEPTH. Alterative to and Slant are UGC, so not reliable (and the Alternative to piece was written by Brosix!). The Forbes piece isn't even about Brosix - it just contains a short quote from the CEO. CIO Review is a company profile, largely written by the CEO - it's not independent. CEO World is an interview with the CEO - we can't use his own words to support assertions about his company, that's not independent. Socialnomics is described on the page as a 'promoted post' - an advertorial, so not independent. I could go on, but basically I think that the closest thing to a reliable, independent source giving decent depth is the PC Mag review; that alone isn't enough to establish notability.

As for the language, I'll let other editors judge, but it looks very promotional to me. GirthSummit _(blether) 07:36, 1 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, let's address the issues one at a time. About the sources, I understand some of them are not full reviews, but if the tool (or the CEO) have been featured by so many significant magazines over the course of the last two years, IMHO the product has the right to be mentioned among its competitors. I do totally agree that most of these reviews will probably come from PR jobs, but they're so many, that it is out of question that the product already left a footprint. This IMHO is sufficient to earn Brosix a page on its own, especially considering that this underdog still survives since 2006 - that's 13 years, it's notable enough in my agenda according to WP:SUSTAINED. Also, I mentioned the fact that is being currently used by some really large companies and governmental agencies as well as important universities. Isn't this enough to assert its notability and meet WP:NSOFT?

Moving to the language issue. I can't see where the language may look promotional, but I'm more than willing to change it if you or the other editors feel it looks "advertisey". I simply followed the template of other IM tools such as Wickr and Tox_(protocol). Seriously, I don't care about promoting this tool at all, so if you think there's some part that needs to be revised, please just point that out, and I'll be happy to work on it. A possible approach could be to highlight the fact that Brosix really is an underdog, and always has been. It survived so far, but it never shined because it just doesn't offer anything that makes it stand out from competition. I can't find anything else more "neutral" than this other than just bashing it (which I guess it's not fair for the opposite reason). Daimyo2 (talk) 12:09, 1 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

If you knew that most of the reviews came from PR jobs, why bother including them at all? They are not independent, and aren't suitable sources for an entry here. The fact that there are lots of them doesn't change that at all. It's not a question of fairness - no subject has a 'right' to an article - it's a question of whether or not we can write a quality article with the sources that are available. If we can't, we don't write the article.

I don't see how WP:SUSTAINED applies - that raises the bar for notability, it doesn't drop it. It says that a subject needs sustained coverage in reliable sources over a period of time (as opposed to hitting the headlines for a day and then disappearing). There's nothing there to imply that sustained trivial coverage equates to significant coverage.

WP:NSOFT says an app that is distributed commercially or supported by businesses is a commercial product. Sources used for such apps should satisfy the breadth and depth of coverage required for a standalone commercial product article, and gives a link to WP:NCORP. Brosix is distributed commercially, so it's clear that NCORP guidelines apply. You can read the guidance there for yourself, but right upfront it says No matter how "important" editors may personally believe an organization to be, it should not have a stand-alone article in Wikipedia unless reliable sources independent of the organization have discussed it. We need significant coverage in multiple, independent, reliable, secondary sources, or we have nothing to build an article around. Only one of the sources currently in the article appears to be usable; if better ones could be found, a better article could be written, but we need the sources first. GirthSummit _(blether) 12:50, 1 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Daimyo2: I personally think it should have been speedy deleted as promotional. The troubling aspects to me are some of the language (e.g. The service is designed to allow streamlined inter-office communication without the risk of being hacked or losing sensitive information as a result of leaks. and One of the oldest Instant Messengers available, Brosix is currently used by several global corporations, private universities, and public governmental organizations such as Xerox, Harvard University, Georgia Department of Community Health, and many more, the weight given to product features (which includes the security section) relative to other kinds of information (e.g. reviews, objective history) and the inclusion of information generally thought trivial (funding rounds). Fixing all this would require a substantial reworking of the article in my opinion. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 16:20, 1 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Barkeep49: Hi Barkeep. About the part The service is designed to allow streamlined inter-office communication without the risk of being hacked or losing sensitive information as a result of leaks. I can easily fix it to make it sound less commercial. I'll have a look into it immediately. The sentence One of the oldest Instant Messengers available, Brosix is currently used by several global corporations, private universities, and public governmental organizations such as Xerox, Harvard University, Georgia Department of Community Health, and many more has been purposefully added to assert its notability and meet WP:NSOFT - something that so far nobody wanted to take into account even if it seems very important to me. Stating why this tool may have had some form of significance is a requirement, this is not a sentence slapped there to say "it's a great product".

The weight given to product features and the funding part was included to copy the format used for similar products in this same niche. All messengers are really similar to each other, what makes this one a little bit different from the others is that Brosix is more secure. Else, it's a product with an outdated interface - as I clearly explained in the features section. The reviews that I included are a negative one and a good one. I can remove the good one, but wasn't the purpose of the articles to show some form of neutrality? Daimyo2 (talk) 16:33, 1 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Just to bring it back to the sources again, the assertion mentioned above that 'Brosix is currently used by...' is sourced to a listicle in Tech Times. The source is so breathlessly puffy that I can't believe it's not a paid feature; and even then, it only partially supports the assertion. First, it only mentions the three named organisations (nothing about 'several global corporations including...'); I'm also troubled by equating 'trusted by' with 'used by'. 'Trusted by' could mean that it's an integral part of their operations, but it could just as easily mean that it's not outright banned for staff to use it, or even that they trialed it once and gave positive feedback, but no longer actually use it. PR folk are pretty good at turning very little into something impressive without actually lying - that's why we shouldn't use sources like this.GirthSummit _(blether) 17:10, 1 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, I found the information on their website, here: https://www.brosix.com/customers/ but as you can easily imagine, I thought it wasn't a great idea to use this list as a primary source. Truth to be told, it seems they work with a bunch of pretty big shots - just look at the gov agencies and non-profit organizations in that list. Problem is, I can't find any source mentioning this anywhere. Daimyo2 (talk) 17:13, 1 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Daimyo2, If reliable sources don't mention it then we shouldn't be using it. You are of course welcome to include positive reviews - assuming they come from reliable sources (which I think Girth demonstrated that was not). As for the other articles, Wikipedia has evolved to hold companies and products to a tighter standard. I would be unsurprised if other articles in this space are also not meeting our standard. However, in an AfD discussion, we judge each article against the standard and policy as opposed to comparing them to other articles. Hope that makes sense. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 17:23, 1 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I edited the article to the best of my possibilities. I removed the positive review since it didn't come from a reliable source, deleted any "extra" info such as funding, changed everything you indicated as potentially promotional in the introduction. I don't know what to do about the sentence about the companies they work with though, since it still seems important to meet WP:NSOFT. I understand that it comes from a source that may have been paid by a PR agency, as Girth Summit correctly pointed out, but since I've looked at their website and they apparently work with over a dozen of significant organizations (such as universities, corporations and gov agencies), I think it's still fair to leave it here. They're not lying about that, that's pretty obvious. Let me know what you think, I suppose we can fix the text to describe this product for what it really is - i.e. a somewhat less important yes never-dying underdog IM that survived for 13 years notwithstanding its fierce competition. Daimyo2 (talk) 17:44, 1 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

A list of customers on their website does not help it pass WP:NSOFT or WP:NCORP. In my previous career, I used to maintain a very similar list of customers on my company's website. I can assure you that we added companies to the list no matter how small an order we got from them; we did not remove them, however, if they switched to a competitor, unless they explicitly asked us to (which, AFAICR, nobody ever did). We simply can't rely on sources like this to establish notability, or even to support assertions of this nature. GirthSummit _(blether) 19:01, 2 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete and salt per Praxidicae. No need to keep going through AFDs on it, Wikipedia is not for promotion. SITH (talk) 14:29, 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 Draftify. There's no true consensus, but closing this as NC would keep something in mainspace which most people agree shouldn't be there. Draft seems like a reasonable compromise. -- RoySmith (talk) 16:20, 23 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Rupa Shanmugam

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

Can't find information that would meet WP:GNG. Her company does not have a WP article either. Britishfinance (talk) 21:55, 31 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 22:09, 31 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Bakazaka (talk) 23:19, 31 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. Bakazaka (talk) 23:19, 31 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep There are several independent sources and so the subject passes WP:GNG. Andrew D. (talk) 11:03, 4 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ad Orientem (talk) 00:38, 8 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Move to draft to provide time for evidence of the notability of this subject to develop. If no improvement is made in due time, the draft will be abandoned and deleted as such. bd2412 T 03:13, 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 17:11, 15 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. The sources found or cited are quite poor, and certainly do not meet WP:NPERSON or even WP:GNG: NYS Women Inc is a women's support group that has simply put up subject's cv; the New Strait Times piece is pure advertorial, with a link to the NYS Women Inc cv; and Ipoh Echo is a small local newspaper at Perak. This is just trivial coverage. Let's be gracious and call it a case of WP:TOOSOON. -The Gnome (talk) 10:59, 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. Ad Orientem (talk) 00:38, 8 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Kulvinder Singh Johal

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

nn singer tagged since 2010 Staszek Lem (talk) 21:53, 31 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 22:12, 31 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 22:12, 31 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Fails WP:MUSICBIO. I can't find any significant coverage. Jmertel23 (talk) 23:47, 31 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails WP:MUSICBIO. Lack of significant coverage and multiple notable work --DBig Xrayᗙ 01:26, 1 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete a non-notable singer.John Pack Lambert (talk) 05:12, 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. Ad Orientem (talk) 00:40, 8 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

E. R. Hooton

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

Non-notable author. I was able to find one brief review of one of his books [4], but far from meeting WP:NAUTHOR. b uidhe 21:49, 31 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 22:28, 31 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 22:28, 31 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 22:33, 31 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment, heres another in The Journal of Slavic Military Studies. Coolabahapple (talk) 22:39, 31 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Interesting, but given that the review declared his work "unexceptional" and decried his "cut-and-paste approach", I don't see how this is the strongest support for notability. b uidhe 23:01, 31 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Regardless of the two reviews linked above, the subject simply doesn't meet the WP:NAUTHOR guidelines. Pretty much any author is going to have reviews of their works; that doesn't make them notable. Jmertel23 (talk) 23:51, 31 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

However, if their body of work is "significant or well-known", and there are a number of reviews it does - see no. 3 of WP:AUTHOR (not that i'm saying this is the case here). Coolabahapple (talk) 11:04, 1 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I absolutely agree that substantial coverage of a work via reviews could make the work/author well-known, but the small number of (not very easy to find) reviews in this case don't seem to me to meet that criterion. Jmertel23 (talk) 11:48, 1 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per the reviews linked above plus this one and this one. It doesn't matter whether reviews are positive, negative or neutral: it's their existence that matters. Phil Bridger (talk) 13:06, 1 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Mr Hooton has written some well-regarded books (the works on the Luftwaffe are considered among the best available on the topic), but isn't a high profile historian by any means. None of the reviews of his books above provides the coverage of him as a person required to meet WP:BIO. Nick-D (talk) 10:08, 4 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Just fyi, artist and author articles can pass WP:CREATIVE wile utterly devoid of bio details. If the books or the paintings get WP:SIGCOV or have an impact on a scholarly field, we can keep the page about the author.E.M.Gregory (talk) 23:20, 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. Ad Orientem (talk) 00:42, 8 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

In-service program

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

Platitudinous dictionary article. Devoid of useful content Rathfelder (talk) 19:55, 24 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Language-related deletion discussions. Bakazaka (talk) 22:02, 24 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. Bakazaka (talk) 22:02, 24 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. Bakazaka (talk) 22:02, 24 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. Bakazaka (talk) 22:02, 24 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Nosebagbear (talk) 21:42, 31 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The nomination is devoid of reasons to delete. The closest it comes is the word "dictionary" but that just seems to mean "short" as the article has no focus on a particular word qua word. But our actual policy explains that "One perennial source of confusion is that a stub encyclopedia article looks very much like a dictionary entry, and stubs are often poorly written; another is that some paper dictionaries, such as "pocket" dictionaries, lead users to the mistaken belief that dictionary entries are short, and that short article and dictionary entry are therefore equivalent." Andrew D. (talk) 09:52, 1 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the Article Rescue Squadron's list of content for rescue consideration. Andrew D. (talk) 10:11, 1 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep This is not a simple dictionary term but as Andrew Davidson pointed out, it is a perfectly valid stub article. Clearly a notable topic. Sorting through the many Google scholar results that mention it, I see there have been studies done on how it effects teachers and students in the classrooms. [5] [6] Dream Focus 03:28, 2 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
What would be in such an article which is not adequately covered in Continuing education?Rathfelder (talk) 09:17, 2 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Since that article exist, just do a merge discussion. No reason to try to delete this. Remember, deletion should be the last resort. Dream Focus 05:34, 6 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I can't see anything to merge.Rathfelder (talk) 08:03, 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 no consensus to delete, after greatly extended time for discussion. bd2412 T 03:14, 15 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Jon Jashni

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Keep Passes WP:SIGCOV. Found him in 8 magazines in the first 16 references, discussing a wide range of films at Legendary Entertainment. Seems to be ok. scope_creep^Talk 10:36, 9 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. There is no support for deletion at all, and there is consensus that there is coverage of Beno Dorn (even if it was not pointed at all in this AfD) (non-admin closure) Jovanmilic97 (talk) 22:44, 1 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Beno Dorn

