Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2019 July 3

Recent AfDs: Today Yesterday

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

< 2 July	4 July >

Guide to deletion

Purge server cache

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

The result was keep based on additional sources found. RL0919 (talk) 16:23, 10 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Freeway (software)

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

non-notable software package. Only sources/ELs are to the software's publisher and repositories; no third-party coverage indicated, nor can I find any. TJRC (talk) 19:16, 18 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. Ceethekreator (talk) 21:02, 18 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. Ceethekreator (talk) 21:02, 18 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. Ceethekreator (talk) 21:02, 18 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I also do not see any non-trivial coverage in independent sources. Novabrahm (talk) 21:23, 18 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep There are reviews and product comparisons in Mac related and other magazines: eg. Macworld, April 1997, p.58 (Uniqorn full page review); MacLife, September 2008, p. 61 (Freeway 2/3 page review); InfoWorld, 27 October 1997, p. 92A, 92F (Freeway 1.0 half page review). Enough to satisfy GNG. Pavlor (talk) 09:36, 19 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 00:49, 25 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Just Chilling (talk) 15:06, 3 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep [1]Charmk (talk) 07:31, 6 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete WYSIWYG [sic] web design packages of this era were ten-a-penny. The notability bar for them would have to be higher than their mere existence. I'm seeing nothing to this one. Andy Dingley (talk) 17:22, 6 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
- This software is over 22 years old! This means it's one of the early WYSIWYG tools Charmk (talk) 21:04, 6 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
- @Andy Dingley: I´m preparing article rewrite (if I find the time), there are many high quality sources to establish notability (see my sandbox for more sources: [2]). Pavlor (talk) 07:45, 7 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Pavlor has demonstrated independent coverage sufficient to pass GNG. Haukur (talk) 14:58, 9 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep With the sources provided above, notable. William2001^(talk) 21:58, 9 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - the fact that there were quite a lot of them is pretty weak to claim that it's notability should be dramatically higher. The sourcing level is well above mere demonstration of existence. Strictly speaking it should probably meet WP:NCORP, but I believe it does that, too. Nosebagbear (talk) 16:17, 10 July 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. WP:SNOW: clearly not worth rehashing the series of conversations that have happened on all three other articles previously. Coverage, popularity of articles, and the opportunities for continuous improvement because of the continued coverage suggest that a group nominating is highly inappropriate for these. Sadads (talk) 17:05, 4 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Carole Middleton

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

Has got no notability at all, being related to a member of the royal family doesn't make her notable. WikiSmartLife (talk) 14:49, 3 July 2019 (UTC) I am also nominating the following related pages because of the same cause:[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 July 3. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 15:15, 3 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 15:23, 3 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 15:24, 3 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 15:24, 3 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 15:25, 3 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 15:26, 3 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Lots of sources and so all three subjects easily pass WP:GNG. They have all been nominated previously and all kept. This nomination doesn't say anything new or substantial. Andrew D. (talk) 15:34, 3 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. While indeed being related to the royal family (or, for that matter, being a "her royal highness" by dint of marriage) is not grounds for notability, WP:SIGCOV is. All 3 subjects nominated have been covered in an in-depth fashion, over a period of several years, by the UK and international press (both tabloid and, more interesting for us, non-tabloid). All 3 subjects have also been covered in what some may see as literature - e.g. [3][4][5]. Pippa has also authored literature that received secondary coverage - [6]. It's July, but I feel a snowy winter is coming to this AfD... Icewhiz (talk) 15:36, 3 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. The mother of a future Queen Consort and the grandmother of a future King?! Of course she's notable! The other two are less inherently notable, but have been massively covered in the media and clearly meet WP:GNG. -- Necrothesp (talk) 15:37, 3 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and any recurrence (Pippa Middleton?) should be reason to lok at a TBAN. This is so far beyond plausible as to be firmly into disruptive. She's not WP:Notable because she's related to the royals, she's WP:Notable because such a vast number of sources, even beyond the tabloids, cover her because she's related to the royals. Andy Dingley (talk) 15:45, 3 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Very notable subject with plenty of solid sources. Lightburst (talk) 20:11, 3 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep all Folding Pippa into this nom takes this into WP:BADFAITH for me. Plenty of WP:N with all three subjects. There are subjects I feel non-notable myself (streamers and Instagram influencers) that I choose not to nom because many more people actually do and I just ignore it otherwise because there's plenty of other things to do here; I'd suggest doing the same from hereon out. Nate • (chatter) 00:29, 4 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep all This is ridiculous - all three persons have been written about in books, interviewed for feature articles by UK The Times "et al" and continue to feature in novels and newspaper articles regularly 175.32.82.245 (talk) 09:33, 4 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep all Regardless of whether you believe that being related to other famous people should generate enough significant coverage to pass WP:GNG, in the case of James Middleton it clearly has. The other Middleton's (especially Pippa!) have had even more coverage. Caeciliusinhorto (talk) 16:40, 4 July 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 Family Stadium for now at least. Could be restored to a full article in the future if sufficient reliable source coverage is found. RL0919 (talk) 16:10, 10 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Family Stadium 2003

