< 26 February 28 February >
Guide to deletion

Purge server cache

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

The result was delete. Tone 11:21, 7 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Prithvi Singh Ravish[edit]

Prithvi Singh Ravish (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

I can't figure out whether there is anything substantial or verifiable in this article. None of the refs are live, and the page's history is full of WP:COI edits by User:Ambassador.DrRavishPS (who I have blocked). I have checked the earliest version of the page, and they seem like variants on an abysmal combination of peacockery and verbosity. Maybe this is someone of notability, but this article is so poor that I suggest WP:TNT. BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 23:08, 27 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 05:56, 28 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Tone 11:22, 7 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Wapt (logiciel)[edit]

Wapt (logiciel) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Sources don't prove notability of software. The sources provided are either all primary sources or sources that do not give indication of the notability of the article subject. ~ Philipnelson99 (talk) 10:11, 12 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. ~Ruyaba~ {talk} 10:35, 12 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • I added the link to the Security Certification from the ANSII's (National Cybersecurity Agency of France) website. It looks good to me as a mark of reliability. Ahamon97 (talk) 11:54, 12 February 2019 (UTC) — Ahamon97 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of France-related deletion discussions. North America1000 14:35, 12 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Atlantic306 (talk) 20:51, 19 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. Recommending adding Salt as this is a re-incarnation of a deleted WAPT article in 2018 but using a different name; and with two SPAs. Britishfinance (talk) 13:21, 2 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: I originally closed this as "delete" but someone has challenged the close on my talk page, saying there are further insights available, so I'm relisting.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 23:03, 27 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  1. ^ https://www.ssi.gouv.fr/uploads/2018/01/qualification-of-solutions_security_visa_anssi.pdf
  2. ^ https://www.ssi.gouv.fr/en/certification/common-criteria-certification/international-agreements/
  • I still stand with my delete vote because certifications do not equate notability. See the page on software notability for help determining the program's notability. Any software can recieve these certifications, furthermore just because a goverment prefers this software does not make it notable. Coverage in reliable sources would be an indication of notability, and none have been provided thus far. ~ Philipnelson99 (talk) 13:24, 1 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • @Cardondenis: People often confuse Wikipedia as a record of existence, however outside of specific and historically important things (e.g. WP:PRESERVE), we apply notability criteria as well (per WP:GNG). You need to find articles (even in French as we can translate), that are from material WP:RS (e.g. major French newspapers/journals), that have done a specific piece on this topic where the piece is emphasising its notability (e.g. not just a product review). That is what would secure this.
I also notice from your edit history and Talk Page, that almost all of your contributions on WP are related to WAPT (you have deleted references to prior WAPT articles being deleted on your Talk Page for failing WP:GNG). This is fine (as is deleting your Talk Page), however, it does raise issues that you may have a WP:COI issue, and this article is WP:PROMO. Again, irrespective of these items, as per Philipnelson99, you need to find a good quality independent source that highlights notability. thanks Britishfinance (talk) 12:47, 2 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Big of you to shove the blame on to your poor intern. Captain Eek Edits Ho Cap'n! 23:38, 3 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was redirect to Xfinity. Sandstein 13:44, 7 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Xfinity Mobile[edit]

Xfinity Mobile (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Declined AFC submission from Draft:Xfinity Mobile, with last declination: "The proposed article does not have sufficient content to require an article of its own, but it could be merged into the existing article at Xfinity Mobile." The mainspace version was copied from the draft without attribution, and is not a substantial improvement over the draft. BilCat (talk) 22:56, 27 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Bkissin,

I saw that the Xfinity Mobile article was rejected and wanted to provide more context and hopes that you’ll reconsider.

Reason for rejection: The content already exists on the Xfinity Wikipedia page (parent company) and /Xfinity_Mobile redirects to that parent company's page. Being that Xfinity Mobile is a subsidiary, I believe that it should qualify for its own Wikipedia article, separate from the parent company. The company information, including the info box, would better serve people with a dedicated page.

Please let me know your thoughts and thanks for your time. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Factsandsources (talk • contribs) 20:26, 24 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete. Tone 11:22, 7 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Kyro (given name)[edit]

Kyro (given name) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

This fail WP:APONOTE because there is nobody notable with this name. While a properly sourced article about a name may still be notable without a list, the name fails WP:GNG, noting that Quick Baby Names and Baby Center are not reliable sources. -- Tavix (talk) 22:33, 27 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Iran-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 05:57, 28 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Tone 11:22, 7 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Intellitech[edit]

AfDs for this article:
Intellitech (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Article lacks multiple reliable and independent sources to indicate notability. Mccapra (talk) 22:20, 27 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of New Hampshire-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 05:58, 28 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 05:58, 28 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 05:58, 28 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I will try to find additional sources, though the company operates in a specific field probably not covered by mainstream media. What I found is that they indeed have set some standards for testing of integrated circuits accepted by IEEE. --Plaxie (talk) 17:33, 5 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
The discussion at the 2008 AfD was of poor quality in my view, and some of the refs quoted would not pass now (they are really primary, being PR releases in lower tier publications). Other arguments were really ILIKEIT (it was a "no consensus" case - at best). Can't see this surviving long-term on WP. Britishfinance (talk) 00:53, 7 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Sandstein 13:44, 7 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Newlywed Hell[edit]

Newlywed Hell (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

A directory-like listing for an unremarkable film. Does not meet WP:FILM; significant RS coverage not found. Sourcing is routines notices, unselective databases, and / or passing mentions. K.e.coffman (talk) 22:18, 27 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been added to the WikiProject Pornography list of deletions. • Gene93k (talk) 22:25, 27 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 22:26, 27 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sexuality and gender-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 22:26, 27 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Japan-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 22:26, 27 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Tone 11:22, 7 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Colby Cooper[edit]

AfDs for this article:
Colby Cooper (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

This article is not only terribly written and promotional, the subject is largely unremarkable. I don't know of any chiefs of staff of small cities that are remarkable enough to have their own page, and certainly not a page longer and more detailed than the mayor himself. Page has been previously deleted at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Colby Cooper BigDwiki (talk) 21:51, 27 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Alabama-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 06:24, 28 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Armenia-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 06:24, 28 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 06:24, 28 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 06:24, 28 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was no consensus. Sandstein 13:45, 7 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Maryam Salimi[edit]

Maryam Salimi (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Like Hamid Ziaei Parvar, fails to meet notability criteria for people and the sources are used to mask the lack of notability. Pahlevun (talk) 17:14, 23 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. ~Ruyaba~ {talk} 23:38, 12 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. ~Ruyaba~ {talk} 23:38, 12 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Journalism-related deletion discussions. ~Ruyaba~ {talk} 23:38, 12 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Iran-related deletion discussions. ~Ruyaba~ {talk} 23:38, 12 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ad Orientem (talk) 00:17, 20 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Can you 1.) specify which of the 60 sources are reliable and independent. 2.) point out the 3 best sources on this ovesourced page.E.M.Gregory (talk) 19:52, 26 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • @SmokeyJoe and M1nhm: to give us a little more detail on which of the 60 sources had WP:SIGCOV. Can you each read Farsi? In particular, the assertion that she passes WP:PROF seems improbable since it would be unusual for someone without a PhD and without an appointment at a university (she appears to teach an occassional course in graphic design) to pass WP:PROF. We need policy and evidence based arguments, not assertions.E.M.Gregory (talk) 14:41, 22 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • I read the top five references from the reference list. I used google translate. The sources discuss the subject directly. Google scholar shows that she is an author of some very well cited papers. The references talk about her as a researcher. —SmokeyJoe (talk) 21:31, 22 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Are you sure? I just ran the first 5 cites thru gTranslate. 2, 3, 4 merely quote her on graphic design, all from the same newspaper, one is labeled "training session". the first source is so poetic, so different that it sounds like it may be a different Maryam Salami altogether - a doppleganger who writes poetry. cite # 5 is not an article at all, it's a list of disparate items published by the Public Relations Society". My skepticism her es fed by the extreme improbability of an article with 60 citations about a graphic design communications specialist each cited only once being notable. For notability, we need something tha tis about her - not stuff that merely quotes her. Which of the 60 cites is a profile? or something approaching WP:SIGCOV?E.M.Gregory (talk) 22:04, 22 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • E.M.Gregory, no not terribly sure. I had to return to my PC to check for followed links. Apparently I only looked at refs 1 & 2. These sources talk about the subject directly, which is something. I followed the AfD fins sources links, and https://scholar.google.com/citations?user=7h7LnaUAAAAJ&hl=en H-index is low at 7, but best cited paper is pretty good. "Comaximal graph of commutative rings". 2008. Is this her? Departement of Mathematics, East Tehran Branch, Islamic Azad University Verified email at ipm.ir. ? Maybe not? It looks like maths. The article says "data journalism", maybe it is the same thing? "She currently lectures in Islamic Azad University", which matches. I see now she is not Mehrdad Salimi, the first author of "Chemotherapy of Mediterranean abdominal lymphoma: retrospective comparison of chemotherapy protocols in Iranian patients" So, no, I am not sure. But still, so many references seem to checvk out, for example. "Dr. Maryam Salimi was appointed as media advisor to the Agricultural and Natural Resources Engineering Organization of Iran Maryam Salimi was born in 1979 in Iran . He is a researcher in the fields of visual communication and communication and lecturer in Sura universities" ... Same lady in the picture, similar birthyears (1978, 1979). I am concerned about systematic bias and don't want to be quick to delete Iranian biographies. The https://fa.wikipedia.org/wiki/%D9%85%D8%B1%DB%8C%D9%85_%D8%B3%D9%84%DB%8C%D9%85%DB%8C article is basically the same thing. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 05:45, 23 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • The solution to systemic bias is to create good articles about notable Iranians who pass WP:GNG.E.M.Gregory (talk) 02:23, 7 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • What is the claim to notability? That She exists, is a "media advisor" and "data journalist", and sometimes lectures at a university ≠ notability.E.M.Gregory (talk) 23:17, 23 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Jovanmilic97 (talk) 21:30, 27 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Sandstein 13:45, 7 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Flibe_Energy[edit]

