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

The result was delete. RL0919 (talk) 23:30, 12 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Mark Chambers (Mayor of Carbon Hill, Alabama)[edit]

Mark Chambers (Mayor of Carbon Hill, Alabama) (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:NPOL. WP:NOTNEWS and WP:BLP1E too. Chambers is a jerk but the world is full of them. ...William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 23:30, 5 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. ...William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 23:30, 5 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Alabama-related deletion discussions. ...William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 23:30, 5 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Not notable under NPOL nor does he approach GNG outside of what is a clear BLP1E. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 01:44, 6 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak Keep passes WP:NPOL he has significant press coverage from national sourcesIamreallygoodatcheckers (talk) 02:34, 6 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Clearly doesn't pass Fails WP:NPOL. WP:BLP1E situation. Best, GPL93 (talk) 03:52, 6 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete except for this 15-minute claim to fame, there's nothing about him. I say we kill off his article for his poor use of phrasal verbs too. "kill out" has to do with curing tobacco.--The Eloquent Peasant (talk) 11:05, 6 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - clear WP:NPOL fail; WP:BLP1E also applies. John from Idegon (talk) 17:29, 6 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Carbon Hill is not even remotely close to large enough to make its mayors automatically notable just for existing as mayors — and although his comments were certainly tasteless and classless, the blip of "kill them out" coverage just makes him a WP:BLP1E, not a topic who has passed the ten-year test for the purposes of earning a permanent place in an encyclopedia. Bearcat (talk) 18:53, 6 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Does not seem notable. He is having his fifteen minutes of fame, and is otherwise not notable.--''Paul, in Saudi'' (talk) 06:50, 7 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete I agree with previous arguments per WP:BLP1E; the subject is notable for only one event, and the event is not significant. --Crystallizedcarbon (talk) 08:59, 7 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per everyone else. This is total garbage. Praxidicae (talk) 21:02, 9 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete — per arguments above. livelikemusic talk! 12:58, 11 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete This is a total violation of not news, especially considering how easy it is for people in this day and age to rashly post their feelings for all to see, there is no justification for the article. I will not even get into the problematic and unblanaced and biased coverage the article itself provides.John Pack Lambert (talk) 03:36, 12 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Mayors are not inherently notable and this one seems to only be so due to a WP:BLP1E. Chetsford (talk) 05:42, 12 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Keep. (non-admin closure) Crystallizedcarbon (talk) 11:46, 12 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Craig Call Black[edit]

Craig Call Black (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)

Cannot see that this paleontologist and academic meets WP:NACADEMIC. Cannot find WP:SIGCOV. Tacyarg (talk) 23:26, 5 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Tacyarg (talk) 23:26, 5 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. Tacyarg (talk) 23:26, 5 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. Tacyarg (talk) 23:26, 5 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organisms-related deletion discussions. Tacyarg (talk) 23:26, 5 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Tacyarg (talk) 23:26, 5 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Connecticut-related deletion discussions. Tacyarg (talk) 23:26, 5 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Kansas-related deletion discussions. Tacyarg (talk) 23:26, 5 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Texas-related deletion discussions. Tacyarg (talk) 23:26, 5 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Keep subject seems to satisfy multiple specific criteria for WP:NACADEMIC and they only need to meet one. Horse Eye Jack (talk) 16:46, 6 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete: As not notable. There are three obituaries or memorials, Albuquerque Journal, Society of Vertebrate Paleontology News Bulletin, and the Geological Society of America (dead link). There was indication the subject was a "noted paleontologist". It is stated that he "published extensively on the evolution of Cenozoic mammals" but I couldn't find anything more than the name C. C. Black and obituaries do not advance notability. The reference "A new owl from the Eocene of Wyoming" list two pages but there is just slight passing mention of the name "Craig C. Black" at the very end. The position of being a member of the National Science Board is not notable. Just having references on an article does not advance notability. I "could not find one source" to come close to satisfying any part of WP:NACADEMIC. Searches included Google, Google Scholar even under "rodents and artiodactyls of North America and Africa", as a paleobiologist (Papers in vertebrate paleontology honoring Robert Warren Wilson), under vertebrate paleontology, different name spellings, Google books, and "The National Academies Press". Sourcing is still a fundamental criteria for inclusion, that there be significant coverage in reliable and independent sources, and I could not find that this is satisfied. Otr500 (talk) 13:05, 7 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Did your google book searches bring up books.google.com/books/about/A_Review_of_the_North_American_Tertiary.html?id=N-yxNQAACAAJ,books.google.com/books/about/Papers_on_Fossil_Rodents_in_Honor_of_Alb.html?id=NeEaTzcyLqYC, and books.google.com/books/about/History_and_prehistory_of_the_Lubbock_La.html?id=j_MqAQAAIAAJ? I also get www.worldcat.org/title/new-pareumys-rodentia-cylindrodontidae-from-the-duchesne-river-formation-utah/oclc/211704 on world cat which appears to be a widely held title. Horse Eye Jack (talk) 17:24, 7 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. Having an obituary in a publication of a professional organization is usually a clue that the academic is notable. The ftp site for that document was dead because the material had been moved, and the correct link is now in the article. According to the obit Black was elected a fellow of the Geological Society of America, meeting criteria #3 of WP:ACADEMIC. Finding published sources for influential curators and educators is difficult. Usually we have to rely on awards and elected society fellowships. StarryGrandma (talk) 21:36, 7 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Speedy Keep (changed from above): I cringe sometimes when I see that AFD is not clean up. An argument that we should have articles written from obituaries (or accept them as clues because finding sources are difficult) is not likely one of the better ones I have seen for notability. That is why there is a sourcing requirements and not automatic or inherent notability. The searches I performed was on information I saw (or couldn't see because of a dead link) and was flawed. The sources added allow others to verify information and I was able to also find an author, William W. Korth, that referred to the subject (for example, see Black, 1965) more than once. What is shown now is far better than what looked like a memorial article written primarily from obituaries. To me the article surpasses "clues" of notability or "seems to satisfy..." comments and if User:Tacyarg agrees would likely allow for a "Speedy Keep". Otr500 (talk) 06:43, 9 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• keep I'm by no means a subject matter expert on this topic, but the article seems to be well-sourced with material that passes the general notability guideline.--Paul McDonald (talk) 15:39, 9 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. RL0919 (talk) 23:23, 12 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keigo Moriyasu[edit]