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

Notability of this tailor is exclusively via occasional connection with the Beatles, who just had happened to order suits from him. There are zillions of shops where the beatles went shopping. No in-depth coverage of this guy, just mentions in passing. Notability is not inherited. Staszek Lem (talk) 21:33, 31 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 22:48, 31 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fashion-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 22:48, 31 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Fashion didn't just happen in London. Andy Dingley (talk) 23:00, 31 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
- and how is this related to our notability rules? Namely, which reliable sources speak in depth of influence of Dorn on London fashion? Staszek Lem (talk) 23:09, 31 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  - Why would you expect someone based 200 miles away to have an effect on London fashion? Phil Bridger (talk) 13:11, 1 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 08:57, 1 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ad Orientem (talk) 00:43, 8 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sheldybett (talk) 14:18, 15 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, DannyS712 (talk) 17:22, 22 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep the guy did not just make any suits he made the suits the Beattle got famous with. This is not hurting anyone and has good sources. Legacypac (talk) 19:22, 22 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
- Our rule is that notability is not inherited. Many people did many things for beatles and bragged about this. We do not have articles about them. Staszek Lem (talk) 20:21, 22 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  - It's not that he bragged about this, but that other people wrote about it, that shows notability. Phil Bridger (talk) 20:24, 22 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. The guy is even on the Beatles tour. There are plenty of references to this guy in various Beatles books confirming his part in the groups outfits. Maybe borderline, but given the mega-notability Beatles, am happy to take a view on it. If a reader heard of this guy clothing the band, wouldn't they expect to find him in WP? Britishfinance (talk) 21:06, 22 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep because folks keep writing about this guy, after all these years. And when the sources are there....E.M.Gregory (talk) 15:49, 26 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. There might be coverage in Bill Harry's The Beatles Encyclopedia, page 352. wumbolo ^^^ 21:03, 1 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was merge to Scorpion (Marvel Comics). Ad Orientem (talk) 00:44, 8 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Scorpia (comics)

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

Does not meet WP:GNG. Is linked in the body of three articles. Namenamenamenamename (talk) 19:54, 31 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to List of Marvel Comics characters: S. Mostly a female counterpart of Mac Gargan. Primarily a Spider-Man villain. But not a major one. Jhenderson⁷⁷⁷ 20:02, 31 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 22:53, 31 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 22:53, 31 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Comics and animation-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 22:53, 31 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Merge into Scorpion (Marvel Comics). Been around long enough that somebody might search, but failure of WP:GNG means no requirement for own article. --Killer Moff (talk) 13:40, 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. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 17:16, 15 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Physical Presents

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

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

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

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

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

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ad Orientem (talk) 00:45, 8 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

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

The result was no consensus defaulting to Keep and w/o prejudice to a future renomination. Ad Orientem (talk) 00:29, 15 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Fay Ray (band)

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

Non-notable band, does not meet WP:GNG. The only semi-reliable coverage is an AllMusic source, which says that the band was briefly signed to Elektra Records before the record company canned them. An article at this title has already been deleted once by CSD A7 and once by PROD; if the consensus of this discussion is to delete, I would thus recommend salting. _signed,Rosguill ^talk 19:16, 31 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete & Salt per nom. Staszek Lem (talk) 21:37, 31 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

Weak keep. As well as the Allmusic bio, there's coverage in the book Last Shop Standing ([7]), and a newspaper article on their 2018 return ([8]). It seems likely that print coverage from the early 1980s will also exist. --Michig (talk) 06:39, 1 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep: the newspaper article Michig mentions above seems to have disappeared from the newspaper's website, but it's archived here [9]. I wasn't aware of this band back in 1982 when I was a teenager in the UK, but I'm intrigued: the fact that they were signed to a major label and had a big-name record producer overseeing them (Gray produced number-one albums by the Police and top ten records by Siouxsie and the Banshees, among others) makes me think Michig is almost certainly right that the UK's music press might have given them some brief coverage at the time, and it's likely the album was reviewed as well. It's frustrating that I'm not in a position at the moment to be able to check back issues of NME or Melody Maker from 1982... however, the three sources mentioned above seem to be just about enough for now to demonstrate that this article is worth keeping. Richard3120 (talk) 21:26, 3 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Artist has own website and band member Tony Travis has a YouTube account (https://www.youtube.com/user/tonytravis?app=desktop) featuring music videos and live performances (can be seen here: https://www.youtube.com/user/tonytravis/videos) showing the fact the band has some importance. The band has also re-released their album Contact You and YouTube has recognized this re-release of the album as seen on https://www.youtube.com/playlist?list=OLAK5uy_ntYz8Eqhuzp5liVrYx5kELqW_h5HRV2WM showing that even YouTube does acknowledge the band. --Copyrightpower1337 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 22:09, 3 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Having a YouTube account means absolutely nothing - three of my cousins have YouTube accounts for their songs, but none of them are notable. Richard3120 (talk) 22:15, 3 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

keep article Found their song "Heatwave" mentioned in this Wikipedia article — Preceding unsigned comment added by Glekglek (talk • contribs) 22:18, 3 February 2019 (UTC) Sock vote struck.--Bbb23 (talk) 00:58, 4 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia cannot be used as a source for itself. And your first ever edit on Wikipedia was a keep vote? Richard3120 (talk) 22:56, 3 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I do believe that is an important inclusion considering how the song is about nuclear devastation. The lyrics "We watch the mushroom as it rises in a cloud" does refer to mushroom clouds. Along with the lyrics "I didn't kill, I didn't fight, I'll never get home tonight." referring to the civilians who are affected by the nuclear war despite doing nothing to cause the war. The lyrics "We watch the city in it's different glow" refer to the glow of radiation. Thus showing the importance of the inclusion of the band who created the song in question. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Copyrightpower1337 (talk • contribs) 22:28, 3 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Why on earth should a song about nuclear war automatically make a band notable? Richard3120 (talk) 22:56, 3 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

~~Keep~~: Found an article on a North Wales news site about the band and the re-release of Contact You as seen here — Preceding unsigned comment added by Copyrightpower1337 (talk • contribs) 22:36, 3 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Michig has already found that source, mentioned in his comment, so that's not a new piece of evidence. Richard3120 (talk) 22:56, 3 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I'm somewhat swayed by Richard3120's and Michig's arguments about the possible existence of offline sources. Other arguments made in favor of keep show a clear lack of understanding of notability guidelines, and if anything hurt the case for keep. _signed,Rosguill ^talk 23:03, 3 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Given the current split between the WKs (The full Keeps have been either Socks or unjustified arguments) and deletes, I think there's enough disagreement to make it worth a relisting
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Nosebagbear (talk) 21:17, 7 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. Is there any way of finding if their releases ever charted? I tried but could not work it out. Britishfinance (talk) 20:59, 12 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Britishfinance: no, they never charted, either with singles or albums... you would be able to check this on the Official Chart Company's website. Michig has access to the book of indie charts from the 1980s, so I imagine that he would already have mentioned if they charted there, but it doesn't look like they did that either. Richard3120 (talk) 21:04, 12 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Richard3120: thanks for that. It seems like a borderline case at best; I will leave to you guys to decide its fate. Britishfinance (talk) 21:20, 12 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

~~Keep~~. Given the above info about offline media, YouTube recognizing the re-released album's audio tracks, having a famous band manager, and being signed to a major record label show the article should be kept. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Copyrightpower1337 (talk • contribs) 23:32, 13 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

You're welcome to continue making arguments in favor of keep, but please limit yourself to one vote. _signed,Rosguill ^talk 23:40, 13 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, Copyrightpower1337, but some of your arguments are really poor – YouTube doesn't "recognise" the album's tracks, it's because people have posted the audio to YouTube, and you can find every song ever recorded somewhere on YouTube because a fan has posted it, so that's not much of an argument for notability. And having a famous manager does not make a band notable, per WP:NOTINHERITED – my argument was that having a famous producer made it more likely that reliable sources exist for the band, which is an entirely different thing. Richard3120 (talk) 13:43, 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) 00:26, 15 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Yoni Assia

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

Not independently notable from his company. First AfD closed as "keep" but the first user to comment was blocked for socking soon after, second user blocked soon after for WP:PAID violations, third user links to search results full of unreliable sources, interviews, and mentions, and the fourth is only a "weak keep". Џ 13:16, 24 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Israel-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 13:40, 24 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 13:40, 24 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Finance-related deletion discussions. 23:03, 8 February 2019 (UTC) 109.41.66.146 (talk) 23:03, 8 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Seems well-sourced and notable.--Geewhiz (talk) 15:03, 24 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Very weak keep. Can totally understand Џ's line of reasoning and find it a harder case. Definitely not well-sourced, but maybe barely passing. And while usually associated with company, seems to be known and covered independently (in scene: 1, 2,...). Don't have enough experince with business (executives) yet, though, to cast a "definitive" vote...--Ruhri Jörg 15:23, 24 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Keep. My !vote is qualified weak as I'm actually missing a source that really discusses him in depth (though several sources come close (and this university newsletter probably is in-depth - but not of a quality I'd want to use), and one could built a fairly lengthy bio off of what I do see) - but my hunch is I'm missing this in all of the crud (over 210 google news hits in English, also coverage in Hebrew, a few books hits - the customer facing business gets covered and Assia gets interviewed as an expert, etc.). This guy has been receiving coverage for a decade and a half (mid-2000s) for a number of different ventures - eToro, crypto currencies, his wife's iAngels venture (where coverage tends to mention him), and a smattering of other ventures, board seats and roles. The company he founded (and is the CEO of) is fairly significant - e.g. they just had a 100 million dollar round ([10][11]). He's definitely high profile in terms of media coverage (which generates alot of crud sources). Based on his business/venture records and the amount of hits I'm seeing I do have an expectation that coverage is out there.Icewhiz (talk) 15:40, 24 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
- Not sure that makes him notable independent of the company, though. Maybe redirect there? - David Gerard (talk) 08:20, 29 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  - He has coverage that is independent of eToro (e.g. crypto currencies, iAngels, various board seats and roles in other companies/ventures). Icewhiz (talk) 08:41, 29 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, not good BLP coverage - passing mentions in eToro publicity pushes and crypto blogs. This is not in any manner the level of sourcing to WP:BLP standards - it's cobbled-together synthesis at best - David Gerard (talk) 10:30, 25 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
- A redirect to eToro might be appropriate, though - David Gerard (talk) 08:20, 29 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Does not meet WP:ANYBIO. Not independently notable of the company, significant RS coverage not found. Please also see: Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/1-555-confide. --K.e.coffman (talk) 00:30, 29 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Jovanmilic97 (talk) 18:49, 31 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Nosebagbear (talk) 21:21, 7 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per David Gerard. Can't see much notability here. Number 5 7 11:07, 10 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Per David Gerard. The missing source that discusses the subject "in depth" is what is necessary to pass notability. Otr500 (talk) 19:51, 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. Apart from the nom there is only one participant in this debate, who argues for a merge. If that is an acceptable solution, that can be handled on the talk pages of these articles. If not, no prejudice to taking this to AfD again in, say, 2 months time, hoping on a wider participation. Randykitty (talk) 18:32, 15 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

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

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

For the same reason are also nominated:

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

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

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

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

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Jovanmilic97 (talk) 18:49, 31 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

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

The result was keep. Consensus for Keep, given that though it wasn't policy, the discussion of it was sufficient to provide notability. (non-admin closure) Nosebagbear (talk) 21:22, 7 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Estcoin

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

Was never an official plan according to CNBC Џ 12:38, 24 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, though the article should be updated to reflect this. Even if turns out it was never an official Estonian Government policy, and was just the over-publicized brainchild of the director of their e-Residency program, it still remains notable per the extensive and continuing coverage it has received - continuing coverage that includes the article you have just provided. -- NoCOBOL (talk) 12:59, 24 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 13:42, 24 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Estonia-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 13:42, 24 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, per the above vote. WesSirius (talk) 16:15, 24 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per NoCOBOL. Passes notability per coverage. Balkywrest (talk) 10:26, 25 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Marginal to delete - all the coverage is a single publicity push for a thing that doesn't exist. I'm entirely unconvinced anyone is going to come here to look for this thing - David Gerard (talk) 10:28, 25 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
~~Delete~~: does not meet WP:NSOFT / WP:NORG; significant RS coverage not found. The page creator is a probable sock; please see: Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/1-555-confide. --K.e.coffman (talk) 02:22, 31 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
- What do you mean "significant RS coverage not found"? CNBC and CNN not good enough for you? also, sock's content was stricken out from history. Completely new article. Staszek Lem (talk) 21:44, 31 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Jovanmilic97 (talk) 18:47, 31 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Meritless nom's rationale. Yes it was a plan, but Eurobank killed it. It was a notable development for a small country. It definitely met WP:GNG in 2018. Notablity does not become outdated. Staszek Lem (talk) 21:41, 31 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Finance-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 08:59, 1 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep – Meets WP:GNG, as per a source review, with significant coverage by Reuters, CNBC and Bloomberg. Furthermore, notability is not temporary. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 09:05, 1 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep – Meets WP:GNG Misterpottery (talk) 09:05, 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 redirect to Dos Yiddishe Licht. Two people argued to merge, but the counter-argument that without references, you don't have WP:V, precludes a merge. Still, the suggested merge target does mention this, so a redirect, per WP:ATD seems reasonable. The history is still available, so if anybody wants to mine this for material to merge. If you do that, however, you need to find WP:RS to support any merged material. -- RoySmith (talk) 14:38, 23 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Beleichtungen

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

Doesn't seem to pass GNG or Notability guidelines, references are not even for the subject of the article. Sir Joseph ^(talk) 18:40, 31 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Judaism-related deletion discussions. Sir Joseph ^(talk) 18:40, 31 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. I deleted the blogspot under references as well as the other entry that also doesn't apply. Yoninah (talk) 18:43, 31 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Journalism-related deletion discussions. Icewhiz (talk) 19:08, 31 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Israel-related deletion discussions. Icewhiz (talk) 19:08, 31 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of News media-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 09:07, 1 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

~~Keep~~. Mostly notable as Das Yiddishe Licht, and not the newer Beleichtungen. Title probably should be the newer one, but Das Yiddishe Licht should redirect here. As a Yiddish paper in Jerusalem - English BEFOREing won't get you far (though I suspect the yiddishkeit rags in New York probably do refer, in Yiddish, to the Jerusalem Yiddish rag). There are however quite a few Yiddish (which is harder for me to assess RS-wise) and Hebrew hits, for instance: This academic paper on the use of Hebrew and the Yiddish language used in DYL (lots of different types of Yiddish are extant - though following the Holocaust, it has all become a mishmash)..... Here a Haredi paper refers to DYL. Quite a few Hebrew book hits, harking back quite a bit (e.g. 1945) - [12][13][14][15][16][17]. I would expect even more hits in Yiddish literature - whose online availability is spotty, to say the least (Hebrew ain't great either online, but there's quite a bit more). Icewhiz (talk) 09:20, 1 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to Dos Yiddishe Licht. As a DYL was created too, and since I do not think Beleichtungen is independentally notable from DYL per my search - a merge to there, leaving a redirect, is probably the best course.Icewhiz (talk) 19:38, 2 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.

