Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2019 June 8

Recent AfDs: Today Yesterday

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

< 7 June	9 June >

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 speedy keep. Fenix down (talk) 23:10, 13 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Ma Sang-hoon

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

Fails WP:BIO and WP:NFOOTBALL. CptViraj (Talk) 10:16, 8 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. CptViraj (Talk) 10:16, 8 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. CptViraj (Talk) 10:16, 8 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of South Korea-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 11:30, 8 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 11:30, 8 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions.CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 11:31, 8 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Actually does pass NFOOTY. 42apps 2gls (ongoing) in FPL leagues (K League 1, Thai League 1) - per Soccerway. R96Skinner (talk) 12:47, 8 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - current player who clearly passes WP:NFOOTBALL. Needs improving, not deleting. Giant Snowman 15:32, 8 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep passes WP:FOOTY.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 11:26, 10 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Actually passes NFOOTY and WP:NFOOTBALL. --MA Javadi (talk) 20:45, 10 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, as he appears to pass the WP:NFOOTBALL requirements. Ejgreen77 (talk) 21:17, 10 June 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. — JJMC89 (T·C) 01:34, 16 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Nick Phillips (ice hockey)

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

Subject only played 4 AHL games and while I'm not sure on the EHL's position of notability as it isn't listed on the league assesment page, he played 154 games which falls short of 200 games anyway. I seriously doubt the Niagara Falls Sports Wall of Fame counts as a honour as it doesn't have its own page. Also, seeing how the article began back in 2007 and it was the creator's only contribution convinced me to nominate this. Tay87 (talk) 10:08, 8 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Tay87 (talk) 10:08, 8 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Tay87 (talk) 10:08, 8 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Ice hockey-related deletion discussions. Tay87 (talk) 10:08, 8 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. Tay87 (talk) 10:08, 8 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Ontario-related deletion discussions. Tay87 (talk) 10:08, 8 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Support per nom. Alaney2k (talk) 12:37, 12 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails to meet any criteria of WP:NHOCKEY and lacks the significant independent coverage to meet WP:GNG. Papaursa (talk) 20:58, 15 June 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 10:24, 16 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

TripleLift

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

Non-notable company operating in a tiny niche market. References seem to be mostly to trade papers. — RHaworth (talk · contribs) 08:47, 8 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 09:36, 8 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 09:36, 8 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Advertising-related deletion discussions. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 09:39, 8 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 09:39, 8 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. Trade publications can be reliable sources. Editors and journalists at trade publications make the same judgement calls about newsworthiness as their counterparts at daily newspapers or broadcast media. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 09:42, 8 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Lack of reliable, independent sources. Yes, trade press can be a reliable source and I'd happily lean on it for establishing facts but much less so for notability. I simply don't agree that editors of trade press make 'the same judgement calls about newsworthiness'. Hugsyrup (talk) 08:55, 14 June 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. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 08:33, 15 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Latitude Learning

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

trvial awards, no substantial references that aren't PR, promotional article DGG ( talk ) 08:25, 8 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 11:38, 8 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 11:38, 8 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Michigan-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 11:38, 8 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Fails Wp:GNG. Lots of "sources" but not a single one qualifies as a reliable independent secondary source. Msnicki (talk) 11:52, 8 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Every source listed in the article is either primary or dubiously reliable, and I could find nothing of substance outside of those. Whether intentional or not, this article right now fails Wikipedia's notability guidelines and functions solely as an advertisement. Comment: The fact that the word "solution" used in the context of thinly veiled marketing is Wiki-linked to the article "Solution" is hilarious to me. TheTechnician27 (Talk page) 21:58, 10 June 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 Honorverse. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 08:33, 15 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Honor Harrington

