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 delete. Unanimity that the subject fails WP:AUTHOR Just Chilling (talk) 18:39, 15 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

John Michael Cummings

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

Following this request on my talkpage: urgent help needed with my Wiki page - query, I took a look at the article, and noted that it did not contain reliable sources to meet either WP:BIO or WP:GNG. Only one source writes directly about the subject of the article, and that is an interview by ~~the publisher of his works~~ (Anaphora), ~~and the~~ [a] publisher [which] has no reputation, and conforms to descriptions of a vanity press in that the publisher expects the author to do the marketing and sales. The majority of the significant creators of the article are single purpose red-link accounts which are either the subject himself, or, as claimed by the subject, are people known to him. This appears to be a promotional article, which is against policy. SilkTork (talk) 16:06, 8 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. After reviewing the article and the sources, they're either non-reliable, non-independent, or brief, passing mentions rather than the substantial coverage that would demonstrate notability. After checking, I cannot find anything more substantial. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 16:41, 8 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I have spent some time researching the sources listed at User talk:LankyKeller. The only one that is independent and reliable is the Kirkus review of one of his books, which is short and doesn't actually provide notability for the author. WP:NAUTHOR is clearly not met, and as the coverage of him is very local (notices in local papers about his giving talks, probably based on PRs from his publisher) I can't see that WP:GNG is met either. When I tried to find independent sources I couldn't help noticing that the author has been very active in promoting himself and asking for reviewers to review his books - there are at least 80-90 such requests that pop up in a Google search for his name and books. Andd in every such request, he mentions the Wikipedia article about him as a source of info - seemingly he uses WP in lieu of a personal website. I appreciate that many authors have to work hard to get the word out about their books, but Wikipedia can't be part of that. --bonadea contributions talk 17:22, 8 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Comment The coverage of his work is not only local. There's lengthy review of Ugly to Start With in the Philadelphia Inquirer here, and a review of The Night I Freed John Brown in the Boston Globe here (mostly behind a paywall, but it appears to a 900 word article reviewing 3 books for young people, of which one is by Cummings). Also note that his books are not vanity press published—two are by university presses, and one by a division of Penguin. Per WorldCat, his books are held in over 900 libraries which is quite substantial, especially for the genre. Voceditenore (talk) 18:06, 8 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Is there a consensus from past discussions, about how many independent newspaper reviews of an author's work is sufficient for notability under WP:AUTHOR item 3?--Srleffler (talk) 20:08, 8 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Srleffler, that criterion includes the requirement In addition, such work must have been the primary subject of an independent and notable work (for example, a book, film, or television series, but usually not a single episode of a television series) or of multiple independent periodical articles or reviews. That wouldn't just mean a few newspaper reviews (or even a lot of newspaper reviews), it would mean, for example, a book being adapted into a major movie, or books or documentaries being written or made about the work. There's clearly nothing like that here. Newspaper reviews might contribute somewhat toward notability of a book, but not at all toward notability of the author. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 20:34, 8 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Seraphimblade I agree with your conclusion, but for a different reason. I think you missed the "or" in the requirement you quoted. A work that has been the subject of multiple independent reviews does satisfy that requirement, but this is "in addition" to the requirement that the body of work be "significant or well-known". I don't think that is the case here.--Srleffler (talk) 21:54, 9 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

In addition to what Seraphimblade points out, the massive campaign from the author to get people to review his books means that many of the existing reviews are not in fact independent. The Philadelphia Inquirer review, for instance, is written by a reviewer who does freelance reviews for the newspaper, and it may or may (very probably) not be independent. The Boston Globe review behind a paywall is available here (it's one of the links LankyKeller provided on his talk page). It is a very short review indeed, not much more than a blurb. Nothing like significant coverage for the books, much less for the author. --bonadea contributions talk 21:11, 8 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

bonadea, the Philadelphia Inquirer review is by the paper's former books editor (now retired), not some random freelancer. The Boston Globe review is 265 words long. I find it odd to characterise that as "not much more than a blurb." I am not opining one way or another in this discussion, as it's a very marginal case. However, my impression is that the summary dismissal of reviews and articles about him or his books is partially, if not largely, influenced by negative perceptions of the article's subject, his canvassing, and conflict of interest. Srleffler is absolutely correct. That should not be a factor in this discussion. The subject of the article either meets the requirements of WP:AUTHOR or he does not. The sources should be evaluated as they would be for any other subject, not based on or influenced by the subject's behaviour on Wikipedia. Voceditenore (talk) 08:25, 9 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Please don't speculate about why other editors hold the opinions they do - it is very easy to get it wrong, and in this instance, you have. I stand by my opinion, which is based on my own reviews of the many sources provided, and nothing else. As you will notice I never claimed that the Inquirer reviewer is "some ranom freelancer", but I pointed out that as he offers to review books through his website he is exactly the kind of person who may very probably have been targetted by the author. This discussion is surely intended to work out whether the person is notable or not, which means evaluating whether the sources are a) reliable, b) independent, and c) offer significant coverage. [edited to add: I will not deny that I am frustrated with the person - I don't have the patience of an angel, and having my explanations of how Wikipedia works repeatedly ignored, by somebody who refuses to understand that we are volunteers and that the article about him is not "his", is irritating. But the involvement with the author has been helpful in that it has become very clear that there is a lack of sourcing, given that he has made a honest effort to provide us with reliable sources - if the sourcing about him had existed, he would certainly have provided us with it, even without the WP:BEFORE searches that all of us obviously did before !voting in this AfD.] --bonadea contributions talk 15:09, 9 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