Keigo Moriyasu (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 fails WP:GNG and WP:NFOOTY. Subject has not played in a fully professional league. Philippines League only pro since 2019. Simione001 (talk) 23:01, 5 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Japan-related deletion discussions. Simione001 (talk) 23:04, 5 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Simione001 (talk) 23:04, 5 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. Simione001 (talk) 23:04, 5 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. GiantSnowman 08:50, 6 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - fails WP:GNG and WP:NFOOTBALL. GiantSnowman 08:52, 6 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom. his father is a notable footballer, but notability is not inherited - literally, in this case. GirthSummit _(blether) 12:54, 9 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete notability is not inherited --MA Javadi (talk) 19:02, 9 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete The referencing is not stellar, failing to clearly demonstrate how it meets the GNG. In the absence of better referencing WP:NFOOTBALL applies and the NFOOTBALL test is failed. Chetsford (talk) 05:44, 12 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy keep. Fenix down (talk) 06:25, 10 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Amir Yusuf Pohan[edit]

Amir Yusuf Pohan (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 evidence of notability. All the pages are cross references to dubious articles or unreliable sites — billinghurst sDrewth 22:57, 5 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. — billinghurst sDrewth 22:57, 5 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. — billinghurst sDrewth 22:57, 5 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 23:07, 5 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fashion-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 23:07, 5 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Indonesia-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 23:08, 5 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Iran-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 23:08, 5 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 23:08, 5 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 23:10, 5 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 23:10, 5 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 23:10, 5 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep International footballer for Indonesia. Note: Looking at the edit history, the article was hijacked by an IP on 24 May 2019 to promote a fashion designer/model. The article is actually about an Indonesian footballer who played at the 2002 AFF Championship; supported by NFT and RSSSF. (Actual) article claims the 2004 Asian Cup, seemingly being confused with the AFF Cup. R96Skinner (talk) 00:10, 6 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Note... Soccerway has him only sitting on bench 3 times. NFT has him at six starts and a sub appearances. WorlFootball has him with a single friendly. Remind me again which is a 'reliable source ClubOranje^T 07:35, 6 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

You're confusing 'incomplete' with 'wrong' information. Soccerway is well known as being incomplete on int'l games. GiantSnowman 08:53, 6 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Not confused, bemused. ClubOranje^T 12:37, 7 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. GiantSnowman 08:50, 6 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep - meets WP:NFOOTBALL; needs improving, not deleting. GiantSnowman 08:52, 6 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment - Looks like the original IP is back, changing the article (and removing the AfD notice) from the footballer to a designer/model. R96Skinner (talk) 12:05, 6 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep as RSSSF list his appearances as Amir Yusuf and NFT marry his name to that, so passes notability criteria ClubOranje^T 12:37, 7 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Passes WP:NFOOTY. And report the IP to vandalism, please. Semi-protect if we have to. Smartyllama (talk) 14:30, 7 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The IP, after repeated vandalism and even some impersonation attempts, has been dealt with. They were rather persistent! R96Skinner (talk) 14:53, 7 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep as he appears to meet the WP:NFOOTBALL requirements. Ejgreen77 (talk) 20:46, 7 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - If it was in its original state, I would say delete but after the IP is gone, I do think that this passes WP:NFOOTBALL HawkAussie (talk) 02:45, 8 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep, but sourcing should be improved. This outcome does not immunize the article against a future deletion proposal, if the quality remains unchanged. bd2412 T 12:50, 13 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Laurie Zimmer[edit]