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

Lead character of the eponymous series of novels. Fails MOS:REALWORLD and WP:GNG. Searches reveal third-party coverage primarily of the novel series as a whole, not the character. There is only one out-of-universe section, "Concept and creation", and it is sourced only to an interview with the author. If sourced better, this content belongs in the series article, Honorverse. The rest of the content is better suited to fan wikis. Sandstein 08:18, 8 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 10:05, 8 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Merge No reason this fancruft cannot be put into the novel article itself. --qedk (t 桜 c) 17:34, 8 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Merge: Maybe merge part of the lead into the Honorverse article. This article is so bloated and overly detailed that it's difficult to tell where the bathwater ends and the baby begins. Comment: I don't know who's collectively writing all this, but look, for example, at this list of characters in this book series. Also, I feel like the article Saganami Island Tactical Simulator should be looked into for an ostensible lack of notability. Similarly, I feel like WP:WWE should be a thing, entitled "This is why Wikia exists". TheTechnician27 (Talk page) 02:07, 9 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Science fiction-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 03:22, 9 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 03:23, 9 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Merge I would be willing to make the merge. Debresser (talk) 20:42, 10 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Merge per the above discussion, and thank you to Debresser for offering to do the merge. Aoba47 (talk) 20:00, 11 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. No prejudice against speedy renomination per no input from other users. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 15:34, 22 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Mamta Saikia

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

Does not meet WP:GNG. Citations provided include PR, mere mentions in RS, articles by the subject, an article that lists its "source" as "Internet", source #3 gave my browser a security warning, and I couldn't find anything better searching online. As for the awards won, well... _signed,Rosguill ^talk 04:10, 1 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. _signed,Rosguill ^talk 04:10, 1 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. _signed,Rosguill ^talk 04:10, 1 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. _signed,Rosguill ^talk 04:10, 1 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. _signed,Rosguill ^talk 04:10, 1 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Mhhossein ^talk 06:08, 8 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, RL0919 (talk) 14:09, 15 June 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. RL0919 (talk) 14:05, 15 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Rob Bruce

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

No in-depth coverage in reliable sources, either those in the article or elsewhere online - fails WP:GNG. References provided are either mentions-in-passing or rely almost exclusively on company produced material and/or quotations. Edwardx (talk) 12:01, 25 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. Ceethekreator (talk) 14:03, 25 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Ceethekreator (talk) 14:03, 25 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 21:37, 25 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, RL0919 (talk) 14:14, 1 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Mhhossein ^talk 06:07, 8 June 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 substantially extended time for discussion, there is a consensus to keep the article based on sources sufficient to demonstrate notablity. bd2412 T 02:24, 16 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Elena Berkova

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

Non notable. Sources are not substantive and GNG and ENT are not met. Spartaz ^Humbug! 20:01, 18 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been added to the WikiProject Pornography list of deletions. • Gene93k (talk) 21:37, 18 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 21:43, 18 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 21:43, 18 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 21:43, 18 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sexuality and gender-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 21:43, 18 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Russia-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 21:43, 18 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Given that she is a Ukrainian and Russian, I figured a translation of her Russian wikipedia page would give us more insight into her notability. Morbidthoughts (talk) 01:26, 19 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: fails WP:ENT / WP:BASIC. Ru.wiki article is equally unconvincing for notability. --K.e.coffman (talk) 04:50, 19 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Popular media persona, the most famous porn actress in Russia. Enough to look at Google. According to official statistics, the most requested name in RuNet [1], [2], [3].--Kirill Samredny (talk) 07:07, 19 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Meets WP:GNG.

"Elena Berkova received a term for drugs" in Argumenty i Fakty

"Andrey Lefler removed Sveta from Ivanovo and Elena Berkova in the erotic thriller 'Forgive'" in Novy Vzglyad

"Elena Berkova in court proves that she is not a porn actress", "Elena Berkova deprived her ex-husband of parental rights", presidential campaign, I think this is about her divorce, "Porn actress Elena Berkova regained consciousness after hospitalization", and "Elena Berkova after hospitalization decided to get married" in Moskovskij Komsomolets