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

This video game does not meet WP:GNG for the lack of significant coverage in multiple reliable sources. Nothing to be found in my searches except for the IGN paragraph on [7], nothing on Moby, Metacritic or archives. Was deprodded with a WP:THEREMUSTBESOURCES rationale. Jovanmilic97 (talk) 08:58, 25 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Video games-related deletion discussions. Jovanmilic97 (talk) 08:58, 25 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Looks like a Japan-only release to me. May have better luck finding sources under the name Famista 2003 and the Japanese title for the series which seems to be ファミスタシリーズ - X201 (talk) 09:38, 25 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Noted. Sadly, even the Japanese Wikipedia article for Family Stadium (Famista) 2003 (the one you linked is about the series as whole, not this title) is unsourced as well. Jovanmilic97 (talk) 12:55, 25 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment -- Jovan, could you also tag the Japan related AfD list, as what is needed here is someone who can look for Japanese sources? matt91486 (talk) 09:51, 26 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep -- I cannot speak Japanese, but as far as I can tell, the Famitsu page for the game is [8]. This also seems to be relevant directly [9]. There are lots of links from sites like this [10] or [11] or [12] that I lack the background to speak for their ability to count as reliable sources, but clearly are about the topic. Language expertise is needed. But at first glance with as best as I can do language wise, there seem to be sufficient cites available, as expected, even if they will require someone who can properly speak Japanese to say for sure and/or incorporate them. matt91486 (talk) 10:01, 26 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Matt91486, Famitsu is just a listing, which could verify the release date, but does not contribute towards WP:GNG. [13] and [14] seem unreliable sadly, cannot find any staff writing those and both feel blog-like. However, [15] is reliable per Wikipedia:WikiProject Video games/Sources and [16] could potentially be good (I think this would need WP:VG involvement for the reliability). Considering the reliability of the 3rd source is still in question, I am in the phase merge the information to Family Stadium per the policy WP:PRESERVE as I don't think it has independent notability at worst. What do you think about the merging? Jovanmilic97 (talk) 11:46, 26 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Jovanmilic97: - I'm personally still inclined toward keep; however, I do think a merger and redirect would be a preferable resolution to an outright delete. I am still hopeful that if we get it on the list of Japanese-related deletions, we might be able to get someone who can far more effectively search than I was able to, to see what sources are out there. matt91486 (talk) 05:46, 27 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Just Chilling (talk) 14:43, 3 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Baseball-related deletion discussions. Icewhiz (talk) 15:37, 3 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Japan-related deletion discussions. Icewhiz (talk) 15:37, 3 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Family Stadium as there's really no content to merge. Redirect is a favorable alternative to deletion and I can see some plausibility as a search term. Red Phoenix ^talk 12:18, 10 July 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. Sandstein 14:40, 10 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Dirk Bezemer

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

Contested BLP prod, no evidence of notability. Acroterion (talk) 16:47, 25 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. ___CAPTAIN MEDUSAtalk 16:56, 25 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Germany-related deletion discussions. Owlf 17:08, 25 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 11:13, 28 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Very weak keep. He has a plausible case for WP:PROF#C1 via well cited publications in Google Scholar [17] but we need more than a link to his personal web page to support even a stub like this. —David Eppstein (talk) 07:44, 30 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Just Chilling (talk) 14:34, 3 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep a case of WP:NEXIST Lightburst (talk) 20:31, 3 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, clearly relevant according to WP:PROF#C1 with 4 publications with > 100 citations. But I agree, the article needs some work. --hroest 20:52, 3 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep the article, it's notable and some sources as A, B, C, D, F, you can find that paid to subject.Forest90 (talk) 11:24, 10 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. Sandstein 10:45, 17 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Maclaine Diemer

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

Fails to establish notability per WP:GNG and WP:BIO. Lacks reliable sources per WP:RS. Most of the references are self-published and none are from independent, third party sources. Geoff | ^{Who, me?} 20:27, 25 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Glane23: removed the section about the "early life" due to not having any sources other than LinkedIn

removed the first 2 paragraphs about Maclaine working for Smelly Van Riders, and Boston Search Group, Inc

added more sources to cite him working for rock band

Awaiting reply...

Kantoon0805 (talk) 09:42, 27 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Update: Checked over other music composers such as "Jeremy Soule", and most of the specific information about him comes from interviews from multiple websites, his wikipedia article has the "good article" tag too. I do not see why Maclaine can't have the same.

Kantoon0805 (talk) 01:04, 26 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Over the past week I have worked hard to ensure that the sources in the article are credible, reliable, and not self-published. I think that the article looks significantly better now compared to when it was nominated for deletion. I believe that the article is now notable and has reliable sources and it would be better to continue improving the article rather than deleting it entirely. Kantoon0805 (talk) 20:49, 29 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. ___CAPTAIN MEDUSAtalk 21:39, 25 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Video games-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 21:56, 25 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 21:56, 25 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Just Chilling (talk) 14:34, 3 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 00:16, 10 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Despite the efforts to make the article notable, most of the sources are interviews or other WP:PRIMARY sources. I don't see a demonstration of significant coverage in secondary sources specifically about this person._{ZXCVBNM (TALK)} 01:08, 15 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep WP:ANYBIO is met. Or perhaps WP:ARTIST #1 "The person is regarded as an important figure or is widely cited by peers or successors." He has done music for notable projects. He has also won awards from reliable sources in this industry based on his music in video games. Dream Focus 01:52, 15 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

WP:ANYBIO is not an instant get-out-of-AfD-free card. "People are likely to be notable if they meet any of the following standards. Failure to meet these criteria is not conclusive proof that a subject should not be included; conversely, meeting one or more does not guarantee that a subject should be included." Is there proof that it satisfies notability?_{ZXCVBNM (TALK)} 02:30, 15 July 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. Tone 18:17, 10 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Galilee of the Nations

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

Delete - Does not meet notability guidelines for companies and It has not been the subject of significant coverage in multiple reliable secondary sources that are independent of the subject. Lack of WP:SIGCOV Cox wasan (talk) 21:07, 25 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Israel-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 21:50, 25 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 21:50, 25 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Judaism-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 21:50, 25 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 21:50, 25 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Tennessee-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 21:50, 25 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 21:51, 25 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep This appears to be refutable on its face; despite the label not meeting WP:MUSIC's sense of one of the more important indie labels, it still seems to reach the GNG without a significant roster, as it's been covered by Billboard multiple times (which are already in the article). (Perhaps, with better coverage of Israeli music, we will see that it meets both criteria.) Chubbles (talk) 01:52, 26 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