Laurie Zimmer (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)

Actress who has questionable notability. The only role and film that seems to have any notability is Assault on Precinct 13 (1976 film), which if not a delete-she should be redirected to there. (The other 2 films don't seem to have much notability and from the look of it-neither do her roles) Even though there is a documentary about her it looks like, which could make her pass gng and remain as a article (I was unsure due to that reason mainly if I should put this up or not) Wgolf (talk) 22:15, 5 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Ceethekreator (talk) 22:31, 5 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. Ceethekreator (talk) 22:31, 5 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Ceethekreator (talk) 22:31, 5 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Ceethekreator (talk) 22:31, 5 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. ...William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 23:34, 5 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment: Hope we can find some more sources for this subject. The article gets decent viewcounts for a lower-level actress BLP. Article has been around for 13 years.--Milowent • ^hasspoken 14:11, 7 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Ali1jassim (talk) 16:52, 10 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Blocked sockpuppet. OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 12:40, 11 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment-If you want to keep it, you need a reason to keep the article. (Though the user who said keep seems to be saying keep on other afd's also without reason). Wgolf (talk) 17:20, 10 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak keep A bit tenuous, but she had a significant supporting role in at least one major film (Assault on Precinct 13) and was the subject of a documentary, which has been discussed at at least a few film magazines for it's inclusion on the blu-ray extras of Assault [1]. OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 12:50, 11 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. Definitely enough contend, particularly for a pre-internet celebrity of her era. Montanabw^(talk) 19:44, 11 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment-Well the one big issue is that the article does need sources. Wgolf (talk) 19:47, 11 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. RL0919 (talk) 23:31, 12 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Institute of Software Engineers[edit]

Institute of Software Engineers (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 working references. May not exist. Rathfelder (talk) 20:33, 5 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. Rathfelder (talk) 20:33, 5 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete I cant find any refs. Mccapra (talk) 20:42, 5 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Here is the announcement of its formation by its president in someone else's newsletter. But it still may not exist. ☺ Uncle G (talk) 21:16, 5 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete no referencesIamreallygoodatcheckers (talk) 20:12, 12 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. RL0919 (talk) 23:26, 12 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Kayden Boche[edit]

Kayden Boche (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 - No meaningful coverage, no high quality sources. About sources : only database entries and self-published mentions. About Dior Addict ad : was not even the main model (seen during 2 seconds in screen - see the ad here : https://kaydenboche.com/kayden-boche-daphne-groeneveld-dior-addict-tv-commercial/). About citation on Femme Actuelle Magazine : actually, this is a blog under the umbrella of Femme Actuelle, not a print publication. And it's more like a ad. About "Oh ! Oh !" and co : not a notable composition, unfortunately. No broadcast on major national radio stations across Europe, not even in France. About 11.8 million streams : i'm sorry, but i have a big, big, doubt about it. Xxxxx (talk) 14:55, 5 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Speedy Keep. Clearly meets WP:Notability guidelines. Article created in 2010. Subject appeared in international Dior TV commercials and haute couture fashion shows, produced / directed international music releases and videos for French Star Academy finalist Jérémy Amelin, 90210 TV actress Jessica Lowndes, and more. Subject and credits are verified through ISNI, VIAF and WorldCat identifiers (independent reliable sources). Article includes references to credits for each appearance in both Dior TV commercials (IMDb credits^[1][2] listed on separate pages for each commercial, plus the commercial itself on YouTube^[3]), citation on Femme Actuelle Magazine's website^[4] (France's biggest weekly magazine - circulation 500,000 copies), Models.com^[5], iTunes archives^[6][7] for each music release, official record label website credits for each record^[8][9] (11.8 million streams^[8]) and music video release^[10], matching MusicBrainz^[11] and Discogs credits^[12][13][14] (each Discogs credit includes a scanned physical copy of each CD single back cover crediting his name), matching credits on Jérémy Amelin's official YouTube channel both as record producer^[15] and music video director^[16], citation during a Jérémy Amelin national TV interview^[17], citation on PureBreak Magazine's website^[18] (Webedia/FIMALAC/AlloCiné Group), etc, etc. Subject's name is singular enough to Google search (non-public figures do not generate hundreds of thousands of search results in their name). Overall, the article does contain sufficient reliable and verifiable independent secondary sources (ISNI, VIAF, WorldCat, magazines, iTunes, record label, Jessica Lowndes, Jérémy Amelin, etc). — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2a01:e35:8be2:6d00:d41e:411a:25a0:20e7 (talk • contribs) 2019-06-05T18:41:40 (UTC)— 2a01:e35:8be2:6d00:d41e:411a:25a0:20e7 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