"Berkova told about her condition after hospitalization" in Izvestia. Blumpf (talk) 09:12, 19 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Did you actually read these sources?.Can you read Russian (I can)? The vast majority are sourced to Berkova's social media or have no by-line or lack substantial content of critical discussion. In no way can they be considered substantial enough to maintain a BlP. Most of the content is tabloid gossip fodder too which is not going to cut the mustard. Spartaz ^Humbug! 19:13, 22 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The general requirement for notability is significant or non-trivial coverage by reliable sources, not "substantial content of critical discussion". You are conflating the requirement of non-trivial coverage to mean that the coverage of the subject matter itself must be substantive (of substance and is subjective) rather than substantial (not mere mentions of the subject or literally the amount of coverage which is a much more objective standard). There is a difference.[4][5] If the sources cite to her social media, then that caveat could be directly acknowledged in any assertions within her article. Morbidthoughts (talk) 22:57, 23 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per Blumpf and the vast number of articles covering her in the Cyrillic search of Google News. I am skeptical of the reliability of Moskovskij Komsomolets but her coverage by sources like Echo of Moscow [6] and RIA Novosti [7][8][9] easily pass the GNG. The nominator's ability to read Russian confounds why WP:BEFORE wasn't applied through a Cyrillic search. Morbidthoughts (talk) 00:01, 25 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 11:18, 25 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Few sources, but meets WP:BASIC.Guilherme Burn (talk) 22:46, 29 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: I reviewed the sources, and they are passing mentions, tabloid trivia, and / or WP:SPIP. In one, we learn that the subject plans to run for a political office, according to herself. In a few others, her minor drug conviction is mentioned. This does not make someone notable, and such sources do not count for notability with doctors, businesspeople, and creative professionals. K.e.coffman (talk) 02:00, 30 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Snort. Okay. Such sources do not bother covering your doctors, businesspeople, and creatives for these things. Morbidthoughts (talk) 08:00, 31 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, EggRoll97 ^(talk) 21:36, 1 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I've re-opened this due to a request from another editor in my talk page. EggRoll97 ^(talk) 21:38, 1 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Mhhossein ^talk 06:06, 8 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Nothing I see from the article or sources provided exhibit any notability to what Wikipedia requires. Trillfendi (talk) 18:59, 8 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as per sources presented above, Easily meets GNG. –Davey2010^Talk 19:15, 13 June 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. Fenix down (talk) 06:23, 15 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Aishat Bello

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

fails WP:GNG and WP:NFOOTBALL Joeykai (talk) 05:27, 8 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. 94rain ^Talk 06:23, 8 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. 94rain ^Talk 06:23, 8 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Nigeria-related deletion discussions. 94rain ^Talk 06:24, 8 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. 94rain ^Talk 06:24, 8 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions.CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 11:41, 8 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - fails WP:GNG and WP:NFOOTBALL. Giant Snowman 15:33, 8 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete the article. I agree with that the article fails of both WP:NFOOTBALL and WP:GNG.Forest90 (talk) 16:07, 8 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Note that the subject has played at the 2018 FIFA U-20 Women's World Cup and also played in a fully professional team (Nasarawa Amazons) i believe she meets WP:NFOOTBALL. The sources might be scanty but there's enough WP:RS. National league football in Nigeria is highly neglected in some ways by media. Lapablo (talk) 20:22, 8 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Youth football is excluded from WP:NFOOTBALL. She has to play for a senior international team or in a fully professional league. The Nigerian league isn't a FPL. Bello therefore has to pass GNG and I can't find any sigcov on her. Dougal18 (talk) 21:03, 8 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: I know this article will be deleted. But personally I don't think we should be deleting articles such as this if we are really serious about closing knowledge gap, and reducing gender bias. Aishat Bello is a top player for a top team in a top league for a top nation in African women football. I would have preferred just a notability tag, but since its here unfortunately it won't survive AFD. Not everyone can play for national teams. HandsomeBoy (talk) 07:07, 14 June 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:Gary Goh, as requested by the article creator. bd2412 T 02:10, 16 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Gary Goh

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

There is a lot of puffery in this article, and I'm not certain any of the references constitute significant coverage in independent sources. The books appear self-published. The universities look dodgy. There would be hundreds of justices of the peace in Queensland probably. Boneymau (talk) 04:50, 8 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. Boneymau (talk) 04:51, 8 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. Boneymau (talk) 04:51, 8 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. Boneymau (talk) 04:51, 8 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Negligible cites on GS. No pass of WP:Prof. Claims of various awards lack reliable sources. Xxanthippe (talk) 05:06, 8 June 2019 (UTC).[reply]
Draftify. it is requested to draftify or userify the article at the moment so that i can incubate it and submit for review. i have multiple offline and online sources to prove the notability but i can not produce them within 4 days because i am busy in real life. i will add the sources for GNG and other requirements then submit the draft for review. thanks. Yanksbier (talk) 08:07, 10 June 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. — JJMC89 (T·C) 01:34, 16 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Owle Schreame Awards