~~*Delete~~ fails WP:CORP, fails WP:GNG. I searched google, books and proquest newspapers, and all that I found were the sort of mentions User:Chubbles describes, where a recording is describes as issues by Galilee, and a news article about the hiring of of a new pastor by a local church which mentions that he had worked for this church. Most hits on this phrase are about other stuff entirely (a proposed Christian theme part; a theological concept...) There is no doubt that this Christian record label exists, but no evidence that it is a notable label. E.M.Gregory (talk) 14:58, 26 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Just Chilling (talk) 14:33, 3 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Don't believe it passes WP:GNG MaskedSinger (talk) 16:47, 3 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Not with three pieces in Billboard - the top American publication for record label info - and a further article from a major Christian magazine, as is currently in the article? Chubbles (talk) 04:30, 4 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep the Billboard coverage is independent of the label, demonstrating notability.--Epiphyllumlover (talk) 21:33, 5 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as has independent reliable sources coverage such as multiple articles in Billboard and Cross Rythms (a Christian music reliable source) so passes WP:GNG thanks Atlantic306 (talk) 16:15, 6 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
tepid keep. My searches find only mentions in the context of albums released, and an album reviewed. I have added some to the page. No in depth coverage, but I suppose that an argument can be made that a small record label is like a small publisher, notable because it is useful to know who produced a work of musical merit. And the fact that albums produced are reviewed in WP:RS publications supports notability of publisher.E.M.Gregory (talk) 18:18, 7 July 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) 14:06, 10 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Islamabad Orchards

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

Permastub about a housing project created by an WP:SPA fails WP:GEOLAND and WP:GNG. Nothing in a WP:BEFORE search shows this meets notability criteria. Dom from Paris (talk) 13:55, 3 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Architecture-related deletion discussions. Dom from Paris (talk) 13:55, 3 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. Dom from Paris (talk) 13:55, 3 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - there are Zero reliable sources about this small rural housing scheme. We can't even prove it exists. Bearian (talk) 16:26, 8 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I can't find it on google. Not notable. Szzuk (talk) 12:30, 9 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete- Fail passes WP:GEOLAND - MA Javadi (talk) 19:11, 9 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete the Article, it's not notable and fails GNG.Forest90 (talk) 11:33, 10 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. 78.26 _{(spin me / revolutions)} 14:34, 10 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

River Gardens, Islamabad

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

Fails WP:GEOLAND nothing found in a WP:BEFORE search to show this meets WP:GNG. It is a housing development project and the page was created by an WP:SPA Dom from Paris (talk) 13:32, 3 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Architecture-related deletion discussions. Dom from Paris (talk) 13:32, 3 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. Dom from Paris (talk) 13:32, 3 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:MILL. Assuming an average family size of 6.45 persons, this 660-plot housing estate has about 4,257 people. That's too small to be notable automatically, and no evidence of significant coverage exists. Bearian (talk) 16:32, 8 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. 78.26 _{(spin me / revolutions)} 14:34, 10 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Potohari Arts & Crafts Village, Islamabad

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

Fails WP:GNG and WP:GEOLAND article one of many created by an WP:SPA probably connected to the project creator. Dom from Paris (talk) 13:29, 3 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Architecture-related deletion discussions. Dom from Paris (talk) 13:29, 3 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. Dom from Paris (talk) 13:29, 3 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - it's allegedly a market, and a small one at that. Bearian (talk) 16:33, 8 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. 78.26 _{(spin me / revolutions)} 14:34, 10 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Gulberg, Islamabad

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

Fails WP:GEOLAND and GNG. Looks like a promotional piece by a WP:COI account. Dom from Paris (talk) 13:16, 3 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. Dom from Paris (talk) 13:16, 3 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Architecture-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 13:32, 3 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 13:32, 3 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. It appears to be the location only of a non notable housing project. My web searches are not returning anything. Szzuk (talk) 12:33, 9 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy delete as hoax vandalism. I couldn't find a trace of such a festival, either. Normally I would simply add that to the discussion. Then I looked at other edits by the creator's account, including old versions of some pages. That convinced me that deletion on sight is quite safe in this instance. I did not spot anything else in article space that has not long since been dealt with. Uncle G (talk) 17:43, 3 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

GIMP Festival

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

I can find absolutely no evidence that this music festival has ever existed. Lord Belbury (talk) 12:47, 3 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. Icewhiz (talk) 12:56, 3 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. Icewhiz (talk) 12:56, 3 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. Icewhiz (talk) 12:56, 3 July 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. Tone 07:09, 10 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Biker metal

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

Fails WP:NOTABILITY. The term "Biker metal" does not appear to refer to a specific genre of music and instead seems to refer to multiple styles of rock, punk, and metal music TankieMrBanky (talk) 16:23, 19 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 19. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 16:34, 19 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. ^Thanks,L3X1 ◊distænt write◊ 17:02, 19 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose although some sources seem to have different definitions, there is a pretty wide variety of sources discussing it, namely its heavy use by writers like Martin Popoff and Sleazegrinder of Classic Rock, which definitely seems to make it notable. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Issan Sumisu (talk • contribs) 18:13, 19 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
These references don't seem to refer to biker metal as a distinct genre but instead refer to heavy metal music that appeals to bikers. The fact that a simple google search only returns a last.fm tag for biker metal and a bandcamp tag for Biker Metal makes it seem like there isn't much notability for this "genre". — Preceding unsigned comment added by TankieMrBanky (talk • contribs) 20:47, 25 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
What sources are you referring to when you say that? Because for example: loudwire.com/metallica-reload-anniversary/ says that "Reload, by contrast, was more experimental, blending biker metal, southern rock and unconventional arrangements"; www.hardradio.com/hr3.html?http%3A%2F%2Fwww.hardradio.com%2Freviews%2Freviews071598.php3 says "Tank's This Means War combined a scampered biker metal with epic war tales"; and www.loudersound.com/features/flash-metal-suicide-the-almighty says "Otherwise, it’s state of the art biker metal, right down to the ridiculous hollow-drum production." These all seem pretty definite in it being a genre. Issan Sumisu (talk) 05:48, 26 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