User:2a01:e35:8be2:6d00:d41e:411a:25a0:20e7 has been blocked. Msnicki (talk) 13:38, 6 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of France-related deletion discussions. 94rain ^Talk 15:09, 5 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. 94rain ^Talk 15:09, 5 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2019 June 5. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 19:10, 5 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - No meaningful coverage through eight pages of google search, or through news search. Such mentions as there are, for example the Femme actuelle 'article', are less than trivial. The entire article is 41 words of which 6 are devoted to the subject. Or the 'jeuxactu' article which allots him 6 words (and uses the expression 'houlotte' rather than 'réalisateur' — perhaps someone can advise if there is significance to the terminology).

The subject does not meet WP:COMPOSER, WP:MUSICBIO, WP:ENT as the works identified are all non-notable, e.g. co-producing a single that did not chart, or one that may never have been released for sale (Sandcastle). I don't think the subject meets any of the general notability criteria.

FYI, imdb, discogs, musicbrainz, etc… are not considered reliable sources (with some exceptions). More details can be found at WP:CITEIMDB and WP:ELP. Some asides: Why are all the citations from within the article copied into the AfD? Why is text from the lede lifted from imdb? The article makes completely unsupported claims (e.g. his occupation being film director and cinematographer) which should be supported or removed promptly. Jessica Lowndes is presented as the 'artist' on Undone but it should be Jérémy Amelin as she provided backup vocals on his song. ogenstein (talk) 22:49, 5 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Keep. Clearly meets WP:COMPOSER (one criteria required : "has credit for writing or co-writing either lyrics or music for a notable composition", which is the subject's work case) and clearly meets WP:MUSICBIO (one critera required out of 2 clearly met : "has been placed in rotation nationally by a major radio or music television network" and "inclusion on a notable compilation album", which are both the subject's work case). Since when the subject having his largely credited co-written composition broadcast on major national radio stations across Europe^[1][2][3], charting on DJ charts^[4], included in major national radio station compilations^[5], and hitting 11.8 million streams^[6] for the same record release is deemed not notable ? (also note that Spotify does not publish charts as Billboard does, streaming numbers are only available through the Spotify mobile/desktop app or through record labels if they deem to publish numbers - which the record label did, source listed). Not even mentioning that the record release did get national magazine coverage prior to and upon release (not going to list them all. I'm not Google Search, do your homework).

- Unsupported claims of being a director ? Since when a subject having his largely credited (by independent secondary sources such as leading national magazines, the artist or the record label themselves) directed music video broadcast on a major national TV channel^[7] is deemed not notable or insufficient to be a legitimate director ?

- User distorted the magazine excerpt^[8] not even understanding what "sous la houlette de" means in French, which is "under the direction of" (as easy as Google Translate). This magazine reference (secondary source) confirms yet again the subject is notable as a director.

- Does meet WP:ENT (one critera required out of 2 clearly met : "has had significant roles in multiple notable productions" and "has a large fan base", which are both the subject's case). Since when co-starring in two internationally broadcast Dior TV commercials^[9][10] and gathering an audience of 175,000 across Facebook, Twitter, Instagram is deemed insignificant or not large enough ?

- Whether WP:COMPOSER, WP:MUSICBIO or WP:ENT, one of the required criterias is each time met. Sure, it does require a bit of search and probably adding extra sources (such as those listed here). However, randomly mass-flagging pages for deletion when the initiator doesn't provide solid arguments or doesn't do basic searches is NOT the solution regardless of the subject. It should be handled the proper cautious way : requiring additional sources. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2a01:e35:8be2:6d00:d41e:411a:25a0:20e7 (talk • contribs) 2019-06-05T18:41:40 (UTC)