AfDs for this article:
Flibe_Energy (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Delete Sorry for the double entry for deletion, first time doing this and was not sure how to fix the first. Company has not produced anything noteworthy. The design section is a summary of a marketing presentation and proposed technology, and the majority of citations are to statements made by the CEO. The entire section on cost estimates rely on statements by the CEO. References are to company press releases, presentations by the company, articles written by the CEO, the company youtube channel.By the criteria of WP:COMPANY this company is not noteworthy.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Potatoes911 (talk • contribs) 16:17, February 8, 2019 (UTC) ‎

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. CASSIOPEIA(talk) 13:56, 8 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. CASSIOPEIA(talk) 13:56, 8 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Alabama-related deletion discussions. CASSIOPEIA(talk) 13:56, 8 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep If the sources of some parts of the article do not conform to proper external standards, then those should be removed - not the entire article. The company is currently working with the United States Department of Energy with Pacific Northwest National Laboratory on their technology. The Department of Energy is also supporting and funding advanced reactor technology, which include this company's designs. Instead of trying to delete the page, a better attempt should be made at validating the company's claims and removing parts of the page that are either incorrect or do not adhere to Wiki standards. --TypicalBeagle (talk) 17:17, 8 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Notability for a company is well defined in wikipedia guidelines. Significant coverage in multiple independent, reliable secondary sources. Of the relevant citations (eliminating those on the tech, as whether the tech is notable or not is irrelevant for discussion of whether a company based on said tech is notable) None meet this criteria. They are to statements made by the founder, links to company pages, links to company youtube channel, and links to blog posts by the founder. The lack of relevant sources makes this article indistinguishable from spam and a company trying to build notability by simply having a wikipedia page. The sources fail to pass WP:INDEPENDENT. To quote the notability guidelines for independent coverage a company "too often a related party produces a narrative that is then copied, regurgitated, and published in whole or in part by independent parties (as exemplified by churnalism). Independent content, in order to count towards establishing notability, must include original and independent opinion, analysis, investigation, and fact checking that are clearly attributable to a source unaffiliated to the subject.". No sources pass this. If the article was cleaned up to be consistent with NPOV there would be nothing left other than a discussion of molten salt reactor technology, which already has its own wiki page. Other than a discussion of tech best left on the MSR pages, no content here passes NPOV.Potatoes911 (talk) 03:36, 12 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I agree that some of the content on the page should be removed. I do not think that it would mean removal of the entire company page. The company has gotten attention from multiple credible sources such as the Washington Post, Business Insider, MIT Technology Review, and The New York Times. They are also working with Pacific Northwest National Laboratory (a Department of Energy Laboratory and location of the Hanford Nuclear site). Other companies in the gen IV reactor field have their own Wiki pages - Transatomic (defunct because they made serious errors in the analysis), TerraPower, and Terrestrial Energy. None of these companies are currently building an operational reactor either, do you propose they be removed as well? --TypicalBeagle (talk) 17:33, 12 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
If those references exist, they are not cited in the article. The only coverage in credible sources cited is passing and a sentence or two. As a result no reference passes: Significant, Independent, Reliable and Secondary as called out in the notability guidelines. Working with a National lab does not contribute inherent noteworthiness, just as being an employee of a national lab does not make the individual worthy of a wiki page. This is the first I have heard of those other companies, and whether this company's competitors are noteworthy or not and have wiki pages or not is irrelevant to the notability of the company under discussion. Potatoes911 (talk) 03:37, 14 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, DannyS712 (talk) 02:58, 20 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, 78.26 (spin me / revolutions) 21:00, 27 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Tone 11:24, 7 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Justin Chu Cary[edit]

Justin Chu Cary (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Article is about an actor who does not meet the inclusion criteria for an article on Wikipedia. Examples for what this actor is known for includes his appearance on Jane the Virgin, which IMDB credits as Guy#1. Sourcing in the article does not show notability. There is lack of significant coverage in independent reliable sources in the article and in my own seaches.

The sources at the time of nomination are:

  1. Youtube video of an interview - not a reliable source
  2. National Equity Project staff list which is just to reference the subject's father and doesn't even mention the actor
  3. Berkley university newsletter which is just to reference the subject's mother, and does not mention the actor
  4. A cast listing which serves to verify information but is not significant coverage
  5. The same cast list again
  6. The actor and his brothers chared web site - not independent
  7. A wedding photo in a magazine - not significant coverage

The actor has a role in a an upcoming netflix series, he may garner coverage in the future, but there isn't any right now. Whpq (talk) 20:53, 27 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 06:29, 28 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 06:29, 28 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 06:29, 28 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 06:30, 28 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Maybe, if the series becomes notable. Somebody who has not been paid to create an article might create it then. --bonadea contributions talk 22:33, 2 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Sandstein 13:46, 7 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Rising Northeast[edit]

Rising Northeast (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

I couldn't find any of the speedy deletion criteria that applied to magazines (and I don't think this is G11), and did not PROD as the article creator has recently worked on it. Does not pass WP:NME, and my WP:BEFORE turned up nothing that would pass the WP:GNG. All the references in the article are either it's own website or self published. Agent00x (talk) 18:51, 27 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 19:22, 27 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Journalism-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 19:22, 27 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 19:23, 27 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 19:23, 27 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of News media-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 19:23, 27 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Sandstein 13:46, 7 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

ICS Marketing Support Services[edit]

ICS Marketing Support Services (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

This article survived PROD and Speedy deletion in 2008. No major page edits since 2012. I can't find any reliable independent sources for it now. Of the five sources currently cited one is it's own website, one local news, and 2 are membership directory listings. The entire claim to notability arises from the fifth source, showing that the firm ranked 4744th in Inc Magazine's 5000 fastest-growing companies of 2012. I conclude from this that it is not notable. Mccapra (talk) 18:20, 27 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Michigan-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 18:33, 27 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 18:33, 27 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was no consensus. Sandstein 13:52, 7 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Killing of Nabra Hassanen[edit]

Killing of Nabra Hassanen (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Not a notable crime. All murders may be tragic, but not all are notable. No claim of notability, and no coverage other than immediate news-wire coverage and WP:MILL local coverage of court proceedings. power~enwiki (π, ν) 18:17, 27 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Virginia-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 18:35, 27 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 18:35, 27 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Crime-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 18:35, 27 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 18:35, 27 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of El Salvador-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 18:40, 27 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Perp has pled guilty. Has been convicted. Is awaiting sentencing, scheduled for March.E.M.Gregory (talk) 21:30, 27 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Judged sufficiently mentally able to stand trial. "road rage" is in interesting way to describe chasing a girl on foot, shoving her into a car, driving to a dark place, raping her, murdering her, and dumping her body in a pond. E.M.Gregory (talk) 21:15, 27 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was no consensus. Sandstein 13:53, 7 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Kopitiam[edit]

Kopitiam (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

A non-notable company that should be deleted or redirected to National Trades Union Congress, which recently bought out the chain. A search for sources turns up nothing that meets WP:NCORP and WP:CORPDEPTH (possibly due to the chain sharing a name with many, many other businesses and restaurants). Furthermore, the only real coverage concerning the chain (which would still be excluded from meeting NCORP as it is a routine business announcement) is in regards to the chain being acquired by the National Trades Union Congress. SamHolt6 (talk) 14:59, 13 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. ~Ruyaba~ {talk} 15:05, 13 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Singapore-related deletion discussions. ~Ruyaba~ {talk} 15:05, 13 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Food and drink-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 00:04, 17 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Mhhossein talk 03:43, 20 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@CASSIOPEIA: I probably should have been more specific in my nomination; Kopitiam translates roughly to Coffeehouse in Malaysian, and so many venues use the name. For example, of the sources cited above, sources 1, 2, 3, and 6 refer to a cafe in New York City that is unrelated to the Malaysian company. As for the other three sources (2 of which document the same event), all three are standard company announcements/press releases and regional in nature; the former type of source do no establish notability, as WP:NCORP takes a strong stance against such trivial coverage.--SamHolt6 (talk) 15:20, 20 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Kopitam original set up in Malaysia and branches to other countries, thus the coverage fro New York Times, CBS talks about the same chain of company - see here 1 [5] is from New Strait Times which is a independent realizable source and not a press release piece. More coverage here 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, and 35. thank you. CASSIOPEIA(talk) 02:43, 21 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note this AfD is about the Singapore-based Kopitiam Corporation, not the generic Malasian term for coffeehouse; quoting from one of the sources cited above "Kopitiam means coffee shop". In my reading of the sources shown at this AfD, I can see no connection between this Kopitiam and the New York Cafe (or any of hundreds of other venues) of the same name... perhaps I am missing something? Some sources above do mention the right Kopitiam, but only in regards to news about the upcoming merge with NTUC—the one exception is this article [6], an interview with the company's founder. My case remains that coverage of this Kopitiam is regional (confined only to Singapore), and lacking the in-depth, independent coverage for inclusion.--SamHolt6 (talk) 18:19, 21 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Jovanmilic97 (talk) 17:52, 27 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. The "delete" arguments are stronger. Our notability guidelines do not make an exception for political parties. The need for reliable sources is based in WP:V, a core policy. Sandstein 13:55, 7 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Secular Democratic Party (Iran)[edit]