These references don't really say what "biker metal" is. Is it just heavy metal music that bikers like? Is it metal influenced by punk music? If so, what differentiates this from crust punk, speed metal, or NWOBHM? These references to the term don't really seem to differentiate it as a genre.TankieMrBanky (talk) 16:27, 26 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

loudwire.com/motorhead-overkill-album-anniversary/ describes it as "bluesy" and "bombastic"; www.loudersound.com/features/flash-metal-suicide-steve-jones says its "glam metal gone Mad Max"; in Teenage Wasteland: Suburbia's Dead End Kids by Donna Gaines it's described as a fusion of metal, punk and rock and roll. Most of the sources culminate in basically just saying it's the whole sound that Motorhead spawned. Issan Sumisu (talk) 18:05, 26 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 09:02, 26 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The topic is notable. For example, see the article in Spin. Andrew D. (talk) 09:45, 26 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 12:35, 3 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Added a paragraph on the musical characteristics of biker metal, with references. The term is definitely used in several reliable publications when referring to music, and there exists significant coverage of the nature of biker metal as a distinct genre (and not just 'metal that bikers like'). Gilded Snail (talk) 20:11, 3 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep — whether a musical genre is well-defined or not isn't an argument for or against deletion. Featured articles on genres where there is no universal consensus on the definition include Grunge, Heavy metal music, Punk Rock, New wave of British heavy metal and Viking metal. If reliable sources use the term, then the basis for an article exists. Sourcing is sufficient to meet WP:GNG. Perhaps the reliable sources who recognize this genre are wrong; we have articles about things that are wrong, like Phlogiston theory. Perhaps the content could be upmerged into some broader topic for organizational and structural reasons (rather than failing notability) but that falls to local consensus, not AfD. To me it doesn't look like a good merge candidate. --Dennis Bratland (talk) 21:29, 6 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per Dennis Bratland above. --Matthiaspaul (talk) 01:14, 8 July 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 14:39, 10 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

American Innovation $1 Coin Program Design - Obverse

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

I don't believe that the rejected obverse designs of the American Innovation $1 Coin Program are notable enough for their own article. ZLEA _T\^C 11:57, 3 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I would be fine with combining the pages so we have a record of the options the government considered, and what changes were made from the final design to the finished product. That being said, I don't think the sub-page meets any of the criteria for deletion.Iceman0426 (talk) 15:25, 3 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I too am fine with merging, but a table of the proposed designs might be a little too much. I think we should mention that twelve design proposals were made, and compare the chosen design drawing to the eventual coin design. Having a table of proposed designs might lead to people questioning why there isn't a similar table for each reverse design. - ZLEA _T\^C 18:12, 3 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The committee's mandate is to do this process for all of the coins. So we will be able to do the same thing for all 57 coins in the program. I think adding the winning design to the main page is a good idea. I realize that the design pages will be smaller than the main pages, but I don't see a problem with having them. Iceman0426 (talk) 19:55, 3 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Finance-related deletion discussions. Icewhiz (talk) 13:00, 3 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Icewhiz (talk) 13:00, 3 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletion discussions. Icewhiz (talk) 13:02, 3 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I would encourage a link the in the main article to the Mint's website with rejected designs, but we should not have a separate article just to memorialize failed alternatives in a gallery - these are simply not notable and do not receive substantive tertiary coverage. This doesn't even belong in the main article but should be limited to a brief mention per ZLEA. Do NOT do this for every coin reverse design – not even the individual coins in the series are notable, much less what didn't actually get minted. Reywas92^Talk 07:43, 4 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I disagree that the designs are not notable. In addition to being on the usmint.gov and the ccac.gov, here are some places where the designs also receive attention: mintnewsblog.com, new.coinupdate.com, thepatrioticmint.com, numismaticnews.net, coinworld.com, usstatequarters.com. This demonstrates that there is interest in the designs and the process. I mentioned to ZLEA a few different options to make everybody happy. I redid the table and put a sample at the bottom of the obverse page as an example that could be used for any of the ideas so that it would take up much less room. First, with the smaller format we could put it on the main page. Second, the page could be renamed (something like "American Innovation $1 Coin Program Proposed Designs), and all designs put on a single page. Finally, they could be put on under the CCAC's page. Iceman0426 (talk) 01:54, 6 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Just because the designs are on a government website and recieve attention from websites that track progress of CCAC design eliminations, that does not mean they are notable. If you think the rejected designs are notable enough to be included in a separate article or even in the main article despite the lack of secondary sources, then you should be able to tell us why they are significant. - ZLEA _T\^C 12:13, 6 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, does not meet WP:GNG, only sources official, and blog/fan sites. Coolabahapple (talk) 00:58, 7 July 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. Despite two relists this AfD has been characterised by a lack of interest! The last comment was nearly 3 weeks ago so I can't justify a 3rd relist. This close is without prejudice to a separate move discussion. Just Chilling (talk) 15:44, 17 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Sun Records (other companies)

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

Having an article about a bunch of unrelated record labels called "Sun" makes about as much sense as an indiscriminate article about people named "Roger". Either the labels are notable, or they're not. This is just weird. —Chowbok ☠ 09:20, 26 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. CASSIOPEIA^(talk) 09:33, 26 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. CASSIOPEIA^(talk) 09:33, 26 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Tennessee-related deletion discussions. CASSIOPEIA^(talk) 09:33, 26 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of France-related deletion discussions.-Nahal (talk) 11:54, 26 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment For what it's worth, there have been decades of of discussion about "other" Sun Records labels among record collectors. However, I get the point of the nomination. With sources I have, I could create articles for the Leeds & Catlin version, the Toronto Canada version, the 1946 Jewish label, and the Albuquerque label. Often they are discussed, though, in order to dispel confusion for newer collectors who think they have a rare Sam Phillips-related item. A lot of this article is obvious original research ("listed on ebay"), but I don't think that outright deleting the entire article is the best option per WP:PRESERVE. 78.26 _{(spin me / revolutions)} 14:12, 26 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Move to Sun Records (disambiguation) and cut back significantly, to have only one line about each of the record companies that don't have articles yet. Since there are two Sun Records companies that already have articles and several others that don't (although some might have articles in the future), disambiguation seems appropriate for this situation. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 04:39, 27 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 11:44, 3 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Hugsyrup (talk) 12:14, 10 July 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. 78.26 _{(spin me / revolutions)} 17:51, 17 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Brent Valley Golf Club