Partial merge to a disambiguation page. Unless there is enough material for a standalone page, I think a redirect to a disambiguation page instead of an unrelated newspaper would be preferable and less confusing for readers. 24.84.14.158 (talk) 22:43, 10 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

When the material is withou any references it simply does not make it as a new article. If the material somehow, usually through overight, has already made it as an article, we do not send it elsewhere but eliminate it altogether. -The Gnome (talk) 10:16, 23 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Randykitty (talk) 18:33, 15 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Unrefenced and a decade old. No evidence ever independentally notable. Nothing to "Merge" as there are no references; must be Delete. Britishfinance (talk) 16:33, 22 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete since there are no references verifying any kind of independent notability. In fact, there are no references out there, period. -The Gnome (talk) 10:16, 23 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note that most of what is out there is writtent in Yiddish (much off line, some online), written in Hebrew letters.Icewhiz (talk) 10:29, 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 keep. Ad Orientem (talk) 00:48, 8 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Maalos

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

No claims of notability, sole referenced is a dead link, tried to Google for sources and found nothing. Article appears to be about a monthly magazine, which may not be notable at all, and geared to a local community. Sir Joseph ^(talk) 18:04, 31 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Judaism-related deletion discussions. Sir Joseph ^(talk) 18:07, 31 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. The reason why the Maalos is not so notable worldwide or on the web is because it is a very fanatic paper, not even using internet etc. But there are tens of thousands of Ultra-Orhodox Yiddish Speakers across the New York State and Israel who know of this publication for years.
Delete per nom. Even if online sources are unavailable, there must be printed sources in order to meet Wikipedia's guidelines of GNG and WP:V. Yoninah (talk) 18:37, 31 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Journalism-related deletion discussions. Icewhiz (talk) 19:10, 31 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. Icewhiz (talk) 19:10, 31 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per coverage in Tablet, Mosiac, [18], and probably a whole lot of Yiddish coverage as well.Icewhiz (talk) 19:17, 31 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep notable per coverage found by Icewhiz, as linked above (which, should be added to article page). Kierzek (talk) 20:20, 31 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of News media-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 09:07, 1 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Keep - there's some degree of duplication going on between Icewhiz's sources, and it obviously has to meet the higher WP:NORG requirements. That said, there's enough to make me teeter on the retain side. Nosebagbear (talk) 21:25, 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. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 17:22, 15 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Abir Ibrahim

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

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

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

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

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

Delete - most of these sources are not reliable/independent. Those that are, fail Sig Cov. I am confident that an article on Inua Naturals would be sufficiently notable, but Abir is usually only covered in short detail before going on about Inua. This sourcing issue is duplicated elsewhere. I don't believe any of her positions or awards are so large as to demonstrate notability in themselves. As a side note, the article is also a mix of advertorial and a CV. Nosebagbear (talk) 21:32, 7 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

Delete Fails WP:GNG. Wikipedia is a summary of WP:RS. If this article is kept then delete everything without a citation to meet Wikipedia's quality standard. The sources which are cited do not feature this person as their subject or are WP:SPS. Blue Rasberry (talk) 22:25, 8 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect to Marvel: The Lost Generation. (non-admin closure) Jovanmilic97 (talk) 16:24, 15 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Black Fox (Robert Paine)

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

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

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

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

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

Redirect to Marvel: The Lost Generation. Valid search term but nothing of any worth in preserving. --Killer Moff (talk) 13:42, 1 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

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

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

The result was no consensus to delete, after greatly extended time for discussion. bd2412 T 01:46, 23 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Black Crow (comics)

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

Does not meet WP:GNG. Is linked in the body of two articles in passing mention. Namenamenamenamename (talk) 17:55, 31 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per evidence of notability shown below by Killer Moff, or failing that merge into List of Marvel Comics characters: B or List of Native American superheroes. No need to delete when merge is a valid option. BOZ (talk) 20:23, 31 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. Bakazaka (talk) 23:09, 31 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Comics and animation-related deletion discussions. Bakazaka (talk) 23:09, 31 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Given the sources provided in at 1, 2 and 4, we have to presume this passes WP:GNG until somebody actually checks these books and discovers the extent of the coverage. --Killer Moff (talk) 13:46, 1 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Only one of the Keep !votes is actually justified as a literal Keep, currently meaning there is a Delete/Merge/Keep split
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Nosebagbear (talk) 21:33, 7 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The nomination makes an unsupported, false assertion about the GNG as the subject appears in a variety of sources including Native Americans in Comic Books: A Critical Study. Andrew D. (talk) 13:11, 8 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to List of Native American superheroes, since that seems to be the character's claim to notability. Argento Surfer (talk) 21:11, 8 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ad Orientem (talk) 00:25, 15 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to the Native superhero list. Passes GNG from sources, but not notable enough, IMO, for a solo article. Etzedek24 ^{(I'll talk at ya) (Check my track record)} 16:04, 19 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to List of Native American superheroes. I am not opposed to a merge, but I am not sure how the information would be carried over from this article to the list, since the target list currently is just a collection of names without any real information on individual characters. Hopefully, it will be improved in the future, as it is a valuable and interest topic. Aoba47 (talk) 20:48, 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 redirect to List of Masters of Evil members. As noted in the discussion the article is not backed by any RS sources. Which means it fails WP:V and there is nothing to merge. Ad Orientem (talk) 00:51, 8 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Bison (comics)

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

Does not meet WP:GNG. Is linked by three non-list articles in passing mention. Character appears eight times, according to Marvel Wikia. Namenamenamenamename (talk) 17:53, 31 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep or merge into List of Marvel Comics characters: B or List of Masters of Evil members. No need to delete when merge is a valid option. BOZ (talk) 20:18, 31 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. Bakazaka (talk) 23:09, 31 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Comics and animation-related deletion discussions. Bakazaka (talk) 23:09, 31 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

redirect to List of Masters of Evil members. Valid search term, no other likely target, no real info worth preserving. --Killer Moff (talk) 13:48, 1 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Let his page stay. While he has appeared eight times, he might appear again. Plus, he is one of a few characters that make up the category page for fictional bison. As for BOZ's claim if this gets merged, it will have to be in the list of Marvel Comics characters that start with B or the section for Crimson Cowl's first incarnation of the Masters of Evil on it's list page. --Rtkat3 (talk) 19:15, 1 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to List of Masters of Evil members. Has absolutely zero reliable secondary sources to show any sort of notability. The arguments that "he might appear again" or that the page is part of a category are both complete non-policy arguments for keeping, and should be disregarded. 169.232.162.112 (talk) 17:00, 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 speedy keep. Nomination withdrawn. The issues I nominated this for was sourcing and the basic research I had done had not uncovered any reliable ones. Other editors more persistent than me have managed to find sources, rendering the point which I listed this on moot. (non-admin closure) ^{[Username Needed]} 10:45, 4 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Amir Jadidi

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

WP:GNG ^{[Username Needed]} 14:54, 24 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. ...William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 17:15, 24 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Iran-related deletion discussions. ...William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 17:15, 24 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete the article does not have any reliable sources.John Pack Lambert (talk) 00:26, 27 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Per this interview recording, ifilm, Tehran Times, and Tasnim News Agency. On top of him winning an award at a major film festival, the Crystal Simorgh at the Fajr International Film Festival, and these sources, he "has had significant roles in multiple notable films, television shows, stage performances, or other productions." per WP:ENT. SL93 (talk) 23:16, 27 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, TheSandDoctor ^Talk 17:23, 31 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

KeepRezvanzari (talk) 20:24, 1 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Clearly passes WP:NACTOR per the sources already presented, and those found by the Google News search linked in the nomination. Two thing concern me about this nomination. Firstly that a deletion nomination that just consisted of a piece of alphabet soup was not closed immediately - surely we should insist on at least a few words of explanation - and secondly that we seem to require higher standards of notability for non-Western topics that for Western ones. Phil Bridger (talk) 21:12, 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 redirect to List of Marvel Comics characters: A. There is a clear consensus against keeping this article. Opinions on what to do with it however, were split. As noted in the discussion the article is unsourced, so that effectively eliminates merging. Per WP:ATD I am left with redirection. Ad Orientem (talk) 00:36, 15 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Archer (Marvel Comics)

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

Does not meet WP:GNG. Page is linked by four articles, character appears seven times according to Marvel Wikia. Namenamenamenamename (talk) 17:14, 31 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

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

Delete - Generic term that could refer to any number of heroes, character as listed fails WP:GNG. --— Preceding unsigned comment added by Killer Moff (talk • contribs) 13:50, 1 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Completely unsourced article on a extremely minor comic book character. This does not pass the GNG, and the name is too generic to even warrant a redirect. 169.232.162.112 (talk) 17:11, 7 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, TheSandDoctor ^Talk 17:25, 7 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Merge character information into List of Marvel Comics characters: A as per User:BOZ. Whatever useful information here can be retained in a list. –eggofreason^talk 18:23, 7 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Merge the relevant info about the character to List of Marvel Comics characters: A and redirect to it. GN-z11 ^☎ ^★ 19:56, 7 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - the character list isn't meant to be exhaustive, it's for significant characters who aren't notable outside of the fiction. This character is insignificant all around. Argento Surfer (talk) 21:09, 8 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Per nom. Merge what? Completely unsourced material (WP:OR) with an "External link"? Otr500 (talk) --originally posted 10 February 2019 and forgot to sign. --- Otr500 (talk) 05:08, 13 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect no notable sourced content to merge or keep --DannyS712 (talk) 20:47, 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 delete. Randykitty (talk) 18:35, 15 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Fixx

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

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

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

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

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

Delete - Fails WP:GNG. Suspect is more likely to be a typo than a valid search term. --Killer Moff (talk) 15:52, 1 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ad Orientem (talk) 00:52, 8 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - does not meet my criteria for a merge or redirect. Argento Surfer (talk) 21:23, 8 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Ad Orientem (talk) 00:37, 15 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

3D-CMCC-CNR model

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

Not notable. No significant in-depth coverage in independent sources, all sources describing it in detail are authored by people connected to the project. Pontificalibus 17:09, 31 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 07:52, 1 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Environment-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 07:52, 1 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Pinging Robert McClenon who accepted this at WP:AFC. ~Kvng (talk) 13:47, 6 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, TheSandDoctor ^Talk 17:23, 7 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Neutral - I may have made a mistake in accepting this one, because I either overlooked or wasn't aware of the self-publication issue. I will explain that I generally accept scientific subjects, which should be additions to human knowledge, and Wikipedia seeks to summarize human knowledge, unless there appears to be a self-serving motive. (For instance, I always reject autobiographies, including of scientists, and am currently involved in an ugly deletion dispute about an autobiography of a scientist.) Robert McClenon (talk) 23:03, 7 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete As far as I can tell from a Google Scholar search, this model has received minimal attention and papers which use and/or describe the model have paltry citation counts. _signed,Rosguill ^talk 00:01, 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 List of Marvel Comics teams and organizations. No RS sources cited. There is nothing to merge. Ad Orientem (talk) 00:38, 15 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Xavier's Underground Enforcers

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

Does not meet WP:GNG. Page is linked by two articles, and the team has only appeared in two issues of X-Factor according to Marvel Wikia. Namenamenamenamename (talk) 17:08, 31 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep or merge into List of Marvel Comics teams and organizations. No need to delete when merge is a valid option. BOZ (talk) 20:14, 31 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