Secular Democratic Party (Iran) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Fails to meet Wikipedia:Notability (organizations and companies) criteria. Pahlevun (talk) 16:37, 23 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. clpo13(talk) 16:17, 25 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. clpo13(talk) 16:17, 25 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Iran-related deletion discussions. clpo13(talk) 16:17, 25 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Natg 19 (talk) 23:57, 19 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
--SmokeyJoe (talk) 10:03, 22 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  1. WP:ORG does cover political parties. From the second paragraph, Simply stated ... this includes ... political parties.
  2. Archive.org has a copy of the fa.isdparty.org source: https://web.archive.org/web/20171116091919/https://fa.isdparty.org/index.php/articles/4-roham
-- RoySmith (talk) 17:38, 27 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Jovanmilic97 (talk) 17:48, 27 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was no consensus. That is, no consensus to delete, but I think there is consensus to proceed as proposed by RebeccaGreen, that is, to transform this article into an article about all the uncertain ancient Larissas. Sandstein 13:58, 7 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Larissa (Thrace)[edit]

Larissa (Thrace) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

There is no evidence for a Larissa in Thrace. The cited reference is about Larissa (Elis), which has an article; I tried redirecting it but someone else thought it ought to exist and so lets see if anyone can find sources for a Larissa in Thrace. The Hansen reference can be found at https://books.google.com/books?id=h7kRDAAAQBAJ&pg=PA499 where the Laris(s)a on page 499 is squarely in the chapter entitled Elis, not Thrace. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 20:57, 11 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. Bakazaka (talk) 21:30, 11 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. Bakazaka (talk) 21:30, 11 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Greece-related deletion discussions. Bakazaka (talk) 21:30, 11 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • @T8612: Very interesting comments. It there a significant level of confusion about this topic from earlier historical books, that it would still be worth having this article to clarify that it probably did not exist, and that earlier historians were wrong. Or, is it so unambiguous that such an article would be unmerited? thanks. Britishfinance (talk) 17:26, 18 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@Britishfinance:I edited the disambiguation page on Larissa and mentioned the Larissa in Thrace there. Normally, it should also be discussed in the article on the Larissa in Troad. I think there is no need for an article on the Larissa in Thrace. T8612 (talk) 19:48, 18 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Problem is you won't find sources for a Larissa in Thrace. At the very least, the title should be changed to something like Larissa (Homeric city), as it could well be a city not in Thrace. I have just found that G. S. Kirk in his commentary on the Iliad (vol. I, p. 257) says that Strabo "was probably wrong", and favours the Larisa in Troad:

"LARISA was a place-name particularly associated with the Pelasgoi, ancient inhabitants of Greece (cf. "Apyos, the homeland of Akhilleus, at 681, also Apollodorus 11.4.4). Strabo (9.440) mentions no less than eleven Larisas; one was north of the later Hamaxitos on the west coast of the Troad (Strabo 13.620; Cook, Troad 219-21), which would suit the proximity of this contingent to the preceding ones from in and around the Troad - although when Hippothoos dies before Troy at 17.301 it is said to be 'far from Larisa'. That caused Strabo to opt for the Larisa near Kume, further south, but he was probably wrong. The Pelasgoi are stationed near the Leleges at 10.429, and the Leleges lived in Pedasos in the Troad according to 21.86f." T8612 (talk) 01:38, 19 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, that is what I meant - we should have a separate article about the Homeric city, and I think we may as well keep this one, rename it and revise it. I suppose that's not a straight Keep, so I have added Rename and Revise to my vote. Whether it is Larissa (Iliad) or Larissa (Homeric city), it would make clear that it is a city named in a ca 2,500 year old text. The article's content would need to be rewritten to focus on the uncertainty of its identification, etc. RebeccaGreen (talk) 02:33, 19 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
RebeccaGreen That was before I found the work of GS Kirk, who is a very reputable source and shows that the confusion originates in Strabo, and that he was mistaken on this point. I don't think that creating an article on a city with no source supporting its existence is worth it. I'm also not sure it would fit the notability requirement. I added GS Kirk to the article on Larisa in Troad, which is already quite developed. T8612 (talk) 19:34, 19 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ad Orientem (talk) 23:49, 19 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Jovanmilic97 (talk) 17:48, 27 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Sandstein 13:59, 7 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Black Unicorn Split[edit]

Black Unicorn Split (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Fails WP:NALBUM. Entirely non-notable EP with no reliable independent sources found at all – the issue here that stops me simply redirecting it is that we appear to have a case of WP:XY, with two notable artists. Having said that, the case for keeping Classic Case's article is borderline, with little more than the AllMusic biography, so the discussion here is to decide whether to simply delete this article or redirect it to He Is Legend. Richard3120 (talk) 17:18, 27 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. Richard3120 (talk) 17:19, 27 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. Richard3120 (talk) 17:19, 27 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of North Carolina-related deletion discussions. Richard3120 (talk) 17:19, 27 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
They shouldn't even do that, frankly. Richard3120 (talk) 14:39, 4 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, that is a perfect alternative if someone were willing to create a chart column on the artist(s) page or their discography page(s). That way, it is not taking unnecessary space and if a user wants to, they can listen the track listing to the EP in a hidden drop-down list. They are many pages on Wikipedia that demonstrate that example. Horizonlove (talk) 07:31, 5 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
No, they shouldn't, per Wikipedia:WikiProject Discographies/style#What should not be included and MOS:DONTHIDE. If there are discography articles with track listings on them, then those track listings should be removed, not the other way around. Richard3120 (talk) 15:52, 5 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. I almost closed this as No Consensus, based on most of the keep arguments being unconvincing vis-a-vis citing policy, and some of them being from accounts with relatively little experience. On the other hand, it's a little odd (as mentioned in the debate) that a nomination would come from a user with a fairly low experience level. In any case, the article (and sourcing) has evolved significantly during the course of this AfD, so many of the comments on the delete side about lack of sourcing seem obsolete at this point. -- RoySmith (talk) 16:54, 7 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Jamie Chambers[edit]

Jamie Chambers (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Minor figure of little notability in the game industry with a few titles to his name and sources lack quality. LambdaKnight (talk) 16:41, 27 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Added a bibliography section with a number of books and links to their info. Going through to find other references to add, then I'll be fleshing out other sections of the page. ―Vancian | ✉  21:28, 27 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you. I believe that the sources you added affirm my "Keep" by attesting to the notability of the subject. BOZ (talk) 12:28, 28 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
The second "attempt" to delete was a mistake. I used a Twinkle gadget which I thought did the procedure for nominating a page for deletion, but instead tagged an article for uncontroversial deletion, which I had already done. Excepting that mistake, as far as I understand, I am simply following the standard procedure. The procedure is to first propose an article for uncontroversial deletion with the associated tag. Anyone can remove that tag if they believe the deletion is not uncontroversial. That was done. The second step is to start a discussion about the deletion. If this discussion leads to the conclusion that it should be kept, then it is kept. If the discussion comes to the conclusion that it should be deleted, it is deleted. Regarding your accusation that I'm "attacking" this page because someone "defended" another person is ridiculous, but I can see how you might see it that way. In truth, the subject of this article implied that if Sean Patrick Fannon's article merits deletion, then so does his. I looked at his article and agreed. It isn't particularly well-sourced or useful. LambdaKnight (talk) 20:13, 27 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. Bakazaka (talk) 17:34, 27 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Games-related deletion discussions. Bakazaka (talk) 17:34, 27 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Does anything they have written pass WP:AUTHOR though? They're not the primary author of the Dragonlance game. One of the awards cites Wikipedia, which is a huge red flag for me. I'm not trying to be pointy, but the only mentions of them in the sources are a brief blurb in a blog saying they are no longer going to be vice president of a board, and a mention in a three-sentence press release. Searching for Jamie Chambers brings up other Jamie Chambers who don't appear to be related to them, unless they are a financial advisor or a TV news reporter in San Diego. There's literally no independent secondary coverage of him at all, which is a clear WP:BIO fail. SportingFlyer T·C 13:58, 28 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
The award cites wikipedia as a tertiary source, after first citing the primary source, because I could not find a reference to who won the award 15 years ago anywhere else. It was verification, nothing more. If that's not a valid source then you're welcome to remove it but doing so doesn't remove the other source for the award. As to WP:AUTHOR, it does not require him to have been the primary or sole creator of the work. It says:
The person has created or played a major role in co-creating a significant or well-known work or collective body of work. 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.
Emphasis mine. He is one of the four authors listed on the cover and directly mentioned in the awards nominations. Awards it got in a country other than his home country, the Lucca Comics awards being an Italian gaming award. So that alone qualifies as having "(c) won significant critical attention".
I have also found a number of other secondary coverage mentions of him that I have not had time to add to the article yet, but I plan to over the next few days. In some cases I'm not even sure how to cite them properly, like this. [1]―Vancian | ✉  15:50, 28 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Looking forward to reviewing the other secondary coverage. The Cherokee Tribune article, from the blurb I can see, appears to be a "local man" profile, and I can't tell how long it is. (The cite is easy, you have the author's name, publisher, and date, so you can fill in those fields.) Even, arguendo, being the third author out of four on a game is enough to pass WP:AUTHOR, which multiple independent periodical articles and reviews/primary subject of an independent and notable work have picked up the game they co-wrote? The fact the award couldn't be verified by anything apart from Wikipedia is a huge red flag to me, honestly. SportingFlyer T·C 16:35, 28 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
It's less that the 2005 Origin Award can't be verified by anything else and more that it's from 14 years ago, so most places online that mention it are gone or were blogs and I've seen people get downright furious at inclusion of links to blogs. I removed the Wikipedia link and left the link to the announcement but I'll see if I can find more expansive coverage. ―Vancian | ✉  17:47, 28 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • We're now up to two sources, his hometown's blurb on how he moved to Wisconsin to create games and this review of one of his works (I can't tell if this journal is a reliable source or not): [8]. WP:AUTHOR isn't met yet, and I've gone through every single source and I apologize, but there's almost no significant coverage of him. SportingFlyer T·C 20:43, 28 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Science fiction-related deletion discussions. Necrothesp (talk) 11:51, 28 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Tone 11:27, 7 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The Candy Twins[edit]