While these works verifiably exist, at issue is his notability. Neither the provided sources nor any I could discover on my own suggest that this is the case (primarily being database entries, self-published or trivial mentions). I don't think I distorted the question of 'Film Director'. I asked for clarification of the significance of a term which is not used for the listed occupation and he has neither directed any films, nor served as a cinematographer on any. As this is a WP:BLP, unsupported claims should be removed promptly. That was an aside however with the purpose of improving the article and not related to my !vote. ogenstein (talk) 02:18, 6 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 23:03, 5 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fashion-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 23:04, 5 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 23:04, 5 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 23:04, 5 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sexuality and gender-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 23:05, 5 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. Lacks the multiple reliable independent secondary sources required by WP:GNG to establish notability. As ogenstein correctly points out, blogs and user-generated wikipages do not count. Msnicki (talk) 23:12, 5 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Keep. Clearly meets WP:COMPOSER, WP:MUSICBIO and WP:ENT. Before further commenting, please READ the entire response to user ogenstein whom misrepresented facts and guidelines / criterias which are explicitly clear. The response includes many additional secondary sources (themselves including screen captures), and reasons why criterias are met for WP:COMPOSER, WP:MUSICBIO and WP:ENT. A lack of sources does NOT mean the subject is not notable. Proper course of action is having someone add those extra sources to the article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2A01:E35:8BE2:6D00:2D5A:874E:E032:2BDD (talk) 01:50, 6 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

User:2A01:E35:8BE2:6D00:2D5A:874E:E032:2BDD has been blocked. Msnicki (talk) 13:38, 6 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. Meets eligibility criteria for WP:COMPOSER, WP:MUSICBIO & WP:ENT. 37.171.19.215 (talk) 02:11, 6 June 2019 (UTC) — 37.171.19.215 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

Are you the same individual who's already !voted as User:2a01:e35:8be2:6d00:d41e:411a:25a0:20e7 and User:2A01:E35:8BE2:6D00:2D5A:874E:E032:2BDD? If so, you only get one !vote. Posting from multiple IP addresses so as to make it appear that you are different people is called WP:Sockpuppeting and can get you blocked. Msnicki (talk)

Different IP means different user. Nothing evil there. Relax a bit. 37.171.19.215 (talk) 02:42, 6 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Different IPs does not always mean different users, which is why I asked. But okay, you're a different person but your !vote here is your very first contribution? How did you know about this AfD? That's unusual behavior, to say the least. If you were asked to post here, that's called WP:Canvassing and that also is not allowed. Msnicki (talk) 02:52, 6 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Enough of a big girl to read rules and share my own opinion. Thanx for sharing. I'm not logged in. I'd rather exchange recipes ;) 37.171.19.215 (talk) 03:02, 6 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

If you have an account, you should not be editing when you're not logged in. Msnicki (talk) 13:28, 6 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. Notable and passes WP:GNG (coverage in reliable sources independent of the subject), WP:NMODEL, WP:MUSICBIO, WP:COMPOSER. Adding to the references above, keep in mind that official blogs of notable recording artists may be used as sources of information about themselves WP:SELFSOURCE, especially in the context of news-related articles with no reasonable doubt as to their authenticity. But please, make sure to transfer all sources posted here to where they belong... in the article! X-Cite Records (talk) 02:55, 6 June 2019 (UTC) — X-Cite Records (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

And this also is your very first edit and you also are a completely different person who just happened to discover this AfD and decide to weigh in. Sure. Nothing unusual about any of this. Msnicki (talk) 03:02, 6 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Contributing since 2018 on Wikimedia Commons. Certainly not going to entertain paranoid behavior. Record label to run. X-Cite Records (talk) 03:12, 6 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - WP:SOURCE: They cannot be used to determine notability however, which is the issue here. WP:COI: And offhand, it appears that you have an interest here and that your !vote should be stricken. ogenstein (talk) 03:40, 6 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: User:X-Cite Records has been reported to WP:UAA as a name implying shared use. Msnicki (talk) 05:23, 6 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

X-Cite Records just happens to be the record label of Jérémy Amelin, with whom the AfD subject worked to produce his records and direct his videos, as noted above by the "keep" voters themselves. So a definite COI and possible canvassing here. Richard3120 (talk) 11:31, 6 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