Delete - straightforward failure of WP:GNG. Not enough impact in reality or in fiction to justify presence. --Killer Moff (talk) 15:16, 1 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, TheSandDoctor ^Talk 17:23, 7 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - fails WP:GNG. Skirts89 (talk) 22:04, 7 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - does not meet my criteria for a merge or redirect. Argento Surfer (talk) 21:31, 8 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect per BOZ. But, notability concerns to me suggest that this should not be merged. --DannyS712 (talk) 20:45, 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 The Fall of the Mutants. Any content worth merging is still available from the article history. Randykitty (talk) 18:36, 15 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Ani-Mator

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

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

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

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

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

Redirect to Cypher (Marvel Comics), fails WP:GNG, but no other likely target, and target article provides enough context. Character's involvement in major event in target's story justifies redirect. --Killer Moff (talk) 14:00, 1 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ad Orientem (talk) 00:52, 8 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

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

The result was no consensus. A possible merge can be discussed on the talk page. Randykitty (talk) 18:37, 15 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Asbestos Man

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

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

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

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

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

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

Keep - Looks like it passes GNG to me, based on reference 6, and these: [19]] and [[20]]. --Killer Moff (talk) 14:05, 1 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

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

Merge: Both Asbestos Lady and Asbestos Man were only notable for one thing. For being asbestos type villains to their flaming counterpart. But they are extremely minor and they didn’t last long. Not enough coverage. I wish he appeared more since he is a Stan Lee original but he has passes on in both in real life and in-universe. Jhenderson⁷⁷⁷ 22:53, 3 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to List of Marvel Comics characters: A. The few sources provided that are not the comics themselves are blogs and official marvel handbooks. These do not meet the requirements of being reliable secondary sources. However, they do provide enough that I think a merge would be appropriate. 169.232.162.112 (talk) 17:14, 7 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ad Orientem (talk) 00:53, 8 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

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

Merge to List of Marvel Comics characters: A. Appeared in media popular enough that someone might want to read about it, but that doesn't require its own article. - WPGA2345 - ☛ 01:05, 10 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. A possible merge can be discussed on the article talk page. Randykitty (talk) 18:38, 15 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Armless Tiger Man

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

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

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

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

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

Delete - No toher likely target and fails WP:GNG. --Killer Moff (talk) 14:55, 1 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect/Merge to List of Marvel Comics characters: A. An extremely minor character, whose only sources are primary. However, his name is unusual enough that it could be a valid search term, so a redirect and selective merge would be fine. 169.232.162.112 (talk) 17:17, 7 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ad Orientem (talk) 00:53, 8 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

Delete does not meet my criteria for merging or redirect. Coverage of the character in list articles of oddball comic characters doesn't demonstate notability. Argento Surfer (talk) 21:29, 8 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Passes the WP:GNG. Comic Book Resources gives significant coverage to the character at [21] Screen Rant mention him at [22]. This and other coverage found and mentioned count. Dream Focus 00:15, 9 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was merge to List of Inhumans. Ad Orientem (talk) 00:54, 8 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Auran (comics)

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

Does not meet WP:GNG. Character appears four times, according to Marvel Wikia. Too minor to be merged. Namenamenamenamename (talk) 16:37, 31 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep or merge into List of Marvel Comics characters: A or List of Inhumans. No need to delete when merge is a valid option. BOZ (talk) 20:10, 31 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

Merge into List of Inhumans. Most details can be trimmed, but the TV appearance means it's a likely search term. --Killer Moff (talk) 15:19, 1 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to List of Inhumans per above. The character is fairly minor, and has too few secondary sources to establish individual notability. However, their appearances as part of the Inhumans in both the show and the mobile game means that a merge to the main article would be useful. 169.232.162.112 (talk) 17:19, 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. Ad Orientem (talk) 00:22, 15 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

TFT (consultancy)

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

I can't see how this company meets our notability requirements for companies. It gets a number of passing mentions on Gnews (someone was promoted, one of the partners is gay, it worked on a bike shop in Guildford, was a finalist for a trade award etc), and a few hits on Gbooks, of which at least the first four actually mention the company. I see no sign of the sort of in-depth coverage in a range of solid reliable sources that would satisfy WP:NCORP. The article appears to be a typical bit of corporate promotion; that could be fixed, but there's not much point if notability is not met. Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 16:34, 31 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 07:32, 1 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 07:32, 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) 21:37, 7 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - subject fails WP:CORP. Skirts89 (talk) 22:06, 7 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. A small regional U.K. property consultancy?? Not notable. Britishfinance (talk) 20:50, 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 merge to List of Marvel Comics characters: D. Randykitty (talk) 18:41, 15 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Discus (comics)

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

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

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

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

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

Delete - Generic term, and current target fails WP:GNG--Killer Moff (talk) 14:38, 1 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ad Orientem (talk) 00:54, 8 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep or merge I agree with BOZ above. Merge into List of Marvel Characters or Luke Cage supporting characters. I don't believe it deserves its own page. Theweekndeditor (talk) 02:01, 9 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Randykitty (talk) 18:43, 15 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

A Fox In Space

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

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

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

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

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

Delete - A fairly unnotable bit of fan work. The article from the A.V. Club, which is the only valid reference currently in the article, appears to be the only reliable secondary source out there. Searching for more brings up nothing further except for mentions in blogs or user comments, neither of which can be used to establish notability. 169.232.162.112 (talk) 17:24, 7 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ad Orientem (talk) 00:55, 8 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

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

The result was delete. Ad Orientem (talk) 00:40, 15 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Fyodor Dmitriev

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

Fails WP:BIO. Before search, including Google.ru, Gbooks in Russian, and Wikipedia.ru returned a Russian site on bells and bellmakers (which isn't even a qualified source and might be uncredible), but he only had a mention (name, son of, dates), nothing significant. Aurornisxui (talk) 16:18, 31 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

DELETE. This article, which has lacked any sources whatsoever since 2006, certainly seems like it could be a hoax, as no mention of this "Fyodor Dmitriev" can seemingly be found on the internet outside of this article. There are several mentions of a certain "Fedor Dmitriev"-- but that is referring to a Russian professional basketball player who still plays today. Additionally, I couldn't really find anything of note about Alexander Grigoriev, "Dmitriev" 's supposed mentor. However, even if it isn't actually a completely made-up hoax, it essentially lacks any verifiability whatsoever and is certainly deserving of deletion at any rate. 68.5.231.50 (talk) 00:02, 1 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Furthermore, the possibility that "Dmitriev" is in fact fictional (i.e. an outright hoax) is made to seem like a greater possibility considering that even the article's creator himself/herself acknowledged (suspiciously) that "[n]one of his bells were found or identified to this day", making this man's existence at least slightly likely to have been invented. 68.5.231.50 (talk) 00:16, 1 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Russia-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 06:28, 1 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 09:12, 1 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. The subject is probably not notable, but this is not a hoax. Phil Bridger (talk) 13:33, 1 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 16:16, 7 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Can't find sufficient sources to show notability. No attempt made by the article to do so either. Britishfinance (talk) 23:24, 9 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Ad Orientem (talk) 00:42, 15 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Coloma Swaan

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

This painter doesn't seem to have received attention apart from some local newspapers (or the local section of newspapers) commenting at the time on her few exhibitions in or near her hometown.

She hasn't received sustained or significant attention, is not discussed in books, not traded on the art market, not mentioned as an important or influential artist, ... In retrospect, a local artist who, like all local artists do, got very limited attention when they exposed in their hometown, and nothing else. Fram (talk) 14:38, 31 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Artists-related deletion discussions. IntoThinAir (talk) 15:10, 31 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Belgium-related deletion discussions. IntoThinAir (talk) 15:11, 31 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete appears to be a memorial page. No in-depth coverage at all, and searches for sourcing turn up zilch in the way of RS that would establish notability.ThatMontrealIP (talk) 15:28, 31 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Yes, this is a memorial page, as the creator is the subject's grandson. There are some cited newspaper sources, and despite my lack of Dutch they appear to be local coverage as noted by the nominator. No other sources found in a search. Curiocurio (talk) 01:47, 1 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. ...William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 15:51, 31 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep (Article author). Dear administrators, my name is Enio Barbaro and I am indeed one of the 17 grandchildren of the subject "Coloma Swaan". I would like to inform that I have been requested by people in the last few years how it comes that a very limited number of sources where to be found on my grand-mother on internet as she has made approximately between 600 to 700 paintings between 1933 and 2005 from which many were sold in France, Italy, The Netherlands and Belgium during expositions in Belgium and the Netherlands between 1942–1996.

I am a construction engineer and not an art specialist or critic but I decided after several demands that it was time for me to do research on her art works, after one year of research I could find an important number of newspaper that I obtained from Belgian archives in which she was mentioned. Up to now I could find 23 articles from the period 1970 to mainly 1980 with a last article from 1992 coming from the Netherlands that I found this week and that I just uploaded to the Wikipedia page. The article from 1992 from the Dutch journal "De Stem" states that an art value estimator of the "Diocese Brede" has estimated that the painting of Coloma Swaan, found in the Church of Philippine in 1992 (The Netherlands) is extremely valuable. The "Diocese Brede" decides in 1992 to a full renovation of the art work of Coloma Swaan, her painting is pictured in the photograph of the newspaper and even a value estimate is made and published within the article. So in my eyes I think the critic made on the subject "local artist who, like all local artists do, got very limited attention when they exposed in their hometown, and nothing else" not appropriate. I can although understand that because of the origin of the articles (all written in Dutch) that it is very difficult to evaluate the value of wat is written in the articles for a native English speaking person. If there is a necessity to translate the articles in English I can take care of that. I had myself a phone call yesterday with the Dioces of Breda and they will try to deliver me the documents on the assurance that has been requested for the art piece of the subject , the art piece is exposed today in a building belonging to the diocese Breda - Netherlands.

I would also like to put the attention on the fact that for the epoch 1930-1970 it was very rear to see a woman (mother of 6 children), manifesting her in the world of painters who was dominated at that time mainly by men. If you go and see statistically the "list of Belgian art painters" you come to 5% of woman as average. I think for that reason only it is worth taking the consideration of giving a woman of that time also the chance to be recognized as worth full painter. Indeed it is very probably that media and art critics and journalist at that epoch didn't give the necessary attention to make an in-depth study to put a mother of six children in the spotlight. But today we are in the year 2019 so I think a chance should be given to the subject to be worth been mentioned as a woman painter of almost one century ago. She has been explicitly invited in the year 1975 by the Belgian Intergovernmental Energy supplier INTERCOM in the theme of the "International Women's Year" as female painter to make an exposition in their premises. She received in 1975 in one week time the attention of 8 Belgian Newspapers who mention her art works and the quality of them. From this eight newspapers three belonged to the leading newspapers of that time "Nieuwsblad", "Het Volk" and the "Gazet Van Antwerpen".

For me it stays the full competence of Wikipedia administrators to decide on what belongs or does not in this online Encyclopedia, but I think everyone should get the opportunity of an equal chance on Wikipedia, thus also women from the early 20th century who didn't receive the necessary media attention in that epoch because of gender inequalities at that time. I wouldn't call this a memorial page, but a recognition of a woman painter of the 20th century. A milestone in women's emancipation recognized and stated in 1975 by several leading newspapers in Belgium.

Enio Barbaro (talk) 13:26, 1 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. You have it somewhat backwards in your defense of the painter. Women painters didn't get the attention they often deserved until relatively recently. However, if even with the renewed interest in women painters, this painter still hasn't received attention, then she isn't (yet) a notable painter. And yes, I'm a native Dutch speaker, so I can read and judge the articles. The last article you added is a local article about three paintings, one of which is by Swaan. She gets one line in it: "The third, painted by Coloma Leendertsz Swaan, is painted in the style of the Hague School and also shows a view of the harbour of Philippine". That the Hague School was active between 1860 and 1890, and this painting is from 1930 at the earliest, shows that Swaan was not really a modern, avant-garde painter who had any influence on other painters. Fram (talk) 13:55, 1 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. Does anyone object to hatting the above comments relating to the concerns of the article subject's grandson? I see no arguments that help the AFD.ThatMontrealIP (talk) 18:17, 1 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment'. He seems to be making a case for notability in quoting her inclusion in "leading" newspapers of "Nieuwsblad", "Het Volk" and the "Gazet Van Antwerpen". However, I have no knowledge if these are leading, or if this can be referenced/found. Britishfinance (talk) 12:25, 13 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

These newspapers are (or were) important enough, but they all had, apart from a general news section, a very localized part (i.e. the main part, which confers notability, was the same for all regions, but every small Flemish region got specialized news only for their villages, which doesn't confer notability). Fram (talk) 12:58, 13 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: To allow Enio Barbaro to substantiate their assertions that relevant sources exist; please provide links or scans (e.g. via Imgur).
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 16:16, 7 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Until other sources indicating notability are provided, I do not think this subject passes WP:GNG or WP:ARTIST. Skirts89 (talk) 17:29, 7 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. Dear adminsitrators , I received a personnel message from ThatMontrealIP "Please stop editing Coloma Swaan. You are her grandson as you admit, so you have a very strong WP:COI. I'm sure she was a nice lady, but you are not objective enough to be editing her page, per the above policy." I would like to further work and provide relevant sources (as requested by Sandstein on the 7th of February) to help Wikipedia on the article if I am allowed, but it is very confusing when one tells you to stop working on the article and another person requests more relevant sources. For so far I know most facts mentioned in the article by myself are backed up with evidence coming from external sources. I see currently a request in the article to add on two places a citation. I have objective evidence (coming from external sources) for both cases, so if you allow me I will link them to the article. --Enio Barbaro (talk) 12:51, 8 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. Sandstein's message was asking you to provide the sources right here on this page, where we are discussing whether your grandmother was notable enough. We would welcome that. My message was about not editing her actual Wikipedia page yourself, as you are not objective when it comes to your grandmother. Hope that helps to explain things.ThatMontrealIP (talk) 14:36, 8 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. As noted by RebeccaGreen, there's some cleanup that needs to happen with the sources. Facebook??? -- RoySmith (talk) 16:25, 23 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