The Candy Twins (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

The only source is from The Sun that is deprecated as a reliable source. Also, COI - article created by User:Drumcandy, self-claimed to be a member of the band. Fails WP:MUSIC. Delete. Just Chilling (talk) 16:35, 27 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Icewhiz (talk) 16:40, 27 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. Icewhiz (talk) 16:40, 27 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@Andy Dingley: how do we know the NME ever mentioned them, and if they did, how would we find out, short of going to the British Library and spending hours trawling through back issues? If mentioned at all, it probably wasn't much, given the band's entire output appears to be one EP. A redirect to David Young (novelist) is possible, given that they are mentioned in passing there. Richard3120 (talk) 17:04, 27 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Per WP:BURDEN, it's just not my problem to check that, it's the article author's. But there needs to be some sourcing, from somewhere. The Sun is poor (although I wouldn't rule it out) and we're supposed to be taking multiple sources as our baseline. But for a band at that time, I would expect the NME to cover any UK band 'worthy of mention'. Exceptions are possible - the Crucial Three situation - but they're going to be exceptional. If one of the involved editors was in the band, then don't they have a clippings file? Andy Dingley (talk) 17:31, 27 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@Andy Dingley: I agree with you, I'm just wondering where you got the impression that they might have been mentioned by the NME at some point, because I can't see any mention of that in the article. As you say, the editor probably kept clippings of every media mention they had, so if he didn't mention the magazine, my assumption is that they were never featured. Richard3120 (talk) 11:49, 28 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I don't know if the NME ever did mention them. But there's a strong correlation for UK bands between notability and the NME noticing, and vice versa. Andy Dingley (talk) 12:03, 28 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. While there is coverage of the subject, the consensus of this discussion is that it is too routine/local to grant notability. Xymmax So let it be written So let it be done 05:08, 8 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Toni Nakić[edit]

Toni Nakić (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Fails WP:NHOOPS Dewritech (talk) 23:01, 13 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. ~Ruyaba~ {talk} 00:13, 14 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Basketball-related deletion discussions. ~Ruyaba~ {talk} 00:13, 14 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Croatia-related deletion discussions. ~Ruyaba~ {talk} 00:13, 14 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Mhhossein talk 05:19, 20 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
The first source talks about his team being on a 3 game losing streak and doing team building at a waterfall before it launches into a detailed play by play of a game. I'd call that routine sports coverage. The next two articles are local coverage (urban population of Šibenik is about 50,000). The first mentions him playing at the junior euro-league tournament in Spain and then goes into detail about the team's performance. The second is a short article mentioning his being named as the best athlete in Šibenik and being invited to the 24 man roster for the national team's final World Cup qualifying games. That's more routine and WP:NOTNEWS coverage. The other two articles I can't access, probably because of my computer's security settings, but your "lots of other passing mentions" seems to hit the nail on the head. Plenty of typical sports reporting and local coverage, with having a chance to try out for the national team being the most significant. However, that alone is not enough to show WP notability. Papaursa (talk) 02:17, 28 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Slobodna Dalmacija is the largest newspaper in the Dalmatian region, and Vecernji list is one of the biggest dailies in the country and did a feature on him, even as a youth. There's nothing wrong with local sources, especially when those local sources are actually national. SportingFlyer T·C 03:01, 28 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Local or not, and some of it is clearly local, the coverage doesn't seem to be significant to me because it's typical sports reporting. As I said, I can't access the last two articles you listed. If you believe the coverage is significant, then we'll just have to disagree (or I'll need to see better sources). Papaursa (talk) 04:11, 28 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
We'll disagree, then. He's been covered specifically in two of the three largest daily periodicals in Croatia, and he was just called up to play against Poland last week [16] so even if he is deleted for not being notable, he'll be notable soon. SportingFlyer T·C 06:04, 28 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, but I have to ask. What notability criteria do you think he'll meet by playing in a game against Poland? Papaursa (talk) 02:18, 1 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
My argument wasn't "he'll be notable for playing against Poland" but rather "he's now playing for a major national team." SportingFlyer T·C 05:13, 1 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Which doesn't meet any notability criteria. Croatia finished the tournament with a 4-8 record and four games behind the last team in its group to be one of the 12 European teams to qualify for the World Cup. Nakić played a grand total of 2 minutes and none of the 37 players Croatia used in the tournament played less time.[17] I don't see how you can claim that shows notability unless you're willing to add thousands of players from the 165 FIBA nations. Papaursa (talk) 00:00, 2 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Jovanmilic97 (talk) 16:04, 27 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete per speedy deletion criteria wp:G4: "Recreation of a page that was deleted per a deletion discussion". See Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Rachel Reynolds. ErikHaugen (talk | contribs) 18:20, 27 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Rachel Reynolds (model)[edit]

Rachel Reynolds (model) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Game show model.

Fails WP:BASIC:

Fails WP:ENT:

Article was originally deleted 31 May 2015.

Subject is not the same person as New Zealand social worker and community leader with the same name. AldezD (talk) 13:59, 27 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. Icewhiz (talk) 14:44, 27 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. Icewhiz (talk) 14:45, 27 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Louisiana-related deletion discussions. Icewhiz (talk) 14:45, 27 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was speedy delete. WP:G7 Yunshui 雲水 16:45, 27 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Akrasia25/Locus[edit]

Akrasia25/Locus (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

I meant to make this page a sandbox page Akrasia25 (talk) 13:46, 27 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete. Tone 11:27, 7 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Breweries in Northumberland[edit]

Breweries in Northumberland (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Listcruft. Wikipedia is not a directory and so far as I can tell, none of these are independently notable nor do they have articles. Praxidicae (talk) 11:51, 27 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 12:15, 27 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. Icewhiz (talk) 12:39, 27 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
There is no such thing as "combined" notability. But my original point still remains is that Wikipedia is not a directory or tour guide. Praxidicae (talk) 14:50, 27 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 16:11, 7 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Shift (software)[edit]

Shift (software) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

This article looks like made underpaid contributions to Wikipedia and this software itself is not notable individually it's a complete advertisement. So Here I nominate this article for Deletion. MrZINE 11:00, 27 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. ~SS49~ {talk} 11:39, 27 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. ~SS49~ {talk} 11:39, 27 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. ~SS49~ {talk} 11:39, 27 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
If they were underpaid, would they have less motivation to make it so advertorial? Nosebagbear (talk) 23:11, 6 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  1. ^ "Living a fantasy, Man finds job in gaming industry after years as a fan".
  2. ^ https://support.tryshift.com/kb/section/45/
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. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 16:14, 7 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Christos Tsoutsouvis[edit]

Christos Tsoutsouvis (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Even though Christos Tsoutsouvis is mentioned by many sources, I found it hard to spot a single RS that covers the subject significantly. There is a notability template (has been there since November 2017[18] ), but it has not been addressed until recently, inadequately in my opinion. (See Talk Page). Bottom line, the article violates WP:GNG. Cinadon36 (talk) 10:55, 27 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. ~SS49~ {talk} 11:42, 27 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. ~SS49~ {talk} 11:42, 27 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Greece-related deletion discussions. ~SS49~ {talk} 11:42, 27 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Crime-related deletion discussions. Necrothesp (talk) 12:12, 27 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Terrorism-related deletion discussions. Necrothesp (talk) 12:12, 27 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Hi @E.M.Gregory: I have seen that you have added a couple of sources. The first one, a book by Kasimeris, mentions Tsoutsouvis once, in a 2 sentenced footnote. The second one, a a book by Busky, mentions Tsoutsouvis once, without examining him or his life. It just lists the terrorist organizations in Greece. Third is an article by NYT, only mentions Tsoutsouvis without examing is life. It is not an article on Tsoutsouvis, it is an article describing a bomb attack by a German terrorist Group, named after Tsoutsouvis. Forth is a news article describing various blasts in Europe. ("Bombs hit cities across Europe; One death heavy damage in four blasts". Ottawa Citizen. UPI. 9 September 1986.). I do not have access to it but it is reasonable to suppose that it doesn't cover in a significant extent Mr. Tsoutsouvis. The fifth source, a news article that I do not have access to it. ("Bombs hit cities across Europe; One death heavy damage in four blasts". Ottawa Citizen. UPI. 9 September 1986.) The title suggests that it is a report from a blast in Athens. So, I can't see how these links contribute to the notability of the subject. I am certain there are many more mentions in various media. But not one covers in significant extent Christos Tsoutsouvis. Cinadon36 (talk) 18:23, 27 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Not a single one of the borderline RS presented are about the Christos Tsoutsouvis. Yes, he is mentioned by mainstream Greek media, but there is no comprehensive work about the life of Tsoutsouvis. PS: The article at enet.gr is about seven bombs attacks in Athens. The article at Rizospastis is about another greek guerilla/terrorist. The article at Kathimerini is about ELA, a group that Tsoutsouvis was part of it (maybe we could merge). The article at reader.gr is about Koufontinas (another terrorist). Reader.gr is not RS. Anarchypress is a blog, can not use it to establish notability. Cinadon36 (talk) 13:18, 6 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
That is not valid reasoning for keeping the article. Cinadon36 (talk) 12:20, 6 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Speedy delete as an extremely bad idea, not worth spending a discussion on. Fails about every guideline and policy on article inclusion we have. WP:IAR speedy deletion as it doesn't match a pre-existing speedy cat. Fram (talk) 10:44, 27 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Aisle information for Coles (Burwood, NSW)[edit]

Aisle information for Coles (Burwood, NSW) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

WP:NOT - these two articles, a list of supermarket aisles, and a list of lists of supermarket aisles (one entry so far), represent a new project by Vitreology which is beyond the scope of this wiki. Cabayi (talk) 10:40, 27 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Removing reference to the list of lists since List of retail layout tables just got deleted G6. Cabayi (talk) 10:43, 27 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
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 11:27, 7 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The Terrorland[edit]