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

One-off awards in 2014 to promote a small non-notable theatre company. No information since 2014. Official awards site has been dead since early 2016. This wiki article was created by a massively disruptive self-promotional sock/meat farm, and included numerous fake references (see [10]), which were accorded merit in the previous AfD. Softlavender (talk) 04:38, 8 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: Two of the four !voters in the previous AfD were members of the malicious sock/meat farm that have been creating wiki articles on persons relating to this non-notable theatre company. I and the other uninvolved !voter were fooled in that AfD by the fake references and the implication that this was going to be an annual awards ceremony. Softlavender (talk) 07:57, 8 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 11:43, 8 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 11:43, 8 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Theatre-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 11:43, 8 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 11:43, 8 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 11:44, 8 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete At least one of the references is broken, the remainder are essentially PR pieces in industry press. Without properly independent coverage this just isn't notable. Hugsyrup (talk) 08:48, 14 June 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. The nominator has not provided any valid reason for deletion, and has serious WP:COMPETENCE issues, as evident from the user talk page messages regarding sourcing, assessments and GA reviews. utcursch | talk 14:14, 8 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Chavda dynasty

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

Reason: Chavda dynasty is not belong to chaulukiya dynasty chavda dynasty article have same information as chaulukiya dynasty article and this article is presenting wrong ansectrial evidence . Kharari (talk) 04:03, 8 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2019 June 8. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 04:17, 8 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Keep Disagreement with content is not a valid reason for deletion. The topic is notable and does not have same information as Chaulukya dynasty. @Kharari:, if you have concerns regarding the content of the article, you may post on Talk:Chavda dynasty. Deletion request is not for it.-Nizil (talk) 05:34, 8 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

disagree with your opinion. @Nizil Shah: both article have same information I think you not read it properly. -- — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kharari (talk • contribs)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 11:45, 8 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 11:45, 8 June 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. Lourdes 05:26, 16 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Luxembourg Approach Controllers Association

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL, searching for full name)

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

This organisation with a mere 21 members is not notable. It fails WP:ORGCRIT:

1,600 Google results, of which most are either link lists or just exact copies of the Wikipedia article (either in English, German, or French).
There is a single article on chronicle.lu mentioning LACA, and this is basically just a press release.

A single news article in 2016 isn't significant coverage. Newbiepedian (talk · C · X! · L) 06:28, 1 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. Newbiepedian (talk · C · X! · L) 06:28, 1 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Newbiepedian (talk · C · X! · L) 06:28, 1 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. Newbiepedian (talk · C · X! · L) 06:28, 1 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Aviation-related deletion discussions. Newbiepedian (talk · C · X! · L) 06:28, 1 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Luxembourg-related deletion discussions. Newbiepedian (talk · C · X! · L) 06:28, 1 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. The French and German versions aren't any better. – Broccoli & Coffee ^{(Oh hai)} 22:33, 1 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I found and added some more references, mostly about the association fighting government proposals to outsource air traffic control to Belgium or Germany. I think the material that now appears in the article adds up to notability. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 01:32, 2 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 03:32, 8 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete None of the references, including the ones added recently, meet the criteria for establishing notability. Most are mentions-in-passing or based on announcements or quotations provided by the organization. Delete per nom, topic fails GNG and WP:NCORP. HighKing⁺⁺ 21:59, 9 June 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. Malcolmxl5 (talk) 00:31, 14 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Conga Cooler

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

No demonstration of notability. Not finding any independent in-depth coverage in reliable sources, either those in the article or elsewhere online - lack of WP:SIGCOV. Edwardx (talk) 22:07, 25 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Mexico-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 22:09, 25 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Food and drink-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 22:09, 25 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - its a well-known drink and clearly attributed to Pancho Morales. The article could use more sources, but there are a ton of readily accessible ones in a quick Google search for "Conga Cooler" Orville1974 (talk) 22:39, 25 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 09:05, 1 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete This article is not encyclopedic. Cox wasan (talk) 18:55, 6 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 03:31, 8 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