User:X-Cite Records has been blocked. Msnicki (talk) 13:24, 6 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Article cites deleted youtube videos, personal imdb page with only a few trivial credits, and trivial short interviews from years ago. When researching subject excluding sources imdb,wiki and instagram all that turns up are similar sites like wiki and data aggregator/tumblr sites. The iTunes links are about Jeremy Amelin, they aren't about Kayden Boche. Subject has however directed/edited some short (music) videos, however directing short videos doesn't make subject itself notable. I've watched the commercials subject has been in, subject has (uncredited) bit roles in them . Not the lead actor in the commercials, trivial blink-and-you-miss-it parts. This also isn't notable enough. Subject doesn't meet WP:ENT at this time. If someone can show recent articles/interview that are of independent sources i may be convinced to change to keep.HM Wilburt (talk) 11:19, 6 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep Easily meets notability standards IMO. Rafe87 (talk) 03:53, 8 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Why? Or is this WP:JUSTAVOTE? Msnicki (talk) 04:22, 8 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Indeed, why? Argument your point please. Don't just vote and run away. Going from my research this doesn't meet GNG or WP:ENT. Proof me wrong.HM Wilburt (talk) 16:59, 8 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• DELETE [Aside, all caps doesn’t change the passion of my vote choice] While some of the work is notable in my opinion (Dior), there are utterly zero reliable sources which is unacceptable for a biography (or any article really). What happened to standards? Trillfendi (talk) 15:38, 9 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment I do hope that all of the apparent WP:SOCK, WP:MEATPUPPET, WP:CANVAS activities are taken into account by the closing admin as the only stricken 'keep' !vote is a duplicate. I am unsure of procedure so I thought it better to raise the matter now. Hope this is reasonable. Regards, ogenstein (talk) 06:07, 10 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The 3 keep votes from the sockpuppet accounts have been blocked and shouldn't be counted as keep AFAIK. Besides those there are only 2 keep votes, one being WP:JUSTAVOTE. The overal consensus is delete.HM Wilburt (talk) 12:19, 10 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. What a shocker. Wikipedia is not a means of promotion. The sourcing is not there. duffbeerforme (talk) 11:42, 12 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete The keep votes in this lengthy debate are from identified socks and SPA's who were apparently canvased. Otherwise, editors have correctly pointed out the lack of RS recognition. Simply having one's name pop up in credits/trivial mentions on a google search--even if they are in association with notable works/events--does not substitute for the independent RS recognition necessary to make a subject encyclopedic important. ShelbyMarion (talk) 14:15, 12 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: the result of the French AfD was delete, everyone except the sockpuppets being in agreement for deletion. Regards, Comte0 (talk) 14:46, 12 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. The only comments on point to the discussion by non-conflicted participants are the nomination and a comment in favor of deletion. No prejudice against a refund to draft if a competent editor requests it. bd2412 T 12:43, 13 June 2019 (UTC)

Adam Zwig[edit]

Adam Zwig (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)

Seemingly not notable- while im certainly no music expert, none of the sources cited seem reliable. A cursory Google search brings up nothing. TheAwesomeHwyh (talk) 18:58, 5 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. TheAwesomeHwyh (talk) 18:58, 5 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. TheAwesomeHwyh (talk) 18:58, 5 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

* Comment In trying to verify the claim of 9 top 10 Adult Contemporary chart songs--which would qualify as a Keep-- I'm puzzled by why entering both his name and re-branded stage name "Dr. Zwig" turns up nothing on the Billboard charts website. Perhaps the search function isn't working for me? And yet as a test when I enter other names the site appears to be working fine without problems. Weird. Maybe someone else can verify this for me? ShelbyMarion (talk) 21:31, 5 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment - I pulled up the dates on his website where he announced hitting the top 10, then looked around those dates in the AC200 chart and saw no mention of him/his singles . . . Orville1974 (talk) 22:11, 5 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 22:58, 5 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 22:59, 5 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment: @ShelbyMarion: @Orville1974: I don't think it's the Billboard Adult Contemporary chart that's being cited here... I think it's the Mediabase AC Top 200 (now Top 50). Note that this article and that of Elizaveta Khripounova are/were the only two articles created and maintained by "ScoopPR" before that editor was blocked, presumably for promotional activities. Richard3120 (talk) 02:27, 6 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment: @Richard3120: ScoopPR seemingly isn't the only UPE to have edited this article as yesterday at the Teahouse, @Eduardof95: claimed that they are the "social media manager" for Adam Zwig. TheAwesomeHwyh (talk) 02:39, 6 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment:Also on a unrelated note, did anyone else notice that the comments on this page didn't appear until @Richard3120: commented on it? It was still in the source but you could only see it by clicking on the "View History" tab and click on the (then) current revision. I don't think I've ever seen that glitch before. TheAwesomeHwyh (talk) 02:41, 6 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

When posting a question on a forum I may have mispoken. I am not the Social Media manager for the artist. The artist's team reached out to see if I knew how to move their page because the artist was changing his artistic name and wanted the page to be accurate. eduardof95 — Preceding unsigned comment added by Eduardof95 (talk • contribs) 02:45, 6 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Is there any reason they reached out to you in particular? The first thing you did on this account was edit the page, so did you have some prior experience on a previous account? TheAwesomeHwyh (talk) 02:50, 6 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Also, @Eduardof95: you called them your client at the Teahouse. TheAwesomeHwyh (talk) 02:54, 6 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I am a social media manager, but not theirs. They reached out because I do other types of work pertaining to social media content and they wondered if I knew how. So I reached out in the forum. I noticed there were some mistakes here and there and fixed them for them. But they havent instructed me to do any of those changes. They just wanted to see if the page move was possible, since he was making the change in his name as an artist. Prior to this, I hadn't had an account. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Eduardof95 (talk • contribs) 02:57, 6 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, thanks @Eduardof95:. By the way, please sign your comments with four tildes in a row (a tilde is the "~" symbol), and indent your replies with a ":". I have indented your reply here properly. Thanks, now this AfD should really get back on topic! TheAwesomeHwyh (talk) 03:03, 6 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - Richard3120, thank you for the clarification. As the multiple top 10 rankings mentioned in the article were the only compelling reasons for a keep, but those rankings are not based on reliable charts (Wikipedia:Record charts/Billboard charts guide), the article's subject doesn't meet WP:MUSICBIO. Orville1974 (talk) 03:37, 6 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment: I have read through the discussions on this page and many of the comments are inaccurate. Please allow me to correct them:

1. There are several comments stating that the references are unreliable. I have analyzed each one and they all link to easily found online articles written about him by legitimate media outlets. None of the 14 references link to his website as one commenter claimed. Reference #2 however, needs a full citation to make clear. 2. The commenters are searching for the wrong radio charts.@ShelbyMarion: tried to correct the comments by referring to Mediabase which is in the right direction but still inaccurate. These are FMQB AC Top 10 chartings which are posted monthly online. Currently FMQB only does Top 40 and AAA but at the dates of these chartings they did AC, as well. Perhaps Wikipedia needs to contact FMQB to gain a better understanding of how their charts work and to verify the source. The correct charts are on his website probably because FMQB does not archive past AC charts online. ReneClemmer (talk) 04:46, 6 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment: I am closing the discussion pertaining to the radio charts since no one has been talking about the correct charts nor seems to have any knowledge of how radio works. Simply looking for general Billboard charts shows a lack of understanding. The commenters didn't even differentiate between sales and airplay. WIkipedia needs to update their guides with respect to radio airplay. Contact FMBQ directly for proper information on their past work with AC charts (they currently do Top 40 and AAA). ReneClemmer (talk) 02:02, 8 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment - ReneClemmer, I don't know what you mean by you're closing the discussion,but if you'd like to argue for the acceptability/inclusion of FMQB charts, the best place to do so would be on this page: [2]. As of now, Wikipedia does not consider them a reliable source. Orville1974 (talk) 04:39, 8 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Notice - User:ReneClemmer (who left the comments above) has been blocked. Since this deletion discussion began, there have also been two other editors (both brand new accounts), one an IP editor^[1], and one a logged in editor^[2] that have removed the AfD and COI templates multiple times. Orville1974 (talk) 05:53, 8 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. RL0919 (talk) 23:22, 12 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Allie Teilz[edit]

Allie Teilz (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 guidelines and thus I don't believe she merits her own WP article. Abbyjjjj96 (talk) 18:45, 5 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Abbyjjjj96 (talk) 18:45, 5 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Artists-related deletion discussions. Abbyjjjj96 (talk) 18:45, 5 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Abbyjjjj96 (talk) 18:45, 5 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - Fails WP:GNG, WP:NMODEL, and WP:MUSICBIO. 11 sources are namedropping celebrity boyfriends WP:NOTINHERITED, the rest are primary, passing mentions, interviews, promotional, or fail WP:RS, with the exception of the one WWD article. I don't have access (paywall), but it might actually meet WP:RS. Of course, that's still only one source. Orville1974 (talk) 22:34, 5 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak Keep there is enough coverage for me to parse that she is a musician and model, and has launched a fashion line. The coverage is not insignificant, nor significant. It's somewhere in between. I do think it tips towards keep.ThatMontrealIP (talk) 00:18, 6 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Multiple sources on the internet providing a decade of work in music and fashion. Verified intagram and facebook profiles. Keep. Arlobutt (talk) 00:54, 6 June 2019 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 157.131.205.94 (talk) [reply]
• Note regarding unsigned vote above - User:Arlobutt (the entry above this one) does not exist, and the autosigned keep !vote above was registered by IP 157.131.205.94 as the only edit the user has ever made. Orville1974 (talk) 22:13, 6 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - looks to be a WP:NMODEL failure by default, as no sources indicate how the subject has met the criteria laid down by said policy. As for WP:GNG, trivial or in passing mentions do not convince me the subject has accrued enough significant coverage to meet GNG.--SamHolt6 (talk) 01:11, 7 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per SamHolt6 and Orville1974. Geoffroi (talk) 17:00, 7 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Wikipedia entries span the rich, the famous; the poor, the unaccomplished; the forgotten, the esoteric and the unforgettable. Whether an entry is deleted ought not be because of subjective tastes of few editors. This particular entry merits saving due to cultural significance and well-earned respect among musicians. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2603:900A:1A07:7E33:1409:B52D:E7DF:C17A (talk) 01:37, 8 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