The Terrorland (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

A never-published, allegedly "stolen" novel. The sources in the External links section are very weak and do not indicate the work or its author meet WP:GNG. GregorB (talk) 10:10, 27 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. Icewhiz (talk) 12:40, 27 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Afghanistan-related deletion discussions. Icewhiz (talk) 12:40, 27 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. Icewhiz (talk) 12:40, 27 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was speedy deleted g5 by Bbb23 (non-admin closure) Praxidicae (talk) 17:13, 27 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Akash Banerjee[edit]

Akash Banerjee (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Most of the references are centered around him being a speaker at a delhi litfest 2016 event. Other than that I don't think there are enough sources to establish notability. Daiyusha (talk) 09:28, 27 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

bonadea SPI is still open, so the G5 is not applicable right now. I have removed G5 and restored AfD tags. --DBigXrayᗙ 12:43, 27 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 12:17, 27 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Could you have a look at the contribs of the creator of that page, he seems to be too desperate for the article to exist, he keeps giving me barnstars requesting me not to delete the page. Daiyusha (talk) 13:49, 27 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Whilst there is some coverage of this, in the article and below, the sources cited are almost invariably very brief mentions of the "curse" and can essentially be summarised as, "you might have heard of the Aaron Ramsey curse, here's some random people tweeting about it". People reporting other people's tweets is not significant coverage satisfying GNG. Fenix down (talk) 19:03, 6 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Curse of Aaron Ramsey[edit]

Curse of Aaron Ramsey (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Does not meet notability standards if the non-reliable sources (most of them) are excluded. Additionally, this is a BLP violation as Ramsey is alive. We shouldn't be perpetuating this sort of nonsense about living people. Philafrenzy (talk) 09:22, 27 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Curse of the Bambino doesn't single out one living individual does it? The sources here may talk negatively about this "curse" but the existence of the article effectively legitimises what amounts to a rather unpleasant (if ludicrous) campaign against one person. Protecting living individuals from this sort of victimisation trumps GNG in my view. He is quoted in the article as saying he finds the whole thing distasteful and who can blame him? How would you feel if it was you? Philafrenzy (talk) 10:43, 27 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 12:18, 27 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. Bakazaka (talk) 19:57, 27 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. Bakazaka (talk) 19:57, 27 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Wales-related deletion discussions. Bakazaka (talk) 19:57, 27 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Bakazaka (talk) 19:57, 27 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Is a snow close appropriate here given the BLP violation? Philafrenzy (talk) 12:55, 28 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
What's the actual BLP violation? Nothing here is poorly sourced. SportingFlyer T·C 14:30, 28 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
The majority of the sources are not reliable but that isn't the real problem. The problem is that it perpetuates and gives credibility to the ludicrous idea that a living person's football playing kills people. Don't you see that? Philafrenzy (talk) 14:51, 28 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I wouldn't necessarily call this a "BLP violation", but if I had to formulate a principle which is arguably violated here, it would be this: when adding to a BLP something the person in question would reasonably not want to see in his or her bio, make sure the inclusion of that content has a legitimate encyclopedic justification. GregorB (talk) 15:56, 28 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not all that fussed with the content, especially considering it's a story that's been picked up internationally in reliable sources such as [21]. It passes WP:GNG, isn't a clear WP:BLP violation, and I don't see any problem mentioning it here. I'm not arguing it's not ludicrous! SportingFlyer T·C 16:27, 28 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Not yet notable, happy to restore to userspace for drafting if an editor requests it. Fenix down (talk) 19:06, 6 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Kouamé Ouattara[edit]

Kouamé Ouattara (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Footballer who fails GNG and WP:NFOOTY. Though he has signed with a Canadian club from a fully-pro league, the season doesn't start until April. Maybe it's worth to draftspace him until his debut. BlameRuiner (talk) 08:24, 27 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. Icewhiz (talk) 08:37, 27 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. Icewhiz (talk) 08:37, 27 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. GiantSnowman 10:27, 28 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. -- RoySmith (talk) 23:29, 7 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Gumpy[edit]

Gumpy (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

No coverage in independent reliable sources. It was published in this paper, which has 2 citations according to Google Scholar. Does not meet WP:GNG, WP:NSOFTWARE. signed, Rosguill talk 08:05, 27 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. Icewhiz (talk) 08:23, 27 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. Icewhiz (talk) 08:23, 27 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. — JJMC89 (T·C) 05:02, 7 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Marcus LaVoi[edit]

AfDs for this article:
Marcus LaVoi (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Subject is an actor. No IS and RS found except one interview piece - Here. Fails WP:GNG and WP:NACTOR. CASSIOPEIA(talk) 06:35, 27 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. CASSIOPEIA(talk) 06:37, 27 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Minnesota-related deletion discussions. CASSIOPEIA(talk) 06:37, 27 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

How is he not notable when he's an actor that has been on way more than one professional, Hollywood film and television franchise. He's worked with Steven Soderbergh, been on The Young And The Restless, and is one of the only professional actors I've ever head of who started out as a security guard, and was pulled organically into a career as a professional actor. Stop hating on this man's story! Isn't this what Wikipedia is supposed to be about? I tell you, you hard-nosed moderators make it nearly impossible for people to contribute to this thing. It's gotten out of control, and when Wiki asks for annual donations, it makes it kind of had to reach down to the bottom of our hearts to give openly when it's so torturous for regular people to contribute to this forum. It's too hard. So I hope you don't delete this page, because this actor has an interesting story. Interesting to me, at least. And to Netflix, and to soap operas, and to action filmmakers, and to Oscar-winning directors. Please don't act like relentless terrorists and delete this man's page. His IMDB shows a strong and constantly growing body of work that exemplifies the progressing career of an actor with an interesting story. Thank You. M3diaguide (talk) 13:58, 27 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

He is not notable according to Wikipedia's specific criteria because he does not meet these requirements. Most actors don't - it's not a sign of being a bad or uninteresting actor, it only means that Wikipedia has special requirements and he doesn't meet them (yet). --bonadea contributions talk 14:26, 27 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Closing this as a matter of housekeeping: two AfD discussions were opened simultaneously, and it is the other one that's linked from the article, so I will move my rationale there. bonadea contributions talk 11:49, 27 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Marcus LaVoi[edit]

Marcus LaVoi (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

PROD contested by COI editor "on actor's behalf". The actor does not come close to meeting WP:NACTOR or WP:GNG and the article is almost entirely promotional. bonadea contributions talk 06:34, 27 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Minnesota-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 06:57, 27 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 06:58, 27 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 16:14, 7 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Piotr Paciorek[edit]

Piotr Paciorek (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Non-notable academic--the article reads like a resume, and I haven't found any secondary sources discussing him or his work. gnu57 06:23, 27 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 06:56, 27 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Florida-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 06:56, 27 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 16:15, 7 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Nancy Marshall[edit]

Nancy Marshall (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

A very adverty article whose subject does not have significant independent coverage in reliable sources, although as the head of a small PR firm, there's a lot of trivial coverage of the subject and coverage that quotes the subject. Marshall has won an award conferred by the Kennebec Valley Chamber of Commerce, which does not seem to me to be enough to meet WP:ANYBIO. Does not meet WP:GNG. signed, Rosguill talk 05:39, 27 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 06:17, 27 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 06:19, 27 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was redirect to HIStory: Past, Present and Future, Book I. Consensus to redirect. If any content is merged, redirect can be retargeted to the appropriate section. (non-admin closure) Alpha3031 (t • c) 01:20, 7 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Michael Jackson HIStory statue[edit]

Michael Jackson HIStory statue (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

The statue was created to promote the album and tour for the album HIStory: Past, Present and Future, Book I, and is already covered in that article. The statue doesn't appear to have been covered by enough good sources for a dedicated article. Popcornduff (talk) 05:25, 27 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. Icewhiz (talk) 07:13, 27 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Netherlands-related deletion discussions. Icewhiz (talk) 07:13, 27 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Nevada-related deletion discussions. Icewhiz (talk) 07:14, 27 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Basically, not enough people have come forward to defend keeping the article, therefore consensus is to delete. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 16:12, 7 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Manny Parra's perfect game[edit]

Manny Parra's perfect game (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Fails WP:GNG, lacking the multiple sources of independent, significant coverage typically expected. Even if you accept that Minor League Baseball's website (MiLB.com) is truly independent, most of the significant coverage I find is from that same publisher, which only counts as a single source for notability purposes per GNG. This single game also fails guideline WP:CONTINUEDCOVERAGE; there is only trivial mention after the initial news spike. Outside the routine game summary, the rest of the article is a WP:COATRACK for Parra's career, not the game itself. Yes, this has been approved as a Good Article, but initial discussions at Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Baseball#Notability_of_minor_league_perfect_game indicate this is worth a full discussion at AfD. —Bagumba (talk) 10:08, 19 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Baseball-related deletion discussions. —Bagumba (talk) 10:14, 19 February 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? 11:05, 19 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Tennessee-related deletion discussions. ...William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 11:05, 19 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Yes, there is consensus here to delete. Given that the article is a GA, I would like that consensus be even firmer before pushing the button, to forestall any drama that might ensue. If another admin wishes to delete immediately, I will not stand in the way.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Vanamonde (Talk) 03:55, 27 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) feminist (talk) 12:09, 6 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Elements (restaurant)[edit]