PS, @PamD: please don't rename pages while an AfD is in progress. If nothing else, it breaks the automated scripts that most people use to close them, which makes extra manual work to clean up after the breakage. -- RoySmith (talk) 16:28, 23 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Elizabeth Akua Nyarko Petterson

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

With correctly-spelled name: (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Comment I've moved the article to the correct spelling of her name (Elizabeth Akua-Nyarko Patterson - hyphen between 2nd and 3rd components, and "Patterson" with an "a"): it seemed too bad to leave even though there's an ongoing AfD. PamD 13:39, 8 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Not notable. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 14:29, 31 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep (Author) She is very notable in my country looking at the kind of social works she has done. She is an activist for girl and the marginalised person. Jwale2 (talk) 15:03, 31 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Jwale2: Can you provide reliable sources that substantiate this claim? –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 16:19, 31 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@Roscelese sure why not, but I want to find out whether you have also looked at the sources I provided for her articleJwale2 (talk) 16:24, 31 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@Jwale2: yeah, I looked, is that all you are able to provide? –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 18:35, 31 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Ghana-related deletion discussions. Qualitist (talk) 15:50, 31 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Fails WP:BIO. Of the sources listed in the article, AmeyawDebrah.Com has significant coverage, but I wonder about it's reliability, it looks like a personal website. The second source triggered my antivirus, so I think not reliable. The last source is a link to Petterson's site, so primary source, not reliable. A WP:BASIC basic search turned up nothing, so I searched for Ghana newspapers. I tried Ghana times, IRIN News, a couple of others found here. Nothing from any of them. Aurornisxui (talk) 17:36, 31 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 05:35, 1 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 05:35, 1 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I think there is enough significant coverage in independent, reliable sources to meet WP:BASIC. I have found and added another source, a long article in The Weekend Finder. The CitiFM and EnewsGH articles also provide significant coverage, and as far as I can see, are independent and reliable. There is also shorter coverage from Ghana News Agency and the Herald Ghana. I agree that the AmeyawDebrah source is not reliable, and I don't think the CNBC Africa one is independent - it is sourced to Forbes, and the Forbes article does not have an author's name. I have also edited the article. If the article is kept, it should be moved to Elizabeth Akua-Nyarko Patterson, the correct spelling of her name - it currently has "Petterson", which would not help in finding sources. Some of the unreliable sources could probably be removed, but that is another job. RebeccaGreen (talk) 12:15, 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) 15:23, 7 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ad Orientem (talk) 01:57, 15 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Week Keep. It is borderline but there are sources (per RebeccaGreen above), and RS are thin on the ground in her part of the world (and even thinner for female-BLPs). CNBC/Fortune would not be covering her if she was a nobody. Britishfinance (talk) 11:07, 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 keep. (non-admin closure) Jovanmilic97 (talk) 15:22, 7 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Benjamin Powell

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

Article on an American academic that describes his publications. GNG fail. I could be wrong, but a search turned up very little on him. He is a director of an institute, and I'm aware that some academic chair positions equate to notability. On the other hand, the only claim to notability I can see here is that he has published articles, which is true of all academics. ThatMontrealIP (talk) 14:23, 31 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Economics-related deletion discussions. IntoThinAir (talk) 15:05, 31 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. IntoThinAir (talk) 15:05, 31 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. IntoThinAir (talk) 15:05, 31 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Easy pass of WP:PROF #1 and #7. Multiple interviews with media and conservative organizations, which is unusual for academics.[23][24][25][26][27] There are also multiple reviews (of varying quality) of his 2014 book [28][29][30][31] His work seems to be frequently cited by pro-sweatshop advocates (for example, [32][33][34][35][36]). b uidhe 22:18, 31 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I have found these three reviews of one of the subject's books, and his Google Scholar profile shows 1790 citations with an h-index of 21. I think that is enough for a pass of WP:PROF. As always, it's not the publishing of books and articles that makes an academic notable, but the reviews and citations by others that those publications attract. Phil Bridger (talk) 13:45, 1 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep – The fact that his organizations, the Independent Institute and Texas Tech, are highly regarded gives weight to his own notability. – S. Rich (talk) 20:26, 1 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I agree that this article should be kept, on the basis of Powell's individual notability, but that doesn't mean that anyone who works for the Independent Institute or Texas Tech is notable: see WP:NOTINHERITED. Phil Bridger (talk) 20:45, 1 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep A bit of digging reveals that he meets numerous criteria under WP:PROF, particularly #1 (publishing record and google scholar citation metrics, along with being known for his work on immigration and sweatshops), #6 (performed the role of director and other high ranking positions at academic journals and institutions), and #7—which I think makes the strongest case for him (has authored several books, regularly contributes to popular media outlets, and has a long list of appearances on conventional media)[37][38]. The wiki page can use some beefing-up (I've seen worst) but it should not be deleted.eljorgio 19:58, 4 February 2019 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Texas-related deletion discussions. ―Matthew J. Long -Talk-^☖ 21:25, 4 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. Sandstein 16:14, 7 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

John Demartini

AfDs for this article:

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

I'm unconvinced that much has changed since the previous AFD. I can find plenty of mentions of the guy in the press e.g. [39] [40] [41] but they all have the distinct air of promotional churnalism to them and are very thin on biographical details. This is probably the best source I can find but again it reads like a press release e.g. including the ridiculous claim that he's read 30,000 books (10 a week for his entire life). The claims made in those sources that he is a renowned expert do not appear to be verifiable from reputable sources. SmartSE (talk) 13:50, 31 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Looks to be an obvious Delete, article is overly promotional and lacks reliable sourcing of any kind, everything said in the '07 AfD is just as true today. SWL36 (talk) 17:08, 31 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 05:24, 1 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 09:18, 1 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 09:19, 1 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

delete. page contains a lot of claims - like being interviewed in a couple of FRINGy, really minor indie documentaries - but no solid sources. Still, to be fair, I ran a Proquest news archive search on him, what came up were press releases: "Focus on what's most meaningful: Human behaviourist |Dr John Demartini offers advice on finding the perfect job," and listings : "Dr. John Demartini to speak at financial seminar". Not profiles or book reviews.E.M.Gregory (talk) 23:17, 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. Ad Orientem (talk) 00:57, 15 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Central Boiler

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

WP:MILL Just another business, doing their thing, getting a small write up in the trade magazines. But are they encyclopedically relevant? Andy Dingley (talk) 13:16, 31 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Minnesota-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 04:22, 1 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 04:22, 1 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 09:21, 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) 16:09, 7 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: does not meet WP:NCORP. Sourcing offered above is in passing and / ot WP:SPIP, insufficient for establishing notability. K.e.coffman (talk) 19:22, 9 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Per norm. Britishfinance (talk) 23:37, 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 merge to Buckethead. (non-admin closure) Jovanmilic97 (talk) 15:21, 7 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Thanatopsis (band)

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

Fails WP:NBAND. --wooden superman 12:42, 31 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 04:44, 1 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to Buckethead. The band has one obviously notable member, so a merge there makes sense. --Michig (talk) 06:49, 1 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 09:21, 1 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to Buckethead - I agree with the above vote. Fans in the know will tell you that Buckethead is prone to lots and lots of side projects, which might get a little bit of press because he is in them. But this particular project did not get enough notice to justify its own article, so it can be introduced briefly in Buckethead's article. ---DOOMSDAYER520 (Talk|Contribs) 14:50, 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. RL0919 (talk) 16:09, 7 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Clash of Streamers

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

Fails WP:GNG. The subject in question was not extensively covered by reliable sources AdrianGamer (talk) 12:30, 31 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete No WP:SIGCOV in reliable, independent, sources found in my WP:BEFORE. FOARP (talk) 16:15, 31 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Video games-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 03:52, 1 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - failure of the WP:GNG. I couldn’t find a single reliable source (beware false positives with a name consisting entirely of generic buzzwords.) Sergecross73 msg me 03:58, 1 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, does not meet WP:GNG, sources unavailable, may be a case of WP:TOOSOON. Coolabahapple (talk) 09:57, 1 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Fails WP:N. Anarchyte (talk | work) 05:45, 1 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Videogameplayer99 (talk) 23:23, 1 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Article is a stub lacking sources.TH1980 (talk) 02:53, 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) 02:45, 22 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Press Club Vode

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

I think this fails WP:GNG. A yearly show presented from 1921 to 1927 by students of a Californian university that seems to have had one mention in the LA Times in 1926 (which is behind a paywall). Britishfinance (talk) 12:24, 31 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 03:46, 1 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Theatre-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 03:46, 1 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. I have as yet no opinion on whether this should be kept or deleted, but hope that it will be judged in the same way as an article about an equivalent group that has been active from 2013 to 2019. Phil Bridger (talk) 20:49, 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) 16:09, 7 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, wumbolo ^^^ 20:17, 14 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. I am confused why anyone would consider a small club, which had a single annual event, at what was then a small college, to be notable. Bearian (talk) 18:41, 21 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. Sandstein 16:13, 7 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Cristina Schultz

AfDs for this article:

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

No lasting notability. Just an old tax evasion case, and some gossip about escorting. Fails WP:ANYBIO. — JFG ^talk 12:23, 31 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I'm not seeing the high quality sources and balanced coverage required for WP:BLP. b uidhe 23:23, 31 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 03:19, 1 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 03:19, 1 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete This is a one-event incident that would have remained unknown except for the sexcitement. There never was any ongoing notability, just gossip. Johnuniq (talk) 06:07, 1 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Health and fitness-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 09:27, 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. Ad Orientem (talk) 00:56, 15 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Best People

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

After doing WP:BEFORE as required, it would appear to me that this purported "encyclopedia" and its publisher is one of websites that will find that you are descended from a European noble family and offer you a pedigree chart, a certificate of authenticity and an entry in a book about (in my case the O'Shirt clan) your ancestry. For a fee, of course. Pete AU aka Shirt58 (talk) 11:15, 31 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 03:12, 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) 16:10, 7 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Delete. This is a commercial operation and possible hoax/financial scam. I can find no reference to a UN involvement with a "Best People" publication. Britishfinance (talk) 23:42, 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 defaulting to keep and w/o prejudice to a future nomination. Ad Orientem (talk) 00:55, 15 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Melbourne Wireless

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

Sources are either semi-promotional, primary or irrelevant. All GBooks and news hits are passing mentions or listings, certainly nothing that passes WP:ORGCRIT. Not notable. (Sorry for borked nom). Triptothecottage (talk)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. Sheldybett (talk) 10:42, 24 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. Sheldybett (talk) 10:42, 24 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. Bakazaka (talk) 21:33, 24 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Jovanmilic97 (talk) 11:11, 31 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, RL0919 (talk) 16:10, 7 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Keep. I have just noticed this AfD. The nom did not sign the nomination. The article has been on Wikipedia for 15 years. The nomination was 2 weeks ago. Nobody has commented in that time. Clearly it is an article that does not attract attention. The references are not strong, but it looks as if some are independent. I am inclined to think that it might contain useful reliable information for somebody, so a weak keep. --Bduke (talk) 10:32, 11 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. @Bduke: Sorry about missing the signature. Twinkle was playing up that day and I'm not in the habit of doing AfD noms manually. (Does the signature affect the listing in some way? I checked it was on the log so thought everything was OK). As to the references, 1 is the only substantial one and is written by a member of the group, so hardly independent; 2 is a passing mention only; 3 and 4 are primary sources, submissions to a parliamentary committee by the group; 5 is a listing on the group's website; 6 is a forum thread; and 7 is another listing. The only other sources I could find were Why I founded Melbourne Wireless (obviously promotional), a passing mention in this blog post (which has actually appeared since my original nom) and a few other random bits and pieces. Triptothecottage (talk) 22:22, 11 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. No, the absence of a signature is not important. I just came across an AfD with no information on the proposer and no comments in two weeks. I wanted to draw some attention to it. I agree the sources are weak. I live in Melbourne but had never heard of this organisation, but it now seems it has had some impact here. I hope others will comment. There are worse articles still here. --Bduke (talk) 23:59, 11 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Sandstein 16:13, 7 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Lunden De'Leon

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

Nothing to indicate that WP:NACTOR or WP:BIO are met. SmartSE (talk) 10:49, 31 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 03:02, 1 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 03:02, 1 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 03:02, 1 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. No evidence of notability is provided. I haven't been able to find much; this^[1] does not read like an impartial account. Maproom (talk) 08:29, 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. Sandstein 16:13, 7 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Waseem Aftab (politician)

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

Subject does not appear to meet relevant notability guidelines WP:POLITICIAN (not an elected member of parliament) and lacks non-trivial coverage from independent reliable sources. Steps were taken to locate sources WP:BEFORE this nomination, but were not successful. Saqib (talk) 10:15, 31 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 02:58, 1 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 02:58, 1 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete no notability per WP:GNG. samee converse 07:35, 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. Numerically, this is pretty close, but I find the arguments for delete stronger and far more convincing. Many of the proponents for keeping this point to other stuff, which is not a strong position, especially when I'm not confident some of that other stuff would survive a rigorous AfD themselves. I'm somewhat amenable to the OSE argument when used as an argument that this page could be improved or revamped in the style of another, but it's a weak argument without evidence it can be done. In contrast, the chief arguments for deletion point to the guideline for stand-alone lists, in particular the appropriate topics and inclusion criteria sections; that's a stronger stance and appears applicable to the page in question.