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

Not notable private golf course ...William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 10:15, 26 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. ...William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 10:15, 26 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. ...William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 10:15, 26 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

weak keep What makes a golf club or golf course notable? This is adequately sourced as an article. Is a golf course notable as part of a gazetteer? In this case, I think the article is hinging on the social history aspect, and the club having been founded as early as 1909. That's a long time ago in golfing terms, placing it into the great English late-Victorian golf boom. I see that as significant enough to keep. Andy Dingley (talk) 10:28, 26 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Golf-related deletion discussions. ...William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 12:38, 26 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Notable golf course. Andrew D. (talk) 12:48, 26 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Non-notable golf course. Very short by modern standards. Never hosted an important event and never likely to. One many golf course founded in the UK in the pre-WWI period. Nigej (talk) 09:08, 27 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 11:34, 3 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Delete Id like to see more references MaskedSinger (talk) 16:50, 3 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Hanwell. Section on it there already. Hyperbolick (talk) 18:58, 5 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 00:41, 7 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. It's run of the mill and not notable. There's cites to personal emails, the records of the club, and other unreliable sources. Even if it were 110 years old, that's not rare in the UK, per Nigej. It has only 100 members, and appears not to be open to the public. No major 'masters' or similar golf event happens there. There's no evidence of notable members (perhaps royalty?). Bearian (talk) 16:24, 8 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
You say the club "appears not to be open to the public". This is quite obviously incorrect. On the contrary, the course is a municipal course operated by the council, and open to everyone. If you refer to the club, rather than the club, it can also be joined very easily by anyone. I also disagree that the sources are unreliable. They include newspapers in the national archive and golf annuals in the British Library. 86.15.199.72 (talk) 15:29, 16 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Reply posted prior to logging in by myself. Rugfoot (talk) 15:34, 16 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The club currently has 175 members, not "only 100" as you state (where did you get this figure??). I know this as I have access to the club's membership data base. Rugfoot (talk) 16:07, 16 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The club is hardly "run of the mill": it won Middlesex Club of the Year in 2022. Rugfoot (talk) 16:11, 16 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Hugsyrup (talk) 12:13, 10 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Keep - The references on the page include ones that we are unable to examine as they are in Ealing Library and the British Library. Per WP:NEXIST so long as the references likely exist to support notability we should assume it is notable. FOARP (talk) 12:42, 10 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
You may not be able to examine the references but should an article be deleted because of your own personal research limitations? When I created this page, I visited these libraries and found the sources first-hand. Rugfoot (talk) 15:32, 16 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - fails WP:ORG. Lacks in-depth coverage, never hosted a major, nothing notable about it nor about events played there. Just Chilling (talk) 15:08, 17 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
The club has a long history (founded in 1909) but it is thriving now. It is notable for having won Middlesex Club of the Year as recently as 2022. Rugfoot (talk) 16:00, 16 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. The available evidence indicates little to no support for notability. Of the three readily accessible sources, ref 1 is not independent and doesn't mention the club on the linked page (although on search of the entire site, there are a few passing mentions in blog posts); ref 4 mentions the club only in passing; and ref 5 does not mention the club at all. Of the offline sources, ref 9 is clearly not a reliable source; refs 3 and 10, being the obituary of a person are not likely to have significant coverage of the golf club. The rest have too little information available to assess, but based on the track record of what we can see, it is not justifiable to assume they contain enough to support notability. --RL0919 (talk) 16:15, 17 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I disagree with your comments re Ref 1. The NAPGC is quite clearly an leading independent national body; the reference to the club on its website is not "passing". It is listed as one of the NAPGC's affiliated clubs. This is not a "blog post". Similarly, ref 4 is not a "passing" mention. The club was one of the main achievements of the subject of the obituary. On ref 5, it is disingenuous to say it doesn't mention the name "Brent Valley": that's because it had a different name. That's the whole point of this piece of information. Your assertion that ref 9 is not a reliable source is clearly groundless. The Middlesex County Times was a longstanding and leading regional newspaper. Again, on the obituary, the golf club was a major achievement in Albert Toley's life, so it is significantly covered in the obituary. Rugfoot (talk) 15:53, 16 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep passes WP:GEOFEAT Built in 1909 this course is an historic place. Passes WP:ORGCRITE with references: non-Trivial coverage exists in the Ealing Times, More non trivial here My London News, History of the club's founding detailed WP:NEXIST I can see how a WP:BEFORE missed the mark Lightburst (talk) 17:43, 17 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. Sandstein 14:32, 10 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Bioinvent

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

I PRODded this, saying "Article lacks proper secondary sourcing; nothing in here makes it somehow automatically notable." Creator removed the tag, saying "does have secondary sources"--yeah, but not proper ones, except for one short article in a local Swedish paper, and one (about the founder, mostly) in a publication from the University of Lund. Given that the company was founded in 1983, that's not a lot, to put it mildly. Drmies (talk) 18:16, 19 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

It does have proper ones, Sydsvenskan, Dagens industri, and Lund University are proper sources. Ljuvlig (talk) 18:23, 19 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Sydsvenskan is the dominating newspaper in southern Sweden. I wouldn't lump it together with "local papers" in general. /Julle (talk) 23:37, 19 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 19:12, 19 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sweden-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 19:12, 19 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Dagens Nyheter, which is Swedens biggest newspaper, has now been added to the list. Ljuvlig (talk) 08:01, 20 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep, but better yet create Carl Borrebaeck and merge into that. I can't see the Dagens Nyheter article beyond the opening, which suggests it offers little more than corroboration of one of the listed collaborations with other companies. The Dagens industri search link yielded nothing I saw as useful beyond referencing the company's research focus (2 of the 3 articles there are focused on their financials). I agree Sydsvenskan is not to be sneezed at, but I'd like to see at least one similar article all about the company rather than what we have, which is that plus a couple of short articles and the Lund University mag on Borrebaeck. Borrebaeck, in contrast, appears to meet our notability standard handily: first professor of immunology in Scandinavia, member of a learned society, has received what appears to be a major award, and much coverage mentions more than one of the companies he's founded (one source says this was the first). Yngvadottir (talk) 16:23, 20 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 08:59, 26 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 11:34, 3 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - per sourcing and per WP:GNG.BabbaQ (talk) 20:06, 8 July 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. It has been 2 weeks since the last comment so I can't justify a 3rd relist. Stubbyfying looks a good idea but that is for subsequent editorial action. Just Chilling (talk) 01:07, 17 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