AfDs for this article:
Elements (restaurant) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Does not meet WP:ORG notability requirements. Sourcing is provided by routine restaurant reviews. We cannot include every restaurant that gets a review. Rusf10 (talk) 04:17, 19 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of New Jersey-related deletion discussions. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 06:08, 19 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 06:08, 19 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Time and time again it is argued that because something has a article in the New York Times, it must be notable. I have yet to see this policy granting auto-notability to anything that can be sourced to the New York Times. The fact is the New York Times regularly covers New Jersey and this falls under WP:AUD--Rusf10 (talk) 17:26, 19 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
As usual, the nothing should be deleted argument.--Rusf10 (talk) 17:26, 19 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
In case it affects your opinion, I just want to point out that the Forbes source is not written by a staff member or published in a print issue. Forbes.com "contributors" have been judged generally unreliable. Colin M (talk) 19:49, 19 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Good point Colin, the Forbes article is basically the equivalent of an opinion column. And much more importantly, it is nothing more than a listing, there is no in depth coverage of the restaurant in Forbes.--Rusf10 (talk) 02:05, 20 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • No, it's an bad point because it appears that the Forbes article hasn't been properly read or understood and so its content is misrepresented. The article in Forbes is not one person's listicle. It's a review of a list published elsewhere and that list was based on a survey of 70,000 places by about 3000 food experts. The exercise covered the entire USA and was organised by Steve Plotnicki who is quite a reputable pundit. Andrew D. (talk) 23:29, 20 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Doesn't matter how many people were polled, its still a list, not significant coverage as required by WP:GNG.--Rusf10 (talk) 00:04, 21 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Food and drink-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 00:50, 20 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
New York city is right next to Jersey, it's still local coverage. The Forbes article is nothing more than a list, it is not in-depth coverage and therefore cannot contribute to notability. --Rusf10 (talk) 09:19, 22 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
A city of 8 million people is next to a state of 9 million people, so you consider that local coverage? Dream Focus 11:38, 22 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Vanamonde (Talk) 03:37, 27 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Seems to be a review for another restaurant owned by the same owners -- it is a bare mention of Elements. I'm removing that source from the article. valereee (talk) 12:50, 27 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. Very good spot Valereee. The case for Elements is now just ILIKEIT; not even a notable NY-area restaurant. Britishfinance (talk) 14:50, 27 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Rhododendrites, wow, that must have been a lack of coffee issue...I would have sworn I checked to see if there were any other NYT article listed! So sorry! valereee (talk) 18:34, 27 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Regardless, I still can't believe a single NY Times restaurant review makes this notable.WP:GNG requires significant coverage in multiple sources. Would someone please show me what policy says that everything the New York Times covers must be notable? Every other sources presented is indisputably local, so how have we come to the conclusion that the restaurant is notable based on one source alone?--Rusf10 (talk) 18:49, 27 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was speedy deleted by @TonyBallioni per WP:CSD#G5. (non-admin closure) DannyS712 (talk) 04:51, 27 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Altoona child sexual abuse scandal[edit]

Altoona child sexual abuse scandal (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

It appears as though this page was previously created by a sock and then deleted. [32], [33], and [34] Meatsgains(talk) 03:16, 27 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hello everyone, I re-created this page as I feel it is certainly notable for an article on Wikipedia given it's scale and nature of abuse. It was deleted numerous times previously with the only reason being it was created by a sock. I do not feel however just because an article was deleted numerous previous times it should be deleted again because someone doesn't like it, and does not have adequate reason to do so. Thanks.AlbionJack (talk) 03:30, 27 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. 78.26 (spin me / revolutions) 16:09, 7 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Lolipop lagelu[edit]

Lolipop lagelu (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Fails WP:NSONG. Sheldybett (talk) 03:14, 27 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 06:36, 27 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 06:36, 27 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 06:36, 27 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Editor indefinitely blocked as sockpuppet. Richard3120 (talk) 16:38, 6 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • @Iamzine13: Please note that your comment to oppose may be dismissed as it falls under WP:ILIKEIT. Personal preference is not a valid reason to keep or delete an article or other content. Horizonlove (talk) 09:43, 4 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@NIA3000: Please note that your comment to oppose may be dismissed as it falls under WP:ILIKEIT. Personal preference is not a valid reason to keep or delete an article or other content. Horizonlove (talk) 09:43, 4 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. Consensus to keep based on sources in the Russian language version of this article. (non-admin closure) feminist (talk) 12:06, 6 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Kingdom of Crooked Mirrors (2007 film)[edit]

Kingdom of Crooked Mirrors (2007 film) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. ~Ruyaba~ {talk} 23:29, 12 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Russia-related deletion discussions. ~Ruyaba~ {talk} 23:29, 12 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: We are getting close to a Keep consensus... but not quite there.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ad Orientem (talk) 00:25, 20 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ~SS49~ {talk} 02:49, 27 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was redirect to Santa Semeli and the Monks. (non-admin closure) Atlantic306 (talk) 18:37, 6 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Semeli Economou[edit]

Semeli Economou (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Subject isn't notable and article is written promotionally. Joe (talk) 19:39, 12 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Bakazaka (talk) 23:47, 12 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Bakazaka (talk) 23:47, 12 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Bakazaka (talk) 23:47, 12 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. ~Ruyaba~ {talk} 23:48, 12 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. ~Ruyaba~ {talk} 23:48, 12 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. ~Ruyaba~ {talk} 23:48, 12 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Poetry-related deletion discussions. ~Ruyaba~ {talk} 23:48, 12 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Germany-related deletion discussions. ~Ruyaba~ {talk} 23:48, 12 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ad Orientem (talk) 00:26, 20 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ~SS49~ {talk} 02:49, 27 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was redirect to Connie Hedegaard. Sandstein 15:00, 7 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Det 20. århundrede – De 100 mest betydningsfulde personer i Danmark[edit]

Det 20. århundrede – De 100 mest betydningsfulde personer i Danmark (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Appears to me to fail WP:NBOOK/WP:GNG. Madness Darkness 00:58, 20 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. Bakazaka (talk) 01:38, 20 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Denmark-related deletion discussions. Bakazaka (talk) 01:38, 20 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ~SS49~ {talk} 02:48, 27 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Sandstein 14:59, 7 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Fritz Renold[edit]

Fritz Renold (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Questionable notability, not enough sources for an article of substance Vmavanti (talk) 00:32, 13 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Vmavanti, I don't know what went wrong, but I deleted the second AfD and corrected the listing. Anyway, this artist probably meets WP:MUSICBIO, #5, since he's got records out with EMI and Columbia and (I assume) EPM Musique. The sourcing is terrible, that's a fact. Drmies (talk) 00:55, 13 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Twice I tried to use Twinkle, and twice I got error messages. So I clicked on Twinkle Help and it gave me some ideas. I went to the deletion log page for this day. I went into the edit page. There were some syntax errors, perhaps typos, and after I changed a few things the page looked correct. Then I used Twinkle again on both articles and it appeared to work this time. So I assume the deletion log pages works (and Twinkle) unless you want to take a look. Thanks.
Vmavanti (talk) 01:01, 13 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Sure thing. Twinkle has these little hickups sometimes. Ha, I hope I didn't break anything, and if I did, someone will yell at me soon enough. Take care, Drmies (talk) 01:09, 13 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. ~Ruyaba~ {talk} 01:44, 13 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Switzerland-related deletion discussions. ~Ruyaba~ {talk} 01:44, 13 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, DannyS712 (talk) 02:59, 20 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ~SS49~ {talk} 02:47, 27 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Sandstein 14:58, 7 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Abh[edit]

AfDs for this article:
Abh (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

As much as I like that series, this article is all unreferenced fancruft (fails WP:Notability (fiction)). Last AfD ended in 'no consensus', IMHO merge, but there is no referenced content to merge, so... worry not, this is all on Seikai Wikia, so we don't have to worry anything valuable will be lost. PS. Clearly the AfD for this article template needs a fix... Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 02:45, 27 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. Bakazaka (talk) 17:37, 27 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Science fiction-related deletion discussions. Bakazaka (talk) 17:37, 27 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. Bakazaka (talk) 17:37, 27 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Sandstein 14:58, 7 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Groww[edit]

Groww (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Non-notable company. All the news I can find (and pretty much all the sources provided here) are routine funding news (string: "groww"), and nothing more substantial than that. —A little blue Bori v^_^v Bori! 06:11, 13 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. ~Ruyaba~ {talk} 06:24, 13 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Finance-related deletion discussions. ~Ruyaba~ {talk} 06:24, 13 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. ~Ruyaba~ {talk} 06:24, 13 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. ~Ruyaba~ {talk} 06:24, 13 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. ~Ruyaba~ {talk} 06:24, 13 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Mhhossein talk 03:37, 20 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ~SS49~ {talk} 02:46, 27 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Sandstein 14:58, 7 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Laxpower[edit]

Laxpower (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

This was deleted before (not the same version), but still does not meet any of our notability guidelines. In a word: failsGNG. Just another website, with a few notes from trivial sources that indicated it existed. Drmies (talk) 06:04, 13 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of News media-related deletion discussions. ~Ruyaba~ {talk} 06:21, 13 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. ~Ruyaba~ {talk} 06:21, 13 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. ~Ruyaba~ {talk} 06:21, 13 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. ~Ruyaba~ {talk} 06:21, 13 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. AllyD (talk) 07:46, 13 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Mhhossein talk 03:37, 20 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ~SS49~ {talk} 02:46, 27 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Sandstein 14:58, 7 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Eats Media[edit]

Eats Media (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Only major, independent, reliable coverage is the NYT source. However, that was just launch hype, failing WP:SUSTAINED and WP:MULTSOURCES. This leads me to believe this fails WP:NCORP. SITH (talk) 13:39, 13 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. ~Ruyaba~ {talk} 14:26, 13 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. ~Ruyaba~ {talk} 14:26, 13 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. ~Ruyaba~ {talk} 14:26, 13 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Mhhossein talk 03:43, 20 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ~SS49~ {talk} 02:44, 27 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was redirect to Guantanamo Bay detention camp. To allow merging of content from history if desired. Sandstein 14:57, 7 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Mahmoud Omar Mohammed Bin Atef[edit]

Mahmoud Omar Mohammed Bin Atef (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Unless being detained on charges of waging war against another country is default sign of notable, there is nothing notable about this individual. The articles are about the overall Guatanamo detainee program or lists of thsoe detained, nothing specifically focuses on him in an indepth way John Pack Lambert (talk) 01:07, 13 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Yemen-related deletion discussions. ~Ruyaba~ {talk} 01:39, 13 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Terrorism-related deletion discussions. Bakazaka (talk) 02:21, 13 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Ghana-related deletion discussions. Bakazaka (talk) 02:21, 13 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Xymmax So let it be written So let it be done 03:50, 20 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ~SS49~ {talk} 02:44, 27 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Sandstein 14:57, 7 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Mvss[edit]