Editor's note: As I was considering closing this and drafting the above statement, three more !votes came in. It doesn't change my opinion of the consensus, but I did consider note closing and relisting it as an active discussion. However, this has been open for three weeks now, and I suspect the main reason more participants are coming is because this is the last AfD from the day (which is how I found it); that's supported by the fact that it has been relisted twice, once with no additional input, so I feel I am not shutting off an ongoing, productive conversation by closing this. ~ Amory (u • t • c) 11:26, 22 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

List of Greek versions of names

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

This is a lexicon, a type of dictionary, and Wikipedia is not a dictionary. Pontificalibus 09:30, 31 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep (Article author) I can't see why an article: "List of names of European cities in different languages" can exist and not this one. Plus, most of them are old disused terns and have encylopedic value. This article tries to help users reading old Greek encyclopedias to understand about who are talking about. Like a list of terms or symbols.(TakisA1 (talk) 11:12, 31 January 2019 (UTC))[reply]
Delete Duplicated by Google Translate and for the most part, every side link to el.wiki. Nate • (chatter) 16:45, 31 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, probably. I note that there is a List of Latinised names, and on its Talk page is the comment "some of the names included in this article are actually hellenised rather than latinised". One of the names identified as hellenised was coined in the Early Middle Ages (Maimonides), some are described as "Coined by Anglo-Norman scribes", some in the Renaissance (eg Gersonides). So there is room for expansion of the current list to include last names; female names (all the names in the current list are male); names which were hellenized at different periods (including possibly names like Xerxes which were hellenized (or written in Greek form) by Herodotus), etc. — Preceding unsigned comment added by RebeccaGreen (talk • contribs) 17:09 31 January 2019 (UTC)

Comment. The Latinised list is a red herring. That list contains mostly names of famous individuals that are commonly used in the English language (other than the Coined by Anglo-Norman scribes#Surnames subsection, which needs to be cut down drastically). The Greek list just gives translations of generic common names, and is haphazard, to say the least. Clarityfiend (talk) 05:46, 4 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Language-related deletion discussions. Bakazaka (talk) 23:14, 31 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. Bakazaka (talk) 23:14, 31 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. No significant notability and WP:NOTDICT. Ajf773 (talk) 07:47, 1 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
- What is "significant notability"? postdlf (talk) 03:30, 2 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  - Insignificantly notable: Charles Alexander (cricketer, born 1839). Clarityfiend (talk) 10:57, 3 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Δελετε per ~~NOTDICT~~ WP:LISTGLOSSARY: "Glossaries – alphabetical, topical lists of terms, rather than of notable entities – are encyclopedic when the entries they provide are primarily informative explorations of the listed terminology, pertaining to a notable topic that already has its own main article on Wikipedia." Also, even a partially complete list of common given names (or uncommon - Ormond?) would be very long. (And the list is 100% male names.) Clarityfiend (talk) 10:54, 3 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Fails WP:SALAT: "Lists that are too general or too broad in scope have little value". Even a partially complete list of common given names (or uncommon - Ormond?) would be very long. (And the list is 100% male names.) Clarityfiend (talk) 19:17, 14 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep ish. I agree with what RebeccaGreen has said. As for the widely cited WP:NOTDICT, the only aspect of it that I see relevant here is WP:WORDISSUBJECT. And no, this list isn't duplicated by what you can expect google translate or the interwiki links to do; but maybe the article needs a clarification of its scope, to avoid similar misunderstandings? – Uanfala (talk) 15:07, 3 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Point taken. ~~I have replaced NOTDICT with LISTGLOSSARY as my rationale.~~ Clarityfiend (talk) 23:49, 7 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

KeepThis is more than a list, there is a third column.--Epiphyllumlover (talk) 05:50, 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) 15:21, 7 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, wumbolo ^^^ 20:14, 14 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Per User:Clarityfiend, Wikipedia:SALAT, as well as an apparent bias. Why do we keep arguing keep because other stuff exists when this is continually argued as not being a good argument at AFD? I see three references for four names out of 117. It really doesn't matter how much we like it right? WOW! More than a list because it has a third column? The lead in the article states "In order for a Greek name to appear in this list it must be used by at least 3 printed books." so if this is not just original research or synthesis where are the sources?. If the "Hellenisation of names" was important should they not be listed in the appropriate articles (ex. Edward under Variant forms, etymology, or something? Otr500 (talk) 16:12, 15 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Author Comment: I have added more collumns and I will try to source every name. You can check a name by simply googling in and going to 'books'. Also with the same logic these should also be deleted: [42] (TakisA1 (talk) 18:21, 16 February 2019 (UTC))[reply]

@User talk:TakisA1 I am open to seeing if an article is salvageable. --"But" FYI-- Wikipedia is not a reliable source so you need to use independent sources or ones that are reliable from those pages. Otr500 (talk) 01:59, 17 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:SALAT. Subject is far too general for a Wikipedia list. -Ad Orientem (talk) 02:49, 22 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete It's an indiscriminate collection of information that says nothing why the list is of encyclopedic importance. Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 10:15, 22 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Not useful; can't even link the items in the table to other WP articles (a measure of a still-useful list). Just a dictionary. Can't see why a reader would come to WP for this? Britishfinance (talk) 10:37, 22 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Linguistic history of this language, including names, is inherently notable. These names have articles, wikilink the list, add categories. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 11:17, 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 delete. Sandstein 16:12, 7 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Arthur L. Aidala

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

This is an unreferenced BLP of a lawyer. There are some inline links but none of these are any help in establishing notability, as they're either dead, not independent or links to the homepages of organisations he's associated with. Searches aren't finding any in-depth, independent coverage of him which we need for a BLP. Neiltonks (talk) 09:27, 31 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Bakazaka (talk) 23:15, 31 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. Bakazaka (talk) 23:15, 31 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Law-related deletion discussions. Bakazaka (talk) 23:15, 31 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. Bakazaka (talk) 23:15, 31 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Attorneys aren't noteworthy just because they handle some noteworthy cases. Attorney succeeding with a novel defense is "attorney doing job" which isn't noteworthy. Absense of NPOV reliable secondary sources is big indication here. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mcfnord (talk • contribs) 00:46, 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. Sandstein 16:12, 7 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The Atomic Space Bug

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

Non-notable film. Fails WP:NF. SL93 (talk) 09:11, 31 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. SL93 (talk) 09:12, 31 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 09:30, 1 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I am failing to find the slightest shred of notability, impact, or attention for this. --Calton | Talk 05:10, 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. Sandstein 16:12, 7 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The Killbillies

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

No significant coverage per WP:NF. SL93 (talk) 09:09, 31 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Agree. Could only find 1 newspaper reference (via ProQuest: 'Embracing the horror',Syvret, Paul. The Courier - Mail; Brisbane, Qld. [Brisbane, Qld]06 Nov 2008: 39.) and it was not substantial. Cabrils (talk) 21:16, 1 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. SL93 (talk) 09:09, 31 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 09:30, 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. Ad Orientem (talk) 00:42, 15 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Air Trust

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

Delete. Non-operational airline with no aircraft. Not significant with virtually no independent coverage. Arun Kumar SINGH (Talk) 07:42, 31 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Aviation-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 08:27, 31 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Kazakhstan-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 08:27, 31 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 09:30, 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) 16:11, 7 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Airline only seems to operate two aircraft, and searching for them on Google returned only 3 mentions. Overall, they do not seem to meet WP:GNG. Jebcubed (talk) 22:01, 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 no consensus. Sandstein 16:12, 7 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Yehoshua Sofer

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

Non-notable subject PepperBeast (talk) 01:36, 17 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Martial arts-related deletion discussions. Bakazaka (talk) 04:15, 17 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Israel-related deletion discussions. Bakazaka (talk) 04:15, 17 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Maybe in the future notability might turn up but it’s not there. Trillfendi (talk) 05:55, 17 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 18:15, 17 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Upon Googling his name, there are articles written solely about him in ~~Slate~~ Tablet Magazine and the Times of Israel. He is also mentioned in two books. While the current sources on this article are pretty awful, I think he meets GNG, and this article could be fine with some cleanup. Gilded Snail (talk) 21:09, 17 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Tablet magazine gives him a passing mention, not significant coverage.Sandals1 (talk) 12:21, 27 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The Tablet (magazine) material on him , within a longform article, is certainly WP:SIGCOV.E.M.Gregory (talk) 18:54, 27 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. The man appears to be notable. Passes WP:GNG Mgbo120 (talk) 20:45, 18 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 00:14, 24 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Lacks significant converage in third-party sources, and the one great source (The Times of Israel) heavily references his Wikipedia page.--Esprit15d • talk • contribs 23:40, 25 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

In the interest of accuracy, The Times of Israel article is quite long, and mostly about Sofer's creation of a new form of martial arts with grand, unsupported claims to have been secretly passed down father-to-son form the days of King David. But, here's the thing, it had a real following when that article was published. The Wikipedia material is cited as support for the author's pointing out that over the course of Sofer's life, the way he describes his childhood has changed dramatically as he has constructed and reconstructed his identity. In short, he is a fabulist. But he is a fabulist with INDEPTH press coverage.E.M.Gregory (talk) 21:12, 31 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

delete It looks like he created his own martial art and claimed to be a grandmaster, which is not an indication of martial arts notability--or at least there seems to be no evidence to dispute my assessment. Claims of being a descendent of warriors from thousands of years ago reminds me of many of the dubious martial arts claims I've seen from "ancient" Asian arts. His hip-hop career doesn't show notability. Coverage is just passing mentions except for the two local articles, both of which were published under editor-in-chief David Horovitz (making me question their independence from each other). Even if independent, I don't think two local articles shows the GNG is met.Sandals1 (talk) 14:46, 26 January 2019 (UTC) Looks like a duck to me[reply]

I'm unclear as to why the Times of Israel is considered 'local', or why having the same editor-in-chief for two articles with different reporters/authors would make the articles non-independent. (I was under the assumption that editors in chief were not the creators of the content, but I might be missing something?) Gilded Snail (talk) 23:41, 26 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Local because both papers are based in Jerusalem as is Sofer. Editors in chief carry power about what's published and I thought it an odd coincidence, but it could be just that. Claims of ancient ancestors with extraordinary powers always make me suspicious.Sandals1 (talk) 00:21, 27 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Oh yeah no, that's reasonable. To be clear, I think he's a total con-man and is generally not-legit, but I do think that he's a GNG-passing con-man.Gilded Snail (talk) 03:02, 27 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep WP:HEY I added sourced material about his first career, as rap singer who was an Israeli music sensation in the early 90s. Note that is is an old article and that has ~~a lot~~ several of incoming links, usually an indicaiton of notability.E.M.Gregory (talk) 13:35, 27 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment What do you mean by "a lot of incoming links"? I found about six links from other Wikipedia articles, including one generic "see also" and one from an article about another rapper of doubtful notability. PepperBeast (talk) 20:05, 27 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

rephrased to "several links" Frankly, I was surprised to see any on a guy who is so, er... unusual. But our gauge is not eccentricity, it is reliable sourcing. And WP:SIGCOV exists.E.M.Gregory (talk) 20:57, 27 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Haaretz in 2012 says he was a big influence on the Israeli hip hop scene.[43] - so that would satisfy NARTIST. My BEFORE in Hebrew leads me to think he has SIGCOV for GNG.Icewhiz (talk) 18:40, 28 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sheldybett (talk) 06:34, 31 January 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. Sandstein 16:11, 7 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Vision International School

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

Lacks coverage in independent, reliable sources. Cordless Larry (talk) 05:05, 24 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. Dan arndt (talk) 07:44, 24 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sri Lanka-related deletion discussions. Dan arndt (talk) 07:44, 24 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Fails WP:NSCHOOL - lacks any independent secondary sources. Dan arndt (talk) 08:47, 30 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, RL0919 (talk) 05:38, 31 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete WP:GNG and WP:NSCHOOL failure is clear here. Also reads very promotional in nature. I am not able to find a single WP:SIGCOV reference about the school in my searches and since nothing is sourced in the article, it as whole also fails WP:V because nothing can be verified. Jovanmilic97 (talk) 10:44, 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. Sandstein 16:11, 7 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

StartEngine

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

trivial investment company; no evidence of notability under NCORP DGG ( talk ) 05:15, 24 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Bakazaka (talk) 07:47, 24 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Finance-related deletion discussions. Bakazaka (talk) 07:47, 24 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. Bakazaka (talk) 07:47, 24 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. Bakazaka (talk) 07:47, 24 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, RL0919 (talk) 05:37, 31 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Doesn't meet WP:CORPDEPTH. The company's main claim to notability is its relationship with Gab, as reported by the Southern Poverty Law Center (here) and The Daily Dot (here). However, the coverage doesn't describe StartEngine beyond being a venue for Gab's crowdfunding, and it's not significant enough to count toward WP:CORPDEPTH. (The information is also missing from the article.) — Newslinger talk 10:25, 31 January 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. Article was virtually identical to the previously deleted version under a different title. WP:G4'd, salted, user warned not to recreate it. -- RoySmith (talk) 16:39, 31 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Conspiracy Series (Special Edition)