DELETE - Not seeing any notability here (through google and news searches). The two current references barely mention the drink — even the one that shares the title with this page. The Margarita is a notable drink. The bartender himself doesn't have a page (which is probably as it should be but I dont' think I'd oppose that). This is more trivial than encyclopedic. The big distillers and brewers have gazillions of drinks. Since the companies are notable, should every drink they sell be considered notable as well? ogenstein (talk) 05:59, 8 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I also do not see notability. I found another passing reference The Last Supper of Chicano Heroes, Pp. 161 - 163. However, as with the Texas Monthly piece cited in the article, it focuses mainly on the creation of the margarita and mentions Conga Cooler in passing, along with other drinks like the Pancho Lopez and the Viejito, much as the Texas Monthly does with other drinks, such as those named after WW2 fighter planes. Geoff | ^{Who, me?} 20:10, 11 June 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. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 08:32, 15 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Charlanta

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

Does not seem to be a term in common use beyond the citation linked to in the article. Presidentman talk · contribs (Talkback) 20:24, 25 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Georgia (U.S. state)-related deletion discussions. Presidentman talk · contribs (Talkback) 20:24, 25 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of North Carolina-related deletion discussions. Presidentman talk · contribs (Talkback) 20:24, 25 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of South Carolina-related deletion discussions. Presidentman talk · contribs (Talkback) 20:24, 25 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - used [in research here], [here], and [here]; in economic development [here], and [here] and [here] Orville1974 (talk) 23:31, 25 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 09:06, 1 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 03:31, 8 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. I added this reference to the article: Florida, Richard (March 12, 2014). "The Dozen Regional Powerhouses Driving the U.S. Economy". CityLab. The author states: "The concept of mega-regions dates back to 1957, when the economic geographer Jean Gottman coined the term “megalopolis” ..." CityLab, formerly The Atlantic Cities, is a digitaml media property of The Atlantic magazine. A small point: The references write Char-lanta with a hyphen, so perhaps the article should be moved there. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 06:43, 8 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. TheAwesomeHwyh (talk) 18:49, 8 June 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. WP:NPASR – Juliancolton | ^Talk 03:46, 16 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Sean Cunningham (basketball)

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

Contested PROD. Fails to meet notability guidelines as defined by WP:NBASKETBALL. In my opinion, fails overarching WP:GNG as all other listed references/citations are trivial mentions (e.g. signing with a team, leaving a team, etc.) with the exception of an interview which for me doesn't satisfy WP:SIGCOV. Upon a cursory search, I couldn't find any substantial sources to add to the article, whereas the PROD was removed because "It is highly likely that he will pass WP:GNG.". Looking for this discussion to address WP:NEXIST, and thus hopefully GNG, and preserve for the record. GauchoDude (talk) 19:22, 25 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 19:55, 25 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Baseball-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 19:55, 25 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 19:56, 25 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Netherlands-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 19:56, 25 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Passes WP:GNG [11][12][13]. Dammit_steve (talk) 22:57, 25 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. A full professional basketball player like Sean Cunningham should not be prodded, also given the comments of nominator that he might pass the WP:GNG. gidonb (talk) 20:55, 26 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Response from nom for @Gidonb: "A full professional basketball player" means nothing, otherwise that would have been specifically outlined by the experts in the subject at WP:NBASKETBALL as a notability guideline. In fact, they've specifically listed leagues there which could presume notability, none of which the subject has played in. Additionally, I made no claim in my statement that "... he might pass the WP:GNG" as the subject must have WP:SIGCOV which I don't feel he meets based off the search I did. GauchoDude (talk) 00:09, 27 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 09:07, 1 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Basketball-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 11:21, 1 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 03:31, 8 June 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. Lourdes 05:25, 16 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

K-391

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

Lacking notability due to the non-existent independent and verifiable sources that discuss the subject in-depth. The subject has two charting singles on national charts and one on a component chart, passing the musical notability criteria deficiently because these singles are merely collaborations with his friend Alan Walker, who is an established musician himself with numerous other charting singles, presenting a WP:Notability is not inherited situation. Passing the criteria at WP:NM implies the subject may be notable, but not necessarily is, in the presumption that a search for reliable sources may be successful. The sources currently present in the article are mostly primary[14], unreliable (blogs, etc)[15][16][17][18], insignificant[19][20], not about the subject himself[21][22] and passing mention[23], therefore failing the general notability criteria which requires the presence of significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject. KoopaLoopa (talk) 14:40, 25 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I must also note that the creator of this article has been blocked for undisclosed paid editing and advertising. This article could be the subject of undisclosed paid editing, which is improper by the policies that govern this website. KoopaLoopa (talk) 10:51, 28 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