Mvss (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

I'd normally draftify the article, but I doubt Mvss is notable at the moment.  I dream of horses (My talk page) (My edits) @ 04:35, 20 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions.  I dream of horses (My talk page) (My edits) @ 04:37, 20 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Africa-related deletion discussions.  I dream of horses (My talk page) (My edits) @ 04:37, 20 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Maryland-related deletion discussions.  I dream of horses (My talk page) (My edits) @ 04:37, 20 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ~SS49~ {talk} 02:43, 27 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. — RHaworth (talk · contribs) 15:57, 5 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Picodi[edit]

Picodi (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Seems like yet another paid-for WP:SPA 'contribution' about bazillionth minor start up. References are press releases and their rewrites in low quality media outlets. Worse, this start up changed names several times, and tracing and verifying its history is problematic, particularly as the sources do not fully confirm that the prior names are associated with this company (while likely, this assumption is a proof that the article creator was told 'this is our former name' by the company that handed him a bunch of links and commissioned this entry). Bottom line, fails WP:NOTYELLOWPAGES, fails WP:NCOMPANY, and block the spam SPA for the good measure for undisclosed paid contributions. Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 06:02, 20 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 07:24, 20 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 07:25, 20 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Poland-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 07:25, 20 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ~SS49~ {talk} 02:42, 27 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Sandstein 14:56, 7 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The League (web series)[edit]

The League (web series) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

WP:NWEB / WP:FAILN. Not notable. Existing sources are dead, even some that are supposedly archived. – Broccoli & Coffee (Oh hai) 06:03, 20 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 07:23, 20 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 07:23, 20 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ~SS49~ {talk} 02:42, 27 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Sandstein 14:56, 7 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Bell station (PAAC)[edit]

Bell station (PAAC) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Rail, subway, and perhaps even light rail stations are usually said to be notable. Bus stations however? A stop on the road with (in this case) some parking places and presumably a shelter for passengers. No evidence that this is a notable subject which has received significant attention (not routine coverage) in reliable, independent sources. Feel free to add other similar bus stops from PAAC to this nomination if they have the same characteristics. Fram (talk) 10:34, 20 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 12:56, 20 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Pennsylvania-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 12:56, 20 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks. There is no reason to let uniformity trump notability. Something like Herron station seems equally problematic. Listing these in the general article about the busway, fine, but I see no good reason to have separate articles about these. Fram (talk) 13:25, 20 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
*One reason why I would like uniformity however is for the adjacent station module. If, say, I didn't do Bell and Ingram, the two least used stations, this would make it basically useless. This is just one small part of each article, though so it would not be a huge deal. Bacon BMW (talk • contribs) 13:32, 20 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Yes, that's a general problem with navboxes and similar things: if the succession (whether stations, mayors, ...) is between notable and non-notable subjects, then they become rather useless. Fram (talk) 13:38, 20 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • I do want a third party to look over this before any thing happens. I see your point, however, I still feel like the fact that it is a station with some sort of facility where a vehicle is scheduled to stop makes it notable, but I definetly agree with some of what you are saying. Bacon BMW (talk • contribs) 13:50, 20 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ~SS49~ {talk} 02:41, 27 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Sandstein 14:56, 7 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Yifan Tang[edit]

Yifan Tang (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Sources appear to be primarily press releases or to mention Tang in passing. He does not appear to be notable separately from his company, if his company is notable. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 05:39, 13 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. ~Ruyaba~ {talk} 06:18, 13 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. ~Ruyaba~ {talk} 06:18, 13 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ―Abelmoschus Esculentus (talk • contribs) 12:12, 20 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ~SS49~ {talk} 02:40, 27 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Sandstein 14:56, 7 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Briccialdi Flutes[edit]

Briccialdi Flutes (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Fails WP:ORG; no significant coverage in multiple independent, reliable secondary sources. Neil S. Walker (talk) 12:50, 20 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 13:03, 20 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 13:04, 20 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Italy-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 13:04, 20 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ~SS49~ {talk} 02:39, 27 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Sandstein 14:55, 7 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Gordon Adomdza[edit]

AfDs for this article:
    Gordon Adomdza (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
    (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

    The page written suggests the subject is a professor just going about his normal duties. Not a notable encyclopedic topic. sandioosesTextMe 13:44, 20 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

    Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Ghana-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 14:04, 20 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 14:04, 20 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 14:04, 20 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
    Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ~SS49~ {talk} 02:38, 27 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
    The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

    The result was delete. Sandstein 14:55, 7 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

    Friedrich Peus[edit]

    Friedrich Peus (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
    (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

    Inadequately sourced biography of a person notable only as a smalltown lawyer and municipal councillor. This is not a claim of notability that constitutes an automatic free pass over WP:NPOL, but the article is not referenced anywhere near well enough to get him over WP:GNG -- it's referenced only to the very tops of archival navigation trees, with no clear indication of where in those trees any actual content about Friedrich Peus himself might be found, and even the search bar at the bottom of the page fails to help at all. Bearcat (talk) 02:37, 27 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

    Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. Bakazaka (talk) 20:07, 27 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    Note: This discussion has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. Bakazaka (talk) 20:07, 27 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Germany-related deletion discussions. Bakazaka (talk) 20:07, 27 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
    The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

    The result was delete. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 13:57, 7 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

    Keegan Farmer[edit]

    Keegan Farmer (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
    (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

    Subject does not appear to meet relevant notability guidelines and lacks non-trivial coverage from independent reliable sources. Allied45 (talk) 08:53, 13 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

    Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. ~Ruyaba~ {talk} 09:43, 13 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. ~Ruyaba~ {talk} 09:43, 13 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Australia -related deletion discussions. ~Ruyaba~ {talk} 09:43, 13 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
    Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, 78.26 (spin me / revolutions) 16:09, 20 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
    Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ~SS49~ {talk} 02:36, 27 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
    The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

    The result was delete. Sandstein 14:54, 7 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

    Srinagar–Kargil–Leh line[edit]

    Srinagar–Kargil–Leh line (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
    (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

    Perhaps the page was created on a mere announcement backed by an archived single source which said "survey will be conducted in 2013-14". The line is non-existent as well as that survey which never took place.  MehrajMir (talk) 13:37, 13 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

    Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. ~Ruyaba~ {talk} 14:28, 13 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. ~Ruyaba~ {talk} 14:28, 13 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
    Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Vanamonde (Talk) 16:57, 20 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
    Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ~SS49~ {talk} 02:36, 27 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
    The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

    The result was delete. Sandstein 14:54, 7 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

    Whereigo[edit]

    AfDs for this article:
      Whereigo (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
      (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

      Stub article fails to meet notability criteria PTMY (talk) 17:12, 20 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

      Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Video games-related deletion discussions. Bakazaka (talk) 20:24, 20 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
      Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. Bakazaka (talk) 20:24, 20 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
      Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
      Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ~SS49~ {talk} 02:34, 27 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
      The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
      The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

      The result was delete. czar 03:03, 6 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

      EVOS (restaurant)[edit]

      EVOS (restaurant) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
      (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
      (EVOS Food Creations: Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

      Small restaurant chain (currently 4 locations in Tampa, Florida), does not meet WP:NCORP. Insufficient in-depth coverage in RS. MB 02:34, 27 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

      Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Food and drink-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 06:39, 27 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
      Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Florida-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 06:39, 27 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
      Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 06:39, 27 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
      The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
      The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

      The result was keep. (non-admin closure) Jovanmilic97 (talk) 15:31, 6 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

      Ben Rehder[edit]

      Ben Rehder (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
      (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

      A WP:BEFORE search turned up nothing WP:RS. The article was WP:BLPPRODded 3 days after creation, but the tag was removed 2 days later after non-RS links to Amazon, Goodreads, Google Books and Kirkus had been added. The only current source is the author's own website. Narky Blert (talk) 18:32, 20 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

      Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. Bakazaka (talk) 20:25, 20 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
      Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Texas-related deletion discussions. Bakazaka (talk) 20:25, 20 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
      Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
      Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ~SS49~ {talk} 02:34, 27 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
      The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
      The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

      The result was delete. Sandstein 14:54, 7 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

      Ixthuluh[edit]

      Ixthuluh (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
      (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

      Not clear that this band is notable. Mccapra (talk) 20:14, 20 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

      Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Bakazaka (talk) 20:28, 20 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
      Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Austria-related deletion discussions. Bakazaka (talk) 20:28, 20 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
      Source assessment table:
      Source Independent? Reliable? Significant coverage? Count source toward GNG?
      http://www.matscheko.at/ No WP:SPS ~ Depends, not used as ILCs. Yes By virtue of affiliation. ✘ No
      http://www.matscheko.at/ix_dl.html No Ditto. ~ Ditto. Yes Ditto. ✘ No
      http://www.ixthuluh.com/ No Domain name matches name of band. ? Unsure, searched for source text in image, couldn't find anything. No Seems unrelated to the band, about the 2015 Hugo Awards, for which they seem neither to have been nominated or won. ✘ No
      This table may not be a final or consensus view; it may summarize developing consensus, or reflect assessments of a single editor. Created using ((source assess table)).
      ...or those turned up by a Google Search. SITH (talk) 03:54, 21 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
      Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
      Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ~SS49~ {talk} 02:33, 27 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
      The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
      The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

      The result was delete. Sandstein 14:54, 7 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

      Italyabroad.com[edit]

      Italyabroad.com (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
      (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

      A small company of doubtful notability lacking multiple independent sources. Mccapra (talk) 20:25, 20 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

      Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 20:27, 20 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
      Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Italy-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 20:28, 20 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
      Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 20:28, 20 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
      Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Food and drink-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 20:28, 20 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
      Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
      Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ~SS49~ {talk} 02:32, 27 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
      The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
      The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