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

Fails WP:NWEB and undersourced in tone which probably will fail the WP:GNG. Sheldybett (talk) 05:28, 31 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Pinging @RoySmith: is this substantially similar enough to the article previously deleted and salted via Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Conspiracy Series by Shane Dawson to warrant G4 speedy deletion? Bakazaka (talk) 05:49, 31 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Nope, only the article with the same name only apply. This excludes soft delete, substantially different namespace and you would be ineligible to tag for G4. Sheldybett (talk) 06:28, 31 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Sheldybett, please review the first sentence of WP:G4, specifically the "having any title" part. Bakazaka (talk) 06:33, 31 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 06:32, 31 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 06:32, 31 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Which means that applies to sufficiently identical copies, having any title, of a page deleted via its most recent deletion discussion.[2] It excludes pages that are not substantially identical to the deleted version, pages to which the reason for the deletion no longer applies, and content that has been moved to user space or converted to a draft for explicit improvement (but not simply to circumvent Wikipedia's deletion policy). So this will unlikely will apply to G4. Sheldybett (talk) 06:38, 31 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your input, but I'll leave that judgment call to someone who can compare this page to the deleted page from the deletion discussion that closed four days ago. Bakazaka (talk) 06:55, 31 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Bakazaka In my opinion, G4 exists exactly because of cases like this. User:Coasterdude1 created this three times: United Shane Dawson Conspiracy Series, Conspiracy Series by Shane Dawson and this despite getting deleted once by A7, and once by AfD which also salted the title, so the user created this title (Special Edition part does not even exist) to circumvent the salting. He was also warned on his talk page not only for this but for disruptive editing on FBI (TV series). G4 delete this and BLOCK the user creator. He is obviously here to just spam with article about a not yet notable show and is possibly paid for that. Jovanmilic97 (talk) 11:03, 31 January 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. Ad Orientem (talk) 02:00, 15 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Vadim Dale

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

Article fails WP:BIO without substantial coverage in multiple independent sources. TM 03:44, 31 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. I think there's enough appropriate sources to justify an entry (on just a very quick search on ProQuest I found over 100 entries but haven't checked how substantial they are-- it does look like a lot are simply TV guides referring to 'Outback Jack'), but it certainly reads like a personal promotional page at the moment. Assuming the page survives this challenge, if/when I have time I will try to cut it back to an appropriate entry. Cabrils (talk) 00:23, 2 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Bakazaka (talk) 05:52, 31 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. Bakazaka (talk) 05:52, 31 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. Bakazaka (talk) 05:52, 31 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Kentucky-related deletion discussions. Bakazaka (talk) 05:52, 31 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Jovanmilic97 (talk) 10:41, 7 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Not a well written article in my view, but a search throws up a lot of independent RS on this subject. Most are tier 2 or tier 3, but the volume is significant. It would lead me to expect that a casual reader would expect to find a WP article on this subject. Britishfinance (talk) 11:13, 14 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Speedy deleted per G7 by Athaenara (non-admin closure) Breawycker (talk to me!) 20:08, 1 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Usnavi (given name)

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

It seems that this is a name specific to the musical. "Usnavi" already redirects to In the Heights. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 03:33, 31 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy redirect/delete Name is not obviously notable on its own. Reywas92^Talk 05:14, 31 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete As per :Reywas92, the article has no claim of singifance at all. Sheldybett (talk) 06:31, 31 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Spain-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 08:28, 31 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete/redirect I really only wrote this specifically because the name "Usnavi" is indeed a given Hispanic name. It gives nothing, considering it is only known in the musical In the Heights.

Lafayette Baguette ^talk 22:27, 31 January 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. Sandstein 10:25, 7 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Kathleen H. Hughes

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

A non-notable subject that fails WP:BASIC. Source searches are providing no significant coverage in independent reliable sources, and virtually no coverage in said sources at all. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 21:18, 23 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

KEEP There's a move afoot to delete many of the lesser Latter-day Saint leadership, which doesn't bother me too much, but it would be a mistake to delete Hughes. Prior to her work for the Church, she was a significant leader in education. Perhaps that section of the article needs to be built up more, but it's not a matter of insufficient resources being available. Thmazing (talk) 05:59, 24 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Can you provide just two independent, reliable sources that provide significant coverage about the subject? This is what's needed to qualify notability. Said necessary sources do not appear to exist. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 14:44, 24 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 21:18, 23 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Utah-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 21:18, 23 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 21:18, 23 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 08:40, 24 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment This article should not be deleted. If we can not find enough sources to justify a stand alone article we should merge it with the article on her husband.John Pack Lambert (talk) 16:01, 26 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. The subject fails WP:GNG, there is no evidence the subject is noteworthy or of public interest and no sources to illustrate why she should be in an encyclopaedia. If there is a list of counselors in the Relief Society General Presidency of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints then her name should be recorded on it, but she shouldn't have a Wikipedia page to herself. Pupsbunch (talk) 21:06, 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) 03:20, 31 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Not an inherently notable position, lack of substantive independent sources. Reywas92^Talk 05:17, 31 January 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. Sandstein 09:56, 7 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Peter F. Meurs

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

Non-notable subject, whereby the article qualifies for deletion per WP:BLP1E, the subject being notable only for one event. The only significant coverage about the subject is concerning his leaving a position of employment (e.g. article). Other coverage is limited to fleeting passing mentions, name checks and quotations, none of which confer notability. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 03:03, 31 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 03:05, 31 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 03:05, 31 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 03:05, 31 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete the subject is not notable.Lebsci (talk) 04:20, 31 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails GNG. Being appointed to a "high" level position in a religion does not confer notability. Valeince (talk) 20:17, 31 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Unsure The article currently is poorly sourced and a ProQuest search reveals several reliable, substantial newspaper articles, so on that basis I think there are sufficient reliable sources to justify an entry. However, it does seem that notability is limited to the subject previously being a spokesman for a mining company and presently being a spokesman for the Mormon Church, and that may fail WP:BLP1E. The entry does presently feel promotional.Cabrils (talk) 21:33, 1 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep To start with Meurs is not a "spokesman" for The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, he is a leader of the Church. The multiple indepdent articles covering his leaving his previous employer show he was a significant figure there.John Pack Lambert (talk) 23:38, 1 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete There isn't enough sustained coverage from secondary sources to establish notability. Best, GPL93 (talk) 22:37, 4 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. Sandstein 09:54, 7 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Rex Kudo

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

Non-notable music producer. Google search finds that he exists, and is publicized on social media, and finds this article. Google search does not find any independent coverage. The only reference in this article makes a passing mention of the subject. Notability is not inherited from working with anyone who has an article. Robert McClenon (talk) 02:18, 31 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Bakazaka (talk) 05:55, 31 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. Bakazaka (talk) 05:55, 31 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete a non-notable music businessman.John Pack Lambert (talk) 05:16, 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. Sandstein 09:51, 7 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Matthew Zeller

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

Fails WP:NPOL nor is he notable as a military member. ...William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 15:38, 23 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. ...William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 15:40, 23 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. ...William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 15:40, 23 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Virginia-related deletion discussions. ...William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 15:40, 23 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - fails WP:NPOL per nom. Skirts89 (talk) 15:55, 23 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Non-winning candidates for political office do not get Wikipedia articles just for being candidates, but there's no strong evidence here that he could be considered to have preexisting notability for other reasons independent of the candidacy — the sources which exist outside of the campaign context are all either video clips of him speaking about something other than himself, or glancing namechecks of his existence in articles about other people. Bearcat (talk) 00:42, 24 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Let's set aside the losing candidacy and look at the career. He founded and is CEO of No One Left Behind. His book got a very positive review in Foreign Policy.(now added to page) He got WP:SIGCOV a decade ago for helping the translator he worked with in Afghanistan get a visa to come to America: featured profiles on CNN and in People Magazine. He continues to be interviewed and to have speaking gigs related to No One Left Behind, but the SIGCOV peaked long enough ago that it requires the use of new archive searches. (I added some to page.) Bio details can be expanded from the election coverage, which is reliable even though it does not contribute to notability.E.M.Gregory (talk) 01:29, 24 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

WP:HEY, I sourced it.E.M.Gregory (talk) 10:59, 24 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete unelected candidate for public office. His other actions do not rise to the level of notability.John Pack Lambert (talk) 18:41, 27 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Your opinion of his achievements aside, the fact is that there has been WP:SIGCOV of those achievements.E.M.Gregory (talk) 23:39, 28 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Revisting because, well, when I am in a minority at AfD I like to step back and double check my opinion. So I went to the page asking myself, does this really pass the bar at WP:SIGCOV. I clicked the first link, a bare URL linking to an essay in the Wall Street Journal that I had not read before opining (I did clean up and source other parts of the page.) But the first link is a deeply moving 2015 essay about Zeller by William McGurn. Paywalled, unfortunately. But I am confident in my opinion that this subject passes WP:SIGCOV.E.M.Gregory (talk) 20:32, 29 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Closing this as delete would be defensible at this point, but I'd like to give people another week to evaluate the improvements made to the article during the AfD.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, -- RoySmith (talk) 01:50, 31 January 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. Sandstein 09:50, 7 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Bonnie D. Parkin

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

A non-notable subject that does not meet WP:BASIC. Coverage in independent, reliable sources is limited to quotations and name checks; WP:BEFORE searches have provided no significant coverage at all. Furthermore, the article is entirely dependent upon primary sources, which do not establish notability. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 21:22, 23 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 21:22, 23 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Utah-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 21:22, 23 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 21:22, 23 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 08:40, 24 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. The subject fails WP:GNG, there is no evidence the subject is noteworthy or of public interest and no sources to illustrate why she should be in an encyclopaedia. If there is a list of general presidents of the Relief Society of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints then her name should be recorded on it, but she shouldn't have a Wikipedia page to herself. Pupsbunch (talk) 21:04, 29 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, -- RoySmith (talk) 01:48, 31 January 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. Sandstein 09:50, 7 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Greenwald Rabbinical family

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

No claim to any notability and no evidence of any notability. The single source is a self made family tree with the same reliability as a blog. Fails WP:GNG Velella ^{Velella Talk} 21:47, 23 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep or Move to Category:Greenwald Rabbinical family or Category:Greenwald Rabbis. --תנא קמא (talk) 22:01, 23 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
delete Wikipedia is not a genealogical project. Notability difficult to verify. Staszek Lem (talk) 22:16, 23 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. Icewhiz (talk) 03:39, 24 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Judaism-related deletion discussions. Icewhiz (talk) 03:39, 24 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Hungary-related deletion discussions. Icewhiz (talk) 03:40, 24 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. Icewhiz (talk) 03:40, 24 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - possibly quite notable, though I would like to see sources discussing them as a set (many of the individuals, also those redlinked, are clearly notable and have entries in other wikis). At the very least, some of the content should be merged to Greenwald (currently missing some of our own blue links, and a comment there on the rabbai line is due - to help our poor readers when they see a rebe Greenwald (which may refer to quite a few different rebes)).Icewhiz (talk) 03:58, 24 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with Icewhiz in the following sense that although the family tree is itself not notable, and is already partly present in Moshe Greenwald, those names that have an article should be merged into Greenwald. Debresser (talk) 12:27, 24 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, -- RoySmith (talk) 01:46, 31 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Sources do not establish notability of the family as a whole. Useful content besides the family tree itself can be merged. Reywas92^Talk 05:22, 31 January 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. Sandstein 09:45, 7 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Joy F. Evans

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

A non-notable subject that fails WP:BASIC. Source searches are providing absolutely no significant coverage in independent reliable sources, and hardly any coverage at all. The article is entirely reliant upon primary sources, which do not establish notability. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 22:26, 23 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 22:27, 23 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Utah-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 22:27, 23 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 22:27, 23 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 08:39, 24 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

This article should not be deleted. At a minimum it should be merged with the article on her husband.John Pack Lambert (talk) 15:47, 26 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. The subject fails WP:GNG, there is no evidence she is noteworthy or of public interest and the three sources cited - of her her website obituary and church newsletters - do not support he notion she warrants inclusion in an encyclopedia Pupsbunch (talk) 20:59, 29 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, -- RoySmith (talk) 01:42, 31 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Not an inherently notable position, lack of substantive independent sources. Reywas92^Talk 05:18, 31 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. No significant coverage independent of the religious organizations in which she served. Appropriately sourced content from this article (or anywhere else) having bearing on her husband's biography can be included in his article, but a merge would be inappropriate. As a side note, her husband's article has been tagged as potentially failing WP:BIO, so this may soon be moot. Lagrange 613 10:38, 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. czar 03:07, 7 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Oxford University Darts Club

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

Inconsequential university club. I cannot find any in-depth coverage. Not even meriting a passing mention at University of Oxford #Clubs and societies. The club website link goes to the 'Oxford University Dancesport Club' page! Fails WP:ORG. Delete. Just Chilling (talk) 01:24, 31 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. Sheldybett (talk) 01:53, 31 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. Sheldybett (talk) 01:53, 31 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. Sheldybett (talk) 01:53, 31 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