World Scholar's Cup

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

I started massive cleanup of this article and I'm at the point where I can't find independent sources to back up any of the claims. Coverage is international but routine, with these being some of the articles I've found in my attempt to source this thing: [19] or [20]. I thought I found an article from the UAE which could verify at least some of the claims in the introduction, but it turned out to have copy-and-pasted Wikipedia. It's very possibly notable, see [21], but as this stands it's entirely sourced to primary sites, very crufty, possibly promotional, and not encyclopaedic. Best case scenario seems to be WP:TNT to me, so nominating it for deletion. SportingFlyer T·C 08:20, 26 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. SportingFlyer T·C 08:20, 26 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. CASSIOPEIA^(talk) 09:38, 26 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. --Nahal^(T) 12:07, 03 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep but stubify if necessary and go from there. Coverage is significant enough and widespread enough to indicate notability, but detail is lacking. Primary sources are fine but rebuilding from the ground up is necessary to deal with the tone. Triptothecottage (talk) 07:20, 3 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Triptothecottage: Would you mind posting some links to sources which you think pass WP:GNG? They'd be helpful for improving the article, and I'm at a total loss here. SportingFlyer T·C 16:25, 3 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 11:33, 3 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 00:18, 10 July 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 14:30, 10 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Shadow Gunner: The Robot Wars

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

No sign of meeting WP:GNG or WP:NVG. I recognise that this is an old game and coverage may be offline, but since I can find not one RS to indicate any kind of lasting influence, I'm working on the assumption this didn't attract "significant commentary or analysis" even at the time. Considered a merge, but the developer has no page, and there is nothing worth merging to the publisher Ubi Soft. Hugsyrup (talk) 10:31, 3 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Video games-related deletion discussions. Hugsyrup (talk) 10:31, 3 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of France-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 11:08, 3 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Upon a search, absolutely no actual coverage of this game is findable. The only things out there are listings on old game databases and pricelists. (Changing search results to French, searching "shadow gunner jeu video", and looking for other apocryphal mentions of the game on Reddit also yield nothing.) Gilded Snail (talk) 19:36, 3 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Found four sources - three magazine sources that I found on Mobygames and one source mentioning it in passing. However, the number of sources is rather too low, so delete. - Bryn (talk) (contributions) 21:03, 3 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Tone 07:08, 10 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Open-Realty

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

The refs provided are all to the organisation’s own site and I am not able to find any reliable independent sources to support it. Mccapra (talk) 05:33, 3 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Advertising-related deletion discussions. Mccapra (talk) 05:33, 3 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Mccapra (talk) 05:33, 3 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. Mccapra (talk) 05:33, 3 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. Mccapra (talk) 05:33, 3 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete in a WP:BEFORE search I could find noting that supports this company's notability. I found another company Open Realty Adivsors that gets a few hits but this seems to have nothing to do with the subject of the article. Fails WP:NORG. --Dom from Paris (talk) 08:45, 3 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Tone 07:08, 10 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Geoffrey Steele

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

Actor with questionable notability. Despite being in over 25 roles, most of them appear uncredited. So he isn't really even a character actor. Not a single role stands out. If not delete-a redirect to his wife. Wgolf (talk) 05:11, 3 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to his wife Mildred Shay although even her notability is marginal (she was sort of famous for being famous). Pichpich (talk) 05:19, 3 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of South Africa-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 06:17, 3 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 06:17, 3 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 06:18, 3 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 06:18, 3 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 06:19, 3 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 06:19, 3 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to his wife's page. --Dom from Paris (talk) 08:51, 3 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete. appears to be a copy vio of his IMDB page. No clue what his role was in these films. MensanDeltiologist (talk) 23:46, 8 July 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) 06:49, 10 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The Adventures of Super Pickle

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

Non-notable book per WP:BK. SL93 (talk) 04:08, 3 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 06:21, 3 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 06:21, 3 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - searches did not turn up enough in-depth coverage to show it passes WP:GNG, and doesn't appear to meet WP:NBOOK. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 10:43, 3 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Doesn't satisfy WP:GNG MaskedSinger (talk) 16:54, 3 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as per nominaton.TH1980 (talk) 05:11, 4 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails GNG. --qedk (t 桜 c) 07:51, 4 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, does not meet WP:NBOOK or WP:GNG, unable to find any reviews, not surprising given low library holdings under 10, Walley, the author, appears to have only written for hallmark see here, so again unsurprising that his works have not been reviewed. Coolabahapple (talk) 00:30, 7 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Cannot find any sources, so fails WP:GNG. Also fails WP:NBOOK. William2001^(talk) 22:05, 9 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) Spirit of Eagle (talk) 02:13, 17 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Rebecca Abe

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

There is nothing here that would count as a reliable, indepth indepdent source. She has written and illustrated some works, however the easiest to identify case is her illustrating a book that was first published before her birth, and thus her illustrating an edition of it has little connection with the work being a truly notable one. John Pack Lambert (talk) 03:45, 3 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 06:23, 3 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Germany-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 06:23, 3 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I note that the German Wikipedia entry has a lot more information about other works she has written and/or illustrated, under the names Rebecca Abe, Stephanie Schuster, Stephanie Fey, and Ida Ding; her maiden name was Stephanie Wagner. The German WP article has a link to this profile [22], but unfortunately no other reviews or articles about her. I will try to find more. RebeccaGreen (talk) 06:58, 3 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Comment A quick google search leads me to the following articles: in the Süddeutsche Zeitung [23]; Augsburger Allgemeine [24] and [25]; SWP [26]. Still looking. RebeccaGreen (talk) 07:27, 3 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. ...William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 11:17, 3 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I have added the sources I linked to above, with a bit more information. There is more biographical info to add from those sources, and I have yet to search for more. I believe that she does meet WP:NAUTHOR - there may be reviews of her illustrations, but there are certainly reviews of her novels and articles about her as a novelist. RebeccaGreen (talk) 18:55, 9 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 00:18, 10 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per RebeccaGreen. XOR'easter (talk) 17:43, 10 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per RebeccaGreen.E.M.Gregory (talk) 17:56, 11 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) Spirit of Eagle (talk) 03:32, 10 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Holy Holy (band)