      The result was delete. No indication that the club has received sufficient coverage to satisfy GNG. Fenix down (talk) 08:04, 6 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

      Saanich Fusion FC[edit]

      Saanich Fusion FC (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
      (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

      Amateur/youth soccer club in Canada. No senior team has ever played in a notable league and the article has insufficient sources. Doesn't pass GNG. Madg2011 (talk) 20:41, 20 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

      Note: This discussion has been included in the list of British Columbia-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 20:44, 20 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
      Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 20:45, 20 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
      Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 20:45, 20 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
      Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions.CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 20:48, 20 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
      Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
      Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ~SS49~ {talk} 02:31, 27 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
      The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
      The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

      The result was delete. Sandstein 14:53, 7 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

      Stark Productions[edit]

      Stark Productions (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
      (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

      Only assertions are notability are that it is "award-winning" and a registered trademark. Non-notable? ViperSnake151  Talk  22:14, 20 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

      Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. Bakazaka (talk) 23:13, 20 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
      Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Bakazaka (talk) 23:13, 20 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
      Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Ontario-related deletion discussions. Bakazaka (talk) 23:13, 20 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
      Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
      Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ~SS49~ {talk} 02:30, 27 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
      The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
      The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

      The result was delete. Sandstein 14:53, 7 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

      Atlantic Youth Bowling[edit]

      Atlantic Youth Bowling (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
      (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

      Article on a junior sports programme that has been unsourced since its creation in October 2013. No substantive improvement since creation. I cannot find any in-depth coverage in independent RS. Fails WP:ORG. Delete. Just Chilling (talk) 22:19, 20 February 2019 (UTC) Just Chilling (talk) 22:19, 20 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

      Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. Bakazaka (talk) 23:13, 20 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
      Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. Bakazaka (talk) 23:13, 20 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
      Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. Bakazaka (talk) 23:13, 20 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
      Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
      Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ~SS49~ {talk} 02:30, 27 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
      The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
      The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

      The result was delete. Sandstein 14:53, 7 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

      Smart securities[edit]

      Smart securities (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
      (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

      Delete non-notable, the first entire paragraph is an advertisement which I consider unambiguous but CSD been contested. Phrases like "blockchain-based digital interest that represents an ownership claim" and "We propose the industry coalesce around Smart Securities because it accurately reflects the programmability of these new financial instruments" make this an advertisement and nothing more. Hell in a Bucket (talk) 02:18, 27 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

      • And to think that people actually get paid to write such drivel. Phil Bridger (talk) 12:10, 28 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
      Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Language-related deletion discussions. Bakazaka (talk) 17:39, 27 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
      Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Finance-related deletion discussions. Bakazaka (talk) 17:39, 27 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
      The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
      The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

      The result was delete. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 13:57, 7 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

      Catrinel Menghia[edit]

      Catrinel Menghia (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
      (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

      All these claims that she is a “top model” but nothing to show for it (maybe because it’s not actually true!). Per my research, she hasn’t done much to solidify NMODEL, only a smattering of jobs; there was that Super Bowl commercial years ago but it’s not like any reliable publication such as Vogue or GQ went in depth on her to even have reliable sources. Of what I could muster up from Romanian sources, she’s more known for her romantic exploits than her career. Trillfendi (talk) 01:00, 27 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

      Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. ~SS49~ {talk} 02:22, 27 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
      Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fashion-related deletion discussions. ~SS49~ {talk} 02:22, 27 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
      Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Romania-related deletion discussions. ~SS49~ {talk} 02:22, 27 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
      The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
      The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

      The result was keep. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 13:56, 7 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

      1979–80 Notre Dame Fighting Irish men's basketball team[edit]

      1979–80 Notre Dame Fighting Irish men's basketball team (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
      (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

      Plainly violates WP:NOTSTATS on its face. Possibly WP:NSEASONS as well. I have no problem rescinding this if it can be reliably sourced with prose. SportingFlyer T·C 00:59, 27 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

      Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Basketball-related deletion discussions.  I dream of horses (My talk page) (My edits) @ 01:01, 27 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
      Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Indiana-related deletion discussions.  I dream of horses (My talk page) (My edits) @ 01:01, 27 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
      Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 06:41, 27 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
      • @Bagumba: I'm less concerned with the WP:NSEASONS SNG than I am about WP:NOTSTATS. This article, as it stands, clearly fails WP:NOTSTATS, a part of WP:NOT, as it's a copy and paste job from a statistical directory. It can probably be improved, and I mentioned as such in the nomination. I've come across a lot of college basketball articles very similar to this one at AfC recently and have declined them for failing what Wikipedia is not. I noticed this one got moved to mainspace within the last couple days, so I AfD'd it. If we're going to keep articles that fail WP:NOT but may be notable once they don't fail WP:NOT, that'd be good to know. SportingFlyer T·C 23:30, 27 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
      • @SportingFlyer: I understand your concern. My philosophy is not based solely on whether the article is currently all stats. If the topic meets GNG, independent of the state of the article, I ask if the current stats shown are verifiable (even if not cited) and if I would expect to find such stats if the article was an FA. In this case, I would expect a table of results in an FA article. It's another question of when this ideally should have been approved from AfC. An alterative besides AfD could have been to boldly move it back into Draft namespace or reach an agreement with the approver. Perhaps that could be an option here too still. But this effort should not be lost if the topic is in fact notable. Some editors only want to contribute stats. They have a place in Wikipedia, within limits. This is not necessarily a sports phenomena. See 2018_California_State_Assembly_election. Regards.—Bagumba (talk) 02:06, 28 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
      • @Bagumba: Just out of curiosity, do you believe every college basketball season notable? I'm asking because I just tagged 2012–13 Hartford Hawks men's basketball team as unreferenced, seven years after the AfD. I'm fine with draftifying this, but so many really poor season articles (unreferenced or sourced only to the school record book) get kept on WP:NEXIST grounds and then never get improved. Since the AfC standard is "likely to be kept at AfD," I'm trying to figure out if I should just accept these articles at AfC even if they're terribly referenced since they're likely to get kept as-is, but that still seems problematic to me somehow? SportingFlyer T·C 02:47, 28 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
      • @SportingFlyer: I generally dont edit season articles outside of UCLA. I'd be more skeptical of any program not in the Power Five, but I dont follow those programs enough to have a definitive opinion yet. I suggest bringing it up at WP:CBBALL to see what others think.—Bagumba (talk) 05:36, 28 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
      • I would say that pretty much all NCAA men's division I seasons are going to be notable given the significant coverage that comes at that level - coverage is constant and there is national interest in teams from all over. The coverage NCAA division I football and men's basketball gets is very similar to what top professional leagues get. I live in a town with two mid-major programs (one traditionally strong one, one sort of mediocre) and from about two months out from the start of the season to a month or so after there is daily coverage not only locally, but across a number of states - not just game summaries, but feature articles about the team, coaches, fans, etc. That is a separate question as to whether or not hastily-written articles that aren't more than results tables should be written. The first goes to notability, the second goes to acceptable standards. I can add a few sources to this article this weekend when I have time - I looked and they are plentiful (as I said, this is not a close notability case), but I just won't commit to go deep into writing season articles - it is not an area of interest for me - I much prefer to create/work on articles about people. I do think the article being promoted from AfC as is likely shouldn't have happened, and may be something to discuss with the editor who promoted it. Like I said, give me the weekend and I can at least get the sourcing/prose to a minimally acceptable level. Rikster2 (talk) 13:50, 28 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
      • The rule at AfC is "likely to be kept at AfD." I'm happy to functionally withdraw my nomination if we can source this properly, but if all NCAA men's seasons are presumptively notable (not discussed by WP:NSEASONS, to be fair) would that mean these sorts of articles should just be brought over regardless of the state of their sourcing, since they'd be kept under WP:NEXIST? I hope it's clear I'm trying to address something I see as a problem and I hope this isn't coming off as WP:POINTY. SportingFlyer T·C 14:26, 28 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
      • I think new articles shouldn't be promoted if they don't meet standards for season articles (ie, no prose, no reliable sources) and this should be communicated to anyone with AfC reviewer or new page reviewer access. That seems like a safeguard that could be added to that process relatively easily. For the ones that exist, I guess take it to the college basketball wikiproject. I will tell you, a LOT of people view these articles so just deleting them out of hand seems like a bad move. The new ones are created by a handful of users, so seems like they could be educated as to what standards for these articles need to be. Rikster2 (talk) 14:39, 28 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
      • Sounds like a good course of action to me. I will note the Hartford men's basketball pages, the ones unreferenced for six-seven years, only receive a handful of views a month. I'm not sure those seasons are actually notable. I think a team in a more prominent league would be presumptively notable. I think part of the problem is it's difficult to figure out when WP:NSEASONS is actually met via WP:GNG, for any sport, not just college basketball - for instance, when is season coverage not routine? But that's a topic for another day. SportingFlyer T·C 16:14, 28 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
      • Where is it stated that NOT trumps GNG? Wikipedia is not a list of stats, but that doesn't address an article that can be improved beyond a list of stats IMO. To me, this case is no different than the plethora of one-line Olympian stubs with no independent sources that get AfDed and then improved to meet guidelines (like the recent Diana Soto). The subject does not fail WP:NOT, the article as it is presently constructed does. Rikster2 (talk) 21:23, 28 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
      • It's directly in WP:GNG itself, under the presumption section. A more in-depth discussion might conclude that the topic actually should not have a stand-alone article—perhaps because it violates what Wikipedia is not, particularly the rule that Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information. SportingFlyer T·C 22:21, 28 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
      • No, the part in GNG is talking about article subjects. This subject does not fail NOT. This is the distinction I have been making. The subject “1979-80 Notre Dame men’s basketball team” is not an indiscriminate collection of information, the current poorly-written article is, and that can be corrected. Rikster2 (talk) 22:42, 28 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

      Comment - Prose and sources have been added to the article. Rikster2 (talk) 19:59, 3 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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