When I click it, the club website link http://oudcdarts.weebly.com/ goes to a page that starts "Welcome to the OUDC website, home of the Oxford Uni darts league and cuppers." That's the link in the infobox and the external links section. What link are you clicking, Just Chilling? --Qwfp (talk) 20:38, 31 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, so it does! But if you click Reference 1 it goes to the dance club site! Just Chilling (talk) 20:59, 31 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Lots of students play darts. The only vaguely notable aspect is the "varsity match" aspect but I've been unable to find anything significant. Nigej (talk) 18:58, 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 speedy Delete G5/g11 (non-admin closure) Praxidicae (talk) 20:58, 3 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Fatemeh TaghiNejad

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

No indication of notability per WP:GNG or WP:NACTOR. ... discospinster _talk 01:24, 31 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Sheldybett (talk) 01:51, 31 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Sheldybett (talk) 01:51, 31 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Sheldybett (talk) 01:51, 31 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Iran-related deletion discussions. Sheldybett (talk) 01:51, 31 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Non-notable in Persian or English.فرهنگ2016 (talk) 05:30, 31 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment By searching google news, i found blank page (0 sources) [44] for which she fails WP:GNG. By seeing her career, found 0 roles/appearances i.e, fails WP:NACTOR. It would be deleted under A7 category, but for now lets wait for the decision. 77.243.187.60 (talk) 14:24, 31 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Fraud in the debate

IPs should not participate (Bypassing the law Wikipedia) Y Hotan1990 (talk) 05:56, 1 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

anybody can participate in afds, indeed, there are a number of experienced editors who go by their ip address whose input to afds and elsewhere are especially welcome. Coolabahapple (talk) 08:06, 1 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment, have just reinstated the afd notice at the top of the article, it was removed by the article creator, the above editor (Hotan1990). Coolabahapple (talk) 08:02, 1 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. There also seems to be some socking going on to enhance this individual's film credits by adding unsourced information to related film articles. Lugnuts ^{Fire Walk with Me} 19:52, 1 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Non-notable. --SalmanZ (talk) 02:06, 2 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete does not meet notabilty guidelines. IPs are people too, and can participate in any discussion they wish to. I still think we should require all editing to be done while signed in, but my views have not yet been adopted.John Pack Lambert (talk) 05:05, 2 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete per G5 of a globally locked sock (Zahra_1369) and salt for good measure. Praxidicae (talk) 17:48, 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 no consensus. If the nominator is not satisfied with the posted sources, feel free to renominate again after few weeks or months. (non-admin closure) Jovanmilic97 (talk) 10:41, 7 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Rosco McGlashan

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

While the article has some sources, it appears to lack any notable coverage, with any notable coverage being primarily focused on the car instead of the individual in question.

As such, I am hoping to receive outside input on the notability of this article, and also air the possibility of rather than an outright delete the relevant content is transferred to an article about the various "Aussie Invader's" NoCOBOL (talk) 14:48, 16 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment This is a WP:COATRACK article, about the Aussie Invader vehicles and their land speed reccord attempts. Some content has been pasted from this non-free source, which needs clearing out or rewriting. I would need more time to assess whether either subject actually meets our notability requirements. Nick Moyes (talk)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 17:49, 16 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 17:49, 16 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, clpo13_(talk) 20:39, 23 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, KCVelaga (talk) 00:37, 31 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep in some form: There's enough sigcov for an article (eg: [45][46][47][48]). If you are stuck with one article, then one way or another you'll end up with something that may look a little coatrack. His notability is in leading the building and racing of vehicles, and stories about the vehicles focus on him in that role. Consider a counterfactual: What if his vehicles all had totally different names, and there were no common company? Conversely, his go-kart record and OAM and perhaps other things are noteworthy, so if the article pivots to one on the vehicles, then a chunk of biographical information should be included. ^~Hydronium^~Hydroxide^~(Talk)~ 10:38, 31 January 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. Sandstein 09:43, 7 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Thundersword

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

Does not meet WP:GNG. Page is linked in the body of two articles, and the character appears seven times according to Marvel Wikia. Namenamenamenamename (talk) 09:19, 16 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep or merge into List of Marvel Comics characters: T or List of Iron Man enemies. No need to delete when merge is a valid option. BOZ (talk) 12:56, 16 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Comics and animation-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 18:17, 16 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 18:17, 16 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - character lists are meant to be a central location for short summaries of characters who are important in a fiction, but not outside of it. This character has two incoming links from non-list articles, so he's clearly not that notable in the Marvel universe. Neither of those articles provide enough information to make a redirect practical. Nothing would be lost by deleting the information. Argento Surfer (talk) 19:25, 17 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, clpo13_(talk) 20:51, 23 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, KCVelaga (talk) 00:37, 31 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Per Argento Surfer, whose opinion I agree with. Belongs in Wikia._{ZXCVBNM (TALK)} 19:43, 31 January 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. Sandstein 09:42, 7 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Carole M. Stephens

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

A non-notable subject that qualifies for deletion per WP:BLP1E. The article itself is mostly dependent upon primary sources, with five out of the seven sources being so. Per WP:BEFORE searches, remaining coverage in independent, reliable sources is is limited to routine announcements about the subject's becoming a general board member of the Relief Society of the LDS church. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 21:01, 23 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 21:02, 23 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Utah-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 21:02, 23 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 21:02, 23 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 08:19, 24 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, KCVelaga (talk) 00:37, 31 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Not an inherently notable position, lack of substantive independent sources. Reywas92^Talk 05:17, 31 January 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. Sandstein 09:42, 7 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

G-Fan

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

Nominating at this for deletion to due to a lack of sources that show its notability here on Wikipedia. GamerPro64 00:25, 31 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

In addition, I would also call for this article to be salted due to repeatedly being recreated after two other deletions in the past. There is just nothing to justify an article for it. GamerPro64 04:41, 31 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Journalism-related deletion discussions. KCVelaga (talk) 00:36, 31 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of News media-related deletion discussions. KCVelaga (talk) 00:36, 31 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, unless those wishing to keep it can add appropriate sources within the remaining time frame. Nightscream (talk) 15:03, 31 January 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. Sandstein 09:42, 7 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Mick Kaczorowski

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

There is a strong question as to the subject's notability. While he has won some awards from a notable institution, these are shared and so I do not believe satisfy the requirements of WP:ANYBIO.

He has been involved in the creation of several relatively notable works, but I do not believe they hold sufficient notability to meet the requirements under WP:DIRECTOR.

If he does not meet the criteria for notability under any of those then I do not believe he meets the criteria under WP:GNG. None of the references provided in the article are suitable for establishing this (IMDB, TVGuide), and some are not suitable at all (docuWiki). A search does bring up a few articles mentioning him, but either he is the author [49] or is only mentioned in passing by an article discussing his current project. [50][51][52][53]

However, given the combined awards, programs and passing coverage, I am not certain he doesn't meet the required standards of WP:N. If he does, however, then the article needs significant work to bring it up to a standard reasonable for inclusion on Wikipedia. NoCOBOL (talk) 12:22, 17 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Bakazaka (talk) 19:37, 17 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. Bakazaka (talk) 19:37, 17 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 00:06, 24 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Keep I'd say he pretty clearly meets #3 and #4 of WP:DIRECTOR (though I would have used the Filmmaker tag). He's played a major role in co-creating a body of work: Meerkat Manor alone qualifies him for that, let alone everything else. And he's won two Emmys for his work as a filmmaker.^[2] The article may not be great, but it seems to me that this is a clear case where editing would be preferable to deletion. ManicSpider (talk) 14:32, 25 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Vanamonde (Talk) 00:16, 31 January 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. Sandstein 09:11, 7 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Sheet dealing

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

Not an expert in publishing, but this article exclusively cites the website of Andrew Malcolm (author), and appears to consist of WP:OR/WP:SOAPBOXING. I have removed similar content from the Malcolm article. Endymion.12 (talk) 22:56, 16 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Law-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 21:27, 17 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of News media-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 21:27, 17 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the Article Rescue Squadron's list of content for rescue consideration. 7&6=thirteen (☎) 12:58, 21 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

~~Keep~~ Fix and Merge Important concept and publishing article, which includes case law. Needs more sources, and better links. Meets WP:GNG. Ideally, references need to be broadened out. But this is a ground for improvement, not a ground for deletion.

That being said, I think that the use of the block quotes (which now stand out, now that I reformatted them as block quotes – See Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Quotation cleanup) transgress WP:Fair use and need to be cut back and paraphrased. This is a WP:Copyright violation that needs to be remedied.

Additionally, when I used ref fill to tweak the citations, it became apparent that all but one are from the same source! This needs to be fixed. New sources are a must.

Here are four candidates for merger:

If that happens, then some of the concerns that have prompted this AFD can be alleviated. 7&6=thirteen (☎) 14:32, 21 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

User:7&6=thirteen: Righto, but we need new references and some of the discussion of case law currently borders on WP:OR, so someone will need to put a lot of effort into this. Endymion.12 (talk) 22:38, 21 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

User:Endymion.12 Message received. I am busy in the real world, which intrudes on my Wikidiction, and time crunched. I can't get to this for a week at least. Maybe not even then. My initial boffing around came up zero. If we tried it from a legal angle, reading the cases and then Sherdardizing them (oops, I am showing my age), we might be able to find something. We could also try to backtrack from the sources we already have. 7&6=thirteen (☎) 00:50, 22 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I reformatted the existing references. 7&6=thirteen (☎) 12:11, 22 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Does it go by a different name? We have Publishing#Book_publishing but no article dedicated to just publishing of books which could hold all of this in its controversy section. Dream Focus 17:54, 21 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and decide what can be merged somewhere and where to stick it. No sense deleting valid information we can put somewhere. Dream Focus 19:23, 23 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 00:01, 24 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Vanamonde (Talk) 00:15, 31 January 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. postdlf (talk) 12:45, 1 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

List of HD DVD devices

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

Outdated list of products - a lot of content already removed including prices in US dollars (from 2007!). HD DVD technology may be historic but to list every single product would violate WP:NOTINDISCRIMINATE as well as this list essentially being a product catalogue. Article stems on from recently deleted article Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of HD DVD releases (2nd nomination) Ajf773 (talk) 10:32, 3 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. Ajf773 (talk) 10:32, 3 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. Ajf773 (talk) 10:32, 3 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as per recent AfD on a similar article as linked by the nominator; no evidence of notability Spiderone 23:24, 5 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting per talkpage request as the discussion was short. Giving it more time to get a stronger consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Tone 17:02, 16 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for considering to not delete this content. Listings including prices was very useful and not "indiscriminate" but very particularly useful as a tool to help immediately identity what products were high-end and harder to find and which products were common. Perhaps this should have been pointed out in the article and the prices more clearly linked to sources and the reason for their inclusion made clear in the article.

Honestly I think fighting for the article's retension and trying to explain why the topic is notable seems like a lost cause. Sooner or later new editors will arbitrarily decide old tech isn't their thing and just delete the articles. Sooner or later it's trashed again so why bother? The whole wikipedia system seems run as a tyranny of arbitrary hierarchical editorial control. This article list is very small considering the short life of the technology so it's not like a list that continually grows. If the most popular models were only listed as examples back in the main article it would bloat that article which is possibly why it became its own article. The list article could definitely be improved by dividing it up into Popular, and Less Popular if we can find support links (besides the price reference implications) but again, why do the work if it's just going to be trashed on a editor's feel of what they think is notable that day? It seems odd that natural science articles get a pass for listing genus and species, e.g. home page linked article ^[3] but if the subject is retro-tech suddenly an editor can easily decide "not notable" - yet more people dealt with the technologies on this list over this Wader bird. Sure the bird understanding is probably more important long-term but if the issue is "notability" then short lists of older tech, demonstrating exact nature of moderate breadth of different manufacturers supporting the tech, the length -- i.e. lifespan of the particular tech (year introduced), rarity (pricing) of the tech, etc. all seem notable. But not notable to people who don't care about the particular technology. Too bad we aren't bird lovers, where some lists are okay ^[4] Best wishes Dcsutherland (talk) 04:16, 21 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

References

^ Bernstein, Barbara. "Lunden De'Leon". Banza magazine. wordpress.
^ https://www.emmys.com/bios/mick-kaczorowski
^ https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wader
^ https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Why_Wikipedia_is_not_so_great

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 00:00, 24 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Vanamonde (Talk) 00:14, 31 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. I find the list very poorly referenced, and of the few references present many are non-WP:RS. I don't think this is a fixable problem, it's a symptom of the lack of notability of the topic. I'm not sure it's possible to create a reasonably complete list that is adequately referenced. Anyone who finds this list useful is free to copy it to some other place under the CC BY-SA 3.0 License prior to deletion. However Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, and encyclopedias become less useful if they contain indiscriminate unsourced data. --Pontificalibus 09:07, 31 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per USER:Pontificalibus. FOARP (talk) 16:02, 31 January 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.

[1] Bernstein, Barbara. "Lunden De'Leon". Banza magazine. wordpress.

[2] ttps://www.emmys.com/bios/mick-kaczorowski

[3] ttps://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wader

[4] ttps://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Why_Wikipedia_is_not_so_great

[1]

[2]

[3]

[4]