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

The article Holy Holy (band) is one of two bands with the name of Holy Holy, neither is primary, so this should be further differentiated to separate it from the Australian band, Holy Holy (Australian band), but when searching for a defining characteristic for this band, it reveals itself as an undistinguished band with no importance or stand-alone notability and no sources supporting the article. Mburrell (talk) 03:32, 3 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 05:39, 3 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Probably notable because several of its members are individually notable and because of its national and international touring of the United Kingdom, Japan and the United States. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 05:41, 3 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 06:27, 3 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Japan-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 06:27, 3 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 06:27, 3 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Keep as per #6 of WP:BAND. There was a serious lack of sources though (none). But a quick search for Holy Holy along with Tony Visconti throws up literally dozens of references from sources such as The Guardian and Billboard, I have added 8 references but the article needs improving with information from these or other sources. I think the nominator could have been a little more diligent with his WP:BEFORE search, that said I do agree that the title could be less ambiguous. Maybe Holy Holy (tribute band) or Holy Holy (UK band or Holy Holy (supergroup). --Dom from Paris (talk) 09:45, 3 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Obviously notable given the people involved and the coverage that a Google search brings back. --Michig (talk) 11:49, 3 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Satisfied of it satisfying notability but continue to work on itMaskedSinger (talk) 16:54, 3 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Comment One argument I keep seeing here is that the band is notable because the participants are notable. Notability is not inherited (WP:INHERITED), so the group is defined as notable if it has done something notable. Has it received significant coverage from reliable sources that are specific to the group, and not coverage about the participants with a comment about the group? Has it released any notable albums? Has it charted on any national charts? The fact that Tony Visconti is a member of the group does not make the group notable. Mburrell (talk) 02:11, 4 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Please read WP:NMUSIC. One of the accepted criteria for notability is "Is an ensemble that contains two or more independently notable musicians", which is clearly satisfied here, and if you bothered to do a Google search you would find several examples of significant coverage. --Michig (talk) 10:05, 4 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Mburrell: you should read up on notability criteria before nominating. Also did you look at the sources I added? They clearly cover the group and not just one of the members. I don't want to be rude but this is really a no brainer. There are dozens of reliable sources to show it meets GNG and it also meets the SSC. I don't understand why you are continuing to defend this nomination. I'm not asking you to withdraw the nomination we have all nominated pages that get kept it's not a biggie but everyone has explained why this should be kept in very clear terms. Dom from Paris (talk) 07:57, 7 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I have never defended this nomination. I objected to an argument in the defense that seemed to imply that notability was inherited, but Michig pointed out that I glossed over one of the criteria, a group is notable if more than two musicians in the ensemble are notable. Since Glen Gregory and James Stevenson are notable, that satisfied the criteria. I would argue that Tony Visconti is not notable as a musician although he is notable in the music industry as a producer, but that doesn't matter as Gregory and Stevenson are all that matter for this criteria. I have never made any comments about your reliable sources, nor dismissed them. In fact, I have bowed to consensus and kept my mouth shut, until you decided to speak to me, and I felt you were responding to the initial nomination and not anything I have said or not said since. Mburrell (talk) 03:13, 9 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep as has significant coverage in reliable sources such as The Guardian, Billboard The Scotsman and others as well as passing criteria#6 of WP:NMUSIC so there is no need for deletion imv, thanks Atlantic306 (talk) 21:40, 6 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per above. A Google search brings up multiple coverages that satisfy GNG. William2001^(talk) 22:06, 9 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Comment What does this article have to do with Japan? Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 00:32, 10 July 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) 06:49, 10 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Ramana Sayahi

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

Declined a hoax speedy request because it's either not a hoax or a really good one. However, can't find sources in English to show notability. I don't read Persian so I don't have a way to evaluate the sources in the article -- hoping for more eyes on this. --Fabrictramp | talk to me 03:13, 3 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. --Fabrictramp | talk to me 03:13, 3 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Iran-related deletion discussions. --Fabrictramp | talk to me 03:13, 3 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete As best I can tell this person is performing in a film, but being in a film is not a default show of notability.John Pack Lambert (talk) 03:18, 3 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 06:29, 3 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 06:29, 3 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 06:29, 3 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per John's comments -- the coverage is also really spotty in mostly user-generated or paparatzi-driven coverage, and the claim to notability at the beginning of the article doesn't make a lot of sense -- at the very least its self promotional, at the very worst its a hoax, and if its neither of those, the coverage in the sources appears to be minor at best. I would feel a lot more comfortable with it if there was more consistent coverage in Persian Wikipedia. Sadads (talk) 17:11, 4 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Seems like a promotional article, although again, I cannot read the Persian article. William2001^(talk) 22:08, 9 July 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) 06:49, 10 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Mohammed Usama Khan

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

Subject does not yet meet WP:GNG. it's WP:TOOSOON. PROD removed by fellow editor referencing the three sources. (Two appear to be fan publications, the third is a decent write-up, but not from a reliable publication). Orville^talk 00:55, 3 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. Orville^talk 00:55, 3 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Orville^talk 00:55, 3 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bodybuilding-related deletion discussions. Orville^talk 00:55, 3 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Orville^talk 00:55, 3 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete No secondary resources, does not yet meet WP:GNG.Charmk (talk) 02:44, 3 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete WP:TOOSOON. --Muhandes (talk) 10:11, 5 July 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. It seems like the article needs some reworking to clarify that the subject is the stage musical and the film is an adaptation of that, but given that WP:AFDISNOTCLEANUP the discussion indicates there is enough coverage to support notability for the play. RL0919 (talk) 02:23, 10 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Saturday's Warrior