You are correct Voceditenore, Anaphora is not his publisher. That was my mistake. I have stricken those comments. The publishers of his works are reliable. SilkTork (talk) 22:14, 8 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 18:09, 8 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of West Virginia-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 18:09, 8 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Fails WP:AUTHOR, and WP:NOTPROMO. The subject of the article through his canvassing of ~~various~~ numerous users and admins with requests that they improve the article, has clearly demonstrated that his intention is to use the Wikipedia to further his career as a writer. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 19:05, 8 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The subject of the article's attempts to canvass for aid in improving the article should not be a factor in this discussion. The subject of the article either meets the requirements of WP:AUTHOR or he does not. Nothing else is relevant. If the article is too promotional or not supported by sufficient references, that can be fixed. Editing behaviors and conflicts of interest can be addressed. None of that is relevant to the question of whether Wikipedia should have an article on this subject.--Srleffler (talk) 19:58, 8 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

A lack of sufficient references can only be fixed if significant coverage actually exists, though. --bonadea contributions talk 21:11, 8 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

FTR, see also Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/1608Washington. The subject of the article has slipped up and admitted (indirectly) to sockpuppetry; it is true that this doesn't affect the notability of the person, but it is not irrelevant as it shows that there have been attempts to bolster the perceived notability. --bonadea contributions talk 21:11, 8 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Kirkus reviewed both The Night I Freed John Brown and Don't Forget Me, Bro but I don't see any other reviews from the usual journals (not even Publisher's Weekly which is a bit surprising giving that John Brown was published by a Penguin imprint). The socking,if true, is the only thing I see of concern of actions by the article's subject - the stuff on Silk's talk page seems to be normal complaining an article's subject and certainly not worthy on its own merits for deletion. However, there doesn't seem to be notability under NAUTHOR to support his article in general. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 16:28, 9 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete The article clearly doesn't meet WP:GNG. I couldn't find independent reliable sources on the Internet. Masum Reza^📞 00:03, 10 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - per nomination . I am also intrigued by this new user who claims to be the Director of the Stephen F Austin University Press. I regard the claim as doubtful and the talk page comment as unhelpful Velella ^{Velella Talk} 15:11, 12 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Have studied the article and done some searching. Fails WP:NAUTHOR and WP:GNG. Edwardx (talk) 10:46, 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. ST47 (talk) 01:13, 24 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Dr Ropate Rakuita Qalo

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

Not seeing any notability here. Slatersteven (talk) 16:02, 8 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete the Article because it's not notable itself.Forest90 (talk) 16:04, 8 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 18:12, 8 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 18:13, 8 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 18:13, 8 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. Boneymau (talk) 23:44, 8 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Oceania-related deletion discussions. Boneymau (talk) 23:45, 8 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep finding more sources as "Ropate Rakuita Qalo", consideration for being from an isolated country in the pacific of just 900,000 people with no major International news outlets does make it more difficult to find online sources. Gnan garra 18:55, 11 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Randykitty (talk) 15:48, 16 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Should be renamed to Ropate Rakuita Qalo Gnan garra 02:20, 18 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Not notable WP:Notability Mrbuskin (talk) 05:08, 22 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) 18:25, 15 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

A Conversation with Norman

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

A extremely minor, non-notable indie film. The only source present in the article is IMDB, which of course is not a valid reliable source. Aside from mirrors of this article and simple movie database listings, I have only found one source that mentions this film at all, here. However, that article only has a single sentence mentioning the film, and the information from it was taken from this Wikipedia article. Without any substantial reliable sources to discuss it, it does not pass the WP:GNG nor WP:NFILM Rorshacma (talk) 15:03, 8 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. IntoThinAir (talk) 15:06, 8 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete this is so non-notable that it could be a hoax. According to the article it has only been shown once in public with no dvd or video or youtube release which would explain lack of coverage but also form the basis of a hoax, thanks Atlantic306 (talk)