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

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. KoopaLoopa (talk) 14:40, 25 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Norway-related deletion discussions. KoopaLoopa (talk) 14:40, 25 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: The article and it's sources are fine. Even though the two charting songs are collaborations with Walker, they are also K-391's songs and it doesn't matter if he had a lot or a little amount of input on any of those songs, they are his regardless. Most of the sources are usable and are fine as well, as long as they prove that they have actual editorial oversight or staff, which they do (EDM Sauce, Your EDM, We Rave You, etc). Pretty much the biggest issue with the article is that the subject pretty much just rides off of Alan Walker, who is present in most of the sources as mots sources are about the collaboration "Ignite" or about K-391's presence in guess-who's album. I wouldn't be surprised if this article gets deleted because of the heavy reliance on Walker, but for now, the article passes criteria 2 of WP:MUSIC and has enough sources about K-391, so it's fine with me. Micro (Talk) 22:43, 25 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
- MicroPowerpoint "I wouldn't be surprised if this article gets deleted because of the heavy reliance on Walker", yes, then why keep? And if you think there is "enough sources about K-391", please provide them here to facilitate greater discussion regarding the subject's notability. KoopaLoopa (talk) 10:38, 28 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  - The article is fine. Sources are in the article, no need to bring them here. The articles fate pretty much relies on the opinion of other editors — if they believe that the article relies on Alan too much or if the article is fine. Micro (Talk) 11:01, 28 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    - Ah okay, you're WP:NOTGETTINGIT. As I said above, the sources in the article do not discuss the subject in-depth and the music criteria requirement is dependent on the assumption that the subject is expected to have received significant coverage because the subject has had few charting singles. In this case they have not received significant coverage, therefore passing the musical criteria alone does not guarantee inclusion in the encyclopedia per the guideline - "meeting any of these criteria does not mean that an article must be kept". KoopaLoopa (talk) 11:42, 28 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 09:09, 1 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 11:20, 1 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Why isn't anyone else participating in this discussion? If it is closed based on the above editor's opinion, this article will be kept which is not appropriate because this musician does not deserve a Wikipedia page since he is not notable in his own right! Am I allowed to invite other editors here? KoopaLoopa (talk) 17:03, 4 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment @KoopaLoopa: See WP:AFD#After nominating: Notify interested projects and editors. Jalen D. Folf (talk) 18:10, 5 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  - The link is helpful, thank you. KoopaLoopa (talk) 14:41, 6 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 03:30, 8 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

DELETE - I don't see any notability here. From what I saw through a google search, the results were mostly lists or about his collaborators. And at least some of the citations concern me. For example, [6] is titled 'K-391 and Alan Walker…' but that is a falsified title and K-391 is not mentioned either in the title or the article. Many of the other references are trivial or are really about Alan Walker. ogenstein (talk) 06:41, 8 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: The article is fine. I added a mention of K-391's solo album in the Discography section. Even though he is much more famous by collaborations with Alan Walker, K-391 is a notable musician himself. The "career" section does need improvement, as it is focused more on Walker than K-391, but this doesn't mean K-391 is not notable enough to have his own article. With a few improvements, this article could become a very good one. WikiSmartLife (talk) 12:15, 9 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
- WikiSmartLife How is K-391 notable as a musician? Were you told by anyone to come here and vote like on Twitter? KoopaLoopa (talk) 13:38, 9 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  - KoopaLoopa, I was not told by anyone to come here. My thoughts are just that improvements can make this article more independent, with less reliance on Walker. WikiSmartLife (talk) 02:22, 10 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: K-391 is notable in part due to collaborations — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:191:200:D357:7D81:792F:91BB:2BFD (talk) 00:14, 10 June 2019 (UTC) — 2601:191:200:D357:7D81:792F:91BB:2BFD (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
- 2601:191:200:D357:7D81:792F:91BB:2BFD, K-391 has made some famous collaborations with Alan Walker, like you said, but this is not the reason his article should not be deleted. The reason is that he is a musician that has a solo album and many songs that are not collaborations, and he is notable for this. See WP:Notability is not inherited. WikiSmartLife (talk) 12:07, 11 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I think there is something fishy going on. I believe K-391 or someone associated with him has brought these people here. KoopaLoopa (talk) 19:09, 10 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
- KoopaLoopa I already said, nobody influenced me to come here. I just saw the discussion and thought I should add my opinion. WikiSmartLife (talk) 12:07, 11 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  - WikiSmartLife you are simply stating the musician is notable but you have not demonstrated how. Collaborating with a notable musician does not make himself notable. Have you even read the linked guidelines? KoopaLoopa (talk) 13:20, 11 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - The sources are numerous but not strong, and mostly report that he exists, without establishing that he is notable. As an aside, the creation of the article and the voting pattern on this AFD look fairly suspect to me, but that doesn't affect the notability of the subject. Hugsyrup (talk) 08:41, 14 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Having a number one single, with or without another artist, makes him notable. The coverage may not be extensive, but there's one source in the Norwegian version of the article that looks like decent coverage. --Michig (talk) 07:11, 15 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Move to draft. Even some of the "keep" !votes above note that the article requires improvement, and suggest that sources not in the article could be found or added. Maybe this would suffice to keep it, maybe not. Send it to draft space, and those who think it can be improved enough to merit inclusion can carry out those improvements and submit it for approval. bd2412 T 02:08, 16 June 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. – Juliancolton | ^Talk 03:44, 16 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Zimbabwe Institute of Management