That's nice but we do not go by those kinds of arguments. Read WP:N to see what kinds of arguments are valid here.ThatMontrealIP (talk) 02:43, 8 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep *Allie Teilz is a great and famous DJ who has been working as model too, and has created her own design clothing label She has a lot of reputation in her activities, working with others famous DJs, and in parties and other shows in several places in the world. She is enothly known in the industry. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.136.123.247 (talk) 04:24, 8 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

That is really nice. Repeatedly adding the same sort of anonymous comments like this, that say she is famous and great and has a great reputation, will not help at all. We go by sources. ThatMontrealIP (talk) 04:29, 8 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep Allie Teilz is one of the world's leading female deejays and upcoming designers. She has a strong International fan base and is one of the leading women in her industry. Sources added above. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 144.178.0.166 (talk) 20:32, 9 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment as is obvious, all the full keep votes are SPA's that have a scant understanding of the policies. There is likely socking going on here.ThatMontrealIP (talk) 03:08, 10 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. I'm not seeing any evidence of notability. The sources I have access to are interviews with the subject, or blogs, or do no more than mention her, or don't even mention her. No "significant discussion" in independent sources, as required. Maproom (talk) 21:42, 10 June 2019 (UTC--110.93.214.36 (talk) 21:26, 12 June 2019 (UTC)--110.93.214.36 (talk) 21:26, 12 June 2019 (UTC)--110.93.214.36 (talk) 21:26, 12 June 2019 (UTC))[reply]
• Delete. After checking, it seems that the subject of this biographical article does not meet notability requirements of WP:GNG, WP:NMODEL, or WP:MUSICBIO. Netherzone (talk) 00:49, 11 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment - Interesting to note that the past seven unsigned keep-!votes were made by the same SPA, Anand Kumar Khatri. Netherzone (talk) 23:35, 11 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment - I just reverted the mass delete done by Anand Kumar Khatri of not only their comments, but those of other editors as well. Orville1974 (talk) 19:28, 12 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. Please don't get me wrong, but I have some questions. I'm just wondering why the page has already been deleted. I know it was tagged for speedy deletion, but can't you give me some time to improve the page? Moreover, the page was deleted in 2019, so I guess it's fine to recreate it since it has been more or less two years since the first one. Again, please don't get me wrong; I'm just trying to understand everything here. Thank you.Aona1212 (talk) 11:31, 23 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I think i have done my research as well i think this should not be deleted, as i think its great to have new stars and talent on wikipedia.!--110.93.214.36 (talk) 21:26, 12 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Speedy deleted WP:G12. (non-admin closure) Ceethekreator (talk) 21:54, 6 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Protegent 360[edit]

Protegent 360 (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 references given; seems to be original research. I don't find coverage in reliable sources. —teb728 t c 18:34, 5 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. Ceethekreator (talk) 22:33, 5 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. Ceethekreator (talk) 22:33, 5 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. Lacks the multiple reliable independent secondary sources required by WP:GNG to establish notability, Matter of fact, it has no sources whatsoever. Nor was I able to find any suitable sources by searching. The entire article appears to have been plagiarized from [3]. Msnicki (talk) 23:06, 5 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. RL0919 (talk) 23:21, 12 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

NCAA Division I Baseball Championships recent history[edit]

NCAA Division I Baseball Championships recent history (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 fails under no original research. This article seems to be comparing championships won by conference for the past 30 years, but I don't see any RS in the list of references that actually compare that. Most of the references are just general discussion about conferences as a whole. Natg 19 (talk) 18:20, 5 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Natg 19 (talk) 18:21, 5 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Baseball-related deletion discussions. Natg 19 (talk) 18:21, 5 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Yet another incomprehensible 'have to be an extreme fan of NCAA baseball' stat article with a bunch of non-sensical tables. The layman cannot navigate this article very easily. Nate • (chatter) 18:38, 5 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 23:02, 5 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Literally WP:RECENTISM. Tampabay721 (talk) 04:00, 9 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep I will preface this by stating that if there is any specific material whose source is unreliable, or whose source does not support the entry, certainly that specific material and source could be removed without deleting the entire article.

There are some reliable sources, e.g., ncaa.com and fs.ncaa.org, showing the results of games. The tables themselves are not at the sources but the article simply lists multiple years in tables. I would think that is not original research. Since the tables are reverse chronology cumulative or cumulative for multiple teams, it does require simple counting and/or simple arithmetic operations. Again, I do not see how any of that is original research.

There are many similar examples of tables, that do not exist at a source, but contain factual information from sources that is combined into tables. Also, some tables that contain information from a table at a source, but also contain additional information, some of which may require simple arithmetic operations. 2019 NCAA Division I Baseball Tournament#Final_