Delete I can find literally nothing about this subject outside of IMDb and Wikipedia. I'm not sure I'd call it a hoax; Mr. Parisen ostensibly does direct horror shorts. Nonetheless, there is such a staggering lack of evidence that it even exists that it may as well be one. TheTechnician27 (Talk page) 01:24, 9 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Since the director intentionally chose to suppress the film after a single showing 14 years ago, with no additional screenings, no video release, and no television release, it seems unlikely that sufficient reliable sources will ever appear to establish the film as notable per WP:NFILM. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 06:05, 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 redirect to Kim Petras#2017–present: "Era 1". Per WP:ATD with respect to deletion vs. redirect Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 18:31, 15 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Era 1 (Kim Petras)

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

Fails WP:N(E). This entire article is based on a tweet by musician Kim Petras, where she wrote "ERA 1 is complete", referring to a period of time in her discography. Some pop music writters reprinted the tweet, along with some of the songs included in what Petras described as her first era. Magnolia677 (talk) 14:28, 8 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 18:15, 8 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 18:16, 8 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete For several reasons but mainly that the sourcing is atrocious, and the subject is unnotable. Clearly as it is, it’s all based on an ambiguous idea rather than reliably verifiable facts. Trillfendi (talk) 19:15, 8 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - It's just a loose name for a group of songs, and possibly a promotional tease for a future album. Individual songs within this group already have articles based on reliable coverage that each has received, and those song articles can stand on their own. Even the sources that have referenced the "Era" group, such as the Billboard article already cited, merely use the name as a loose catch-all term. Not a notable entity in its own right. ---DOOMSDAYER520 (Talk|Contribs) 23:01, 8 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: Would a redirect to the artist's main article be appropriate? "Era 1" is already mentioned there, and it has been picked up by several outlets, such as Billboard and Paper. There is not enough notability for a separate article, but it has some coverage and could be a valid search term. I am just curious if a redirect would be a better option than deletion. Aoba47 (talk) 17:33, 9 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Though I voted to delete above, this commenter makes a good point about possible use of the search term. A redirect to the "2017–present" section at the Kim Petras article would be acceptable if others vote in that fashion. ---DOOMSDAYER520 (Talk|Contribs) 22:47, 9 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Doomsdayer520: Thank you for the comment. I believe a redirect to Kim_Petras#2017–present:_"Era_1" would be better than outright deletion. Aoba47 (talk) 15:31, 10 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Fancruft. Nonexistent album.—N Ø 19:40, 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 keep Initially had little sourced content but now has reliably sourced statements of intent to bid from senior figures of a number of countries. Little realistic probability of this fundamentally notable tournament not occurring, there is only going to be more to write about this tournament in the future. Fenix down (talk) 18:27, 15 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

2027 FIFA Women's World Cup

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

Even a single-edit IP with a lying edit summary can remove a ProD, so here we are...

WP:CRYSTAL, WP:TOOSOON. We don't know where, when, how many countries, ... It will of course be a notable event, just like the 2031, 2035, ... version, but please wait with a new article until at least a few things are certain. Consider that the bidding process for the 2023 event only started this year' [1] Fram (talk) 14:27, 8 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Except that we do not know if the Cup will even exist in 2027. –LaundryPizza03 (d c̄) 15:11, 8 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. Snowycats (talk) 15:37, 8 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:TOOSOON....William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 15:55, 8 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. ...William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 15:56, 8 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete fails WP:V and WP:CRYSTAL. Lugnuts ^{Fire Walk with Me} 16:27, 8 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete WP:TOOSOON, not enough information for an article yet. S.A. Julio (talk) 17:13, 8 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. S.A. Julio (talk) 17:17, 8 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 18:17, 8 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 18:17, 8 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Changing to Keep. I still think it's clearly too soon, but honestly if we've got the men's 2034 article live since 2017, I'll be damned if I'll !vote to pull the women's. --valereee (talk) 15:53, 15 June 2019 (UTC) ~~Delete clearly too soon.~~ --valereee (talk) 20:08, 8 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete definitely WP:TOOSOON.--Vulp here 05:13, 9 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Currently in a similar stage to the 2034 FIFA World Cup in that there are some rumblings of countries interested in bidding to host, but no formal bidding process yet. That article was kept at AFD last year, and going against that precedent feels like it would be a case of systemic gender bias. There are reliable sources discussing the 2027 event, such as here, here, and (to a lesser extent) here. Lowercaserho (talk) 06:32, 9 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep but needs work on The page at the moment is very draftily at the moment and definitely needs a lot of work on to make it look like an wiki article. HawkAussie (talk) 07:54, 9 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - TOOSOON. Giant Snowman 12:35, 9 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep -several news articles related to the bidding process in numerous countries. Article could use expansion, improved referencing not deletion per WP:ATD. Hmlarson (talk) 17:49, 9 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral, defaulting to a weak keep. I'm not sure what to vote here - there's a smattering of coverage with regards to the potential Nordic bid and the potential Dutch bid and a potential U.S. bid. That being said I'm actually sympathetic to the WP:OSE argument being made above - there's a bit more coverage of the Men's 2034 than the Women's 2027, but the type of coverage is the same, and is borderline WP:GNG. I think WP:GNG is actually satisfied based on the way I voted for the 2034 Men's World Cup, albeit marginally. SportingFlyer T·C 23:35, 9 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Changing to Keep - Article should be kept as we already have the 2034 Men's tournament page. Kevinhanit (talk) 17:24, 15 June 2019 (UTC) Delete - Can be recreated once we have an actual bidding process announced by FIFA. Kevinhanit (talk) 17:11, 10 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep but needs work per above. (And we kept the 2034 MEN's World Cup article a literal year ago, and there's coverage for this one.) It seems we've established a precedent of the next two editions having articles. Paintspot Infez (talk) 00:37, 11 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per above. GNG met on the same terms as similarly-situated articles as well as the gender issues raised herein. Montanabw^(talk) 19:48, 11 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, as there are documented bids and per the precedent set by the men's World Cup (allowing two future editions to have articles). Sounder Bruce 21:19, 11 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep with sources added since the AFD nomination. I was surprised by all the initial Delete votes above, but digging deeper the article has been significantly improved compared to the initial unreferenced article, Nfitz (talk) 15:41, 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. — JJMC89 (T·C) 01:35, 16 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Doctoranytime