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

No claim to notability, sources only tangentially mention the subject (they mention the recipients of the awards without substantial coverage of the notability of the subject), somewhat promotional in tone. creffett (talk) 13:07, 1 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. creffett (talk) 13:07, 1 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Management-related deletion discussions. creffett (talk) 13:07, 1 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Zimbabwe-related deletion discussions. creffett (talk) 13:07, 1 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Zimbabwe—The First Decade seems to have substantial coverage. I got this from running together several snippets,

The Zimbabwe Institute of Management has roots which extend back over three decades to 1957, when a group of managers decided to form 'The Rhodesian Association of Management'. In 1959, this became The Rhodesian Institute of Management', and in 1979, the name was changed to the 'Zimbabwe Institute of Management'. Headquarters The Head Office of the Institute is situated in Dzidzo House, Londonderry Avenue, Eastlea. Dzidzo House is large and contains a number of lecture rooms, which are available for hire at reasonable rates. The library is open for use by members. Training Building pfi foundations laid earlier, the Zimbabwe Institute of Management has developed into a dynamic management training force. Core courses run by the Institute encompass all levels of management training, from general management to supervisory levels. In addition to this, the Institute offers a highly practical 'Train the Trainer' course. 'Professional Management in Action' is one of the highlights of the training calendar. For six years, PMA has been a popular residential seminar held at the University. This unique course has attracted delegates from many other African countries, such as Botswana, Ethiopia, Malawi, Nigeria and Zambia. Related Activities The Institute's activities extend beyond the borders of classroom training.

SpinningSpark 18:48, 1 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. I also found substantial articles in Zimbabwe Industry and Commerce here and here. SpinningSpark 18:58, 1 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 03:16, 8 June 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. – Juliancolton | ^Talk 03:42, 16 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

David Cochrane (journalist)

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

Poorly referenced article about a television journalist, whose only evident notability claim is that he exists. As a national network reporter, he would likely be eligible for an article if it were sourced properly to reliable source coverage about him, but simply being on television is not an instant notability freebie that exempts him from having to clear WP:GNG just because he exists. However, the only reference here is a Blogspot, not a reliable source, and I'm unable to find any other notability-supporting sources: even on a ProQuest search, I'm just finding press releases and transcripts of his own journalism, rather than notability-supporting coverage about him as a subject. Bearcat (talk) 15:13, 1 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Journalism-related deletion discussions. Bearcat (talk) 15:13, 1 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. Bearcat (talk) 15:13, 1 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 19:31, 1 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete a non-notable journalist.John Pack Lambert (talk) 03:53, 5 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 03:15, 8 June 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. Malcolmxl5 (talk) 00:33, 14 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Appropriations Committee (Georgia Senate)