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

Does not meet WP:NFILM. Has had COI and neutrality templates for 3.5 years. Citations needed for 3 years. The article also states, "Saturday's Warrior is not well known outside the Mormon community." PROD removed. by fellow editor. Orville^talk 00:37, 3 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. Orville^talk 00:37, 3 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Religion-related deletion discussions. Orville^talk 00:37, 3 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. Orville^talk 00:37, 3 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States-related deletion discussions. --Nahal^(T) 01:40, 03 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I created this article years ago. It definitely has COI, notability and neutrality issues. I wouldn't mind if the topic was just mentioned on Wikipedia in a short paragraph or list item in another article. I feel like I need to point out, though, that other stuff exists and is listed at the Mormon cinema article. Tea and crumpets (talk) 03:12, 3 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I have add multiple articles covering this wide ranging work. To be clear, this is not a film. It is a stage production, that as such managed to permeate the culture of members of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints. True, it is most often reacted to as either a very simplistic work, or a doctrinally wrong work. However it is present in doscourse, and its musical numbers are of great power. The film is not the thing, but the stage production.John Pack Lambert (talk) 04:06, 3 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I just keep finding more sources. Still, Saturday's Warrior is a work of the 1970s, reflecting the culture of the 1970s, so probably some of the best sources are not easy to locate on the internet.John Pack Lambert (talk) 04:42, 3 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment - The very first source in the article states it's a film. The infobox lists a director, actors, a release date, and a distributor. That all describes a film as do the sources. Is your argument that this article is about something else? Orville^talk 05:35, 3 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  - It was a stage musical long before it was a film. Many of the sources are about both.John Pack Lambert (talk) 14:59, 4 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as it is notable with reviews in multiple reliable sources that have been added to the article so that it passes WP:GNG regards Atlantic306 (talk) 16:23, 6 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per ample WP:SIGCOV. Including some I just added.E.M.Gregory (talk) 00:32, 9 July 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 Kamala Harris. RL0919 (talk) 02:14, 10 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Douglas Emhoff

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

Subject fails WP:GNG. Any news coverage of him is in the context of his famous spouse, and notability is WP:NOTINHERETED. I tried to revert this back into a redirect, which I think is appropriate, only to be reverted back, so here we are. – Muboshgu (talk) 00:25, 3 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect. I don't see enough there for him to be considered notable enough for an article: he doesn't meet Wikipedia:Notability (people)#Basic criteria and we don't have a Wikipedia:Notability (lawyers) guideline. Some of what was added could be in the page about his wife if isn't already there (went to school, obtained law degree, practices with firm), but the page in and of itself should return to being a redirect. – Athaenara ✉ 01:23, 3 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. IntoThinAir (talk) 01:37, 3 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Law-related deletion discussions. IntoThinAir (talk) 01:37, 3 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect as lacking independent notability. It's possible if Harris gets the nomination and certainly if she gets elected that he'll start to pass GNG but for now a redirect is appropriate. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 01:55, 3 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete not notable at this time. If Harris becomes the nominee this may change, but not right now.John Pack Lambert (talk) 03:12, 3 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 06:34, 3 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 06:34, 3 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Kamala Harris as described by Athaenara. Notability is not inherited. --Enos733 (talk) 15:58, 3 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, without prejudice against the creation of a redirect afterward (but delete first so that there's no history to revert-war over). People are not automatically entitled to have Wikipedia articles just because of who they happen to be married to, this doesn't even try to make a case that he's notable for his law career, and one article in one source is not a magic WP:GNG pass that automatically exempts a person from actually having to have a real notability claim. If Kamala Harris wins the presidential election next year, then obviously he'll qualify for an article at that time as the new First Spouse — but until that time, having a chance to maybe become the First Spouse next year is not a notability claim in and of itself. Bearcat (talk) 16:52, 4 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Bearcat: It had been a redirect since September 2018 when I created it (log). There is zero harm in keeping the page history intact. If there is edit warring, we have ways of dealing with that. – Athaenara ✉ 17:34, 4 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

What needs to be shown is that there's positive value in keeping the edit history, not that there's merely a lack of harm. Bearcat (talk) 17:40, 4 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Per Help:Page history, we generally do see that. – Athaenara ✉ 12:27, 5 July 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. Elected municipal politician but unanimity amongst the commentators that she fails notability guidelines, in particular WP:NPOL, and lacks significant, in-depth coverage in reliable, independent sources. Just Chilling (talk) 00:32, 10 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Uzma Rashid

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

BLP on a member of a city council in Gonda has one source. Per WP:NPOL, members of city councils do not have inherent notability absent WP:SIGCOV unrelated to their council service. Chetsford (talk) 00:05, 3 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 06:35, 3 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 06:35, 3 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 06:35, 3 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Gonda does have 122,000 people, but in my city of 130,000 plus people who have determined even the city council head, with the title of mayor, even when they served for 20 years in that position, was still not notable.John Pack Lambert (talk) 03:33, 3 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, as per nom.--Nahal^(T) 012:51, 3 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, pretty open and shut case. MaskedSinger (talk) 16:56, 3 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, per nomination. --SalmanZ (talk) 22:45, 3 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, as per nomination.TH1980 (talk) 05:15, 4 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. City councillors do not get an automatic free pass over WP:NPOL just because they exist, especially not in midsized cities. To clear the bar, a city councillor must either (a) serve in an internationally prominent global city on the order of New York City, Chicago, Toronto, London or Berlin, or (b) be sourceable to so much more coverage than most other city councillors that she could be credibly claimed as a special case of significantly greater notability than most other city councillors. But Gonda is not in that rarefied tier, and there's just one source here and it's a short blurb, so neither of those conditions for the notability of a city councillor has been satisfied. Bearcat (talk) 17:05, 4 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete fails WP:NPOL. William2001^(talk) 22:11, 9 July 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.