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

Promotional Viztor (talk) 14:01, 8 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Viztor (talk) 14:01, 8 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Greece-related deletion discussions. ...William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 14:23, 8 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete This is a clear PR piece/possible UPE but it's also not notable and lacks entirely in any in depth coverage from independent sources. Praxidicae (talk) 14:52, 8 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Agree with above concerns. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 03:55, 10 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Health and fitness-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 18:18, 8 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 18:19, 8 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Belgium-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 18:19, 8 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Cyprus-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 18:19, 8 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I removed what seemed to be a PR piece and added a new paragraph about an initiative that supports this business. It should be ok now Elberoin (talk) 11:17, 10 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Comment @Elberoin: - what sources do you think demonstrate WP:NCORP is satisfied? Nosebagbear (talk) 20:46, 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 keep. RL0919 (talk) 00:26, 16 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Exner Revival Cars

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

No references Rathfelder (talk) 13:05, 8 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Merge - with Virgil Exner (Exner Revival Cars are mentioned in that article's retirement section). A search reveals more information on this subject, but not enough to justify a separate article. Orville1974 (talk) 16:19, 8 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I added some references. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 21:19, 8 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 21:20, 8 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Nightfury 21:48, 8 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Michigan-related deletion discussions. Nightfury 21:48, 8 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per references added by Eastmain. Also lack of references in the article is not a valid deletion reason if references can be found by carrying out WP:Before. Hugsyrup (talk) 09:00, 14 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep between Eastmain's sources and the biography on the individual, but has bits on the ERC. Also concerned that BEFORE wasn't carried out by nom. Nosebagbear (talk) 20:48, 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. Malcolmxl5 (talk) 03:37, 22 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Electronic Document Professional

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

No demonstration of notability, no independent sources. Icodense (talk) 10:20, 8 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 03:21, 9 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, RL0919 (talk) 14:03, 15 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete No demonstration of notability. --qedk (t 桜 c) 19:08, 15 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Mccapra (talk) 20:53, 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. If events unfold which would make the subject notable, see WP:REFUND. -- RoySmith (talk) 17:57, 1 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Vardhan Puri

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

Fails on WP:NACTOR as yet to make debut in the film industry as an actor. Not meeting WP:GNG either. GSS (talk|c|em) 10:20, 8 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. GSS (talk|c|em) 10:20, 8 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. GSS (talk|c|em) 10:20, 8 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Draftify Since the subject currently fails WP:NACTOR, His only claim to fame is AmrishPuri's grandson. His movie is expected in September after which he may become notable. So the draft may be improved in the meanwhile. I have no objections if this gets deleted. --DBig Xrayᗙ 11:04, 8 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 11:29, 8 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Randykitty (talk) 15:28, 16 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MrClog (talk) 22:43, 23 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

comment Hello, i have added some more information. Hope this helps :-) 🌝Lucas🌞B🌎1991 (talk) 21:32, 24 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

User:LucasB1991 I hope you are referring to this edit of yours, well he may have been assistant director but that is not sufficient. being a director of a notable movie would have probably helped his case. --DBig Xrayᗙ 06:19, 28 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. 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 [2], [3], [4].--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.[5][6] 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 [7] and RIA Novosti [8][9][10] 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 [11]), 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 [12][13][14]. 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[15], unreliable (blogs, etc)[16][17][18][19], insignificant[20][21], not about the subject himself[22][23] and passing mention[24], 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.