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

None of these committees are themselves notable, each failing WP:GNG and WP:NCORP. There is no presumption of notability for state legislatures, let alone committees within those bodies. In the painful WP:BEFORE search, I found mere mentions and some sources that focused upon legislation before the committee or a person on the committee but nothing focused on the committee as an entity. All of this content should have been developed in the articles about the Georgia State House of Representatives and the Georgia State Senate before being moved into standalone articles, per WP:SPINOUT. Chris Troutman (talk) 15:19, 1 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. Chris Troutman (talk) 15:19, 1 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. Chris Troutman (talk) 15:19, 1 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Georgia (U.S. state)-related deletion discussions. Chris Troutman (talk) 15:19, 1 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

And all the related articles for the same reason:

Delete all. Although I strongly disagree with the nominator's comment that there's no presumption of notability for state legislatures, definitely these should all be covered in the main Georgia Senate article and only be given separate articles if they grow too large for inclusion there (on a case-by-case basis).—Chowbok ☠ 16:57, 1 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Chowbok: I've bundeled more and will be adding a couple dozen more onto this, so let us know if you change your mind about your !vote. Also, please show me the guideline presuming notability about legislatures. WP:NPOL assumes notability for statewide politicians, but not the committees on which they serve. Chris Troutman (talk) 23:34, 1 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

WP:LEGISLATURE says state legislatures are automatically notable.—Chowbok ☠ 05:04, 2 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

That's a failed proposal and of course, doesn't pertain to these articles, anyway. Thanks for letting me know that exists. Chris Troutman (talk) 15:14, 2 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Heh, didn't notice that was failed, sorry. Weird, I thought sure it said somewhere that state legislatures were notable. Oh well, like you say, we're getting off-topic here.—Chowbok ☠ 22:44, 2 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 03:14, 8 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete all. State legislative committees are nothing like US Congressional committees in terms of their power and the process by which legislative sausages get made. At the state level, most legislation is copypasta from other legislatures, or from the right-wing American Legislative Exchange Council. Giving such committees articles gives WP:UNDUE weight to them. Abductive (reasoning) 19:14, 8 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete all per nom. As a courtesy, the titles can be redirected to the articles on the respective houses of the Georgia Legislature. bd2412 T 17:55, 9 June 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 delete. Fenix down (talk) 06:24, 15 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

2017–18 AD Bairro season

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

The page fails WP:GNG because of the fact that the Cape Verde league is not a professional league. Also would like be adding these pages to the list.

The 2016-17 pages just essentially match reports as their reference instead of being reports from that match like other pages are. HawkAussie (talk) 02:24, 8 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. HawkAussie (talk) 02:24, 8 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. HawkAussie (talk) 02:24, 8 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Africa-related deletion discussions. HawkAussie (talk) 02:24, 8 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete all per WP:NSEASONS failure. Also worth noting that they were created by a prolific sockpuppeteer (see their SPI page), who was pretty much the only contributor to most of the articles (all other edits appear to be minor fixes or typo corrections) – the articles would probably be eligible for speedy deletion (if you find any more, tag them for this instead). Number 5 7 10:25, 8 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions.CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 11:50, 8 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete all per nom, no evidence of notability. Giant Snowman 15:34, 8 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I am also adding this page to the list of pages has I tried speedy delete but was rejected. HawkAussie (talk) 22:49, 10 June 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. — JJMC89 (T·C) 01:00, 15 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Pancakes and Powerslams

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

No significant coverage in reliable sources. The first AfD ended as a soft delete because it only had one vote. No notability has been shown since it was recreated. SL93 (talk) 00:40, 8 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment if it's substantially identical to the deleted version it can be CSD'd per G4. – John M Wolfson (talk • contribs) 00:49, 8 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
- @John M Wolfson: No, it can't. WP:SOFTDELETE is treated as equivalent to an expired WP:PROD and this page was restored on that basis. SpinningSpark 16:06, 8 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  - I stand corrected. None of the sources given seem reliable, so delete. – John M Wolfson (talk • contribs) 16:09, 8 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Radio-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 03:34, 8 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Wrestling-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 03:34, 8 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Popular culture-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 03:34, 8 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Ohio-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 03:34, 8 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - I cannot find anything that supports GNG - Galatz גאליץ ^{שיחה Talk} 14:20, 11 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - I can't find anything that would warrant this existing. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 08:21, 12 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Simply not notable.LM2000 (talk) 23:59, 13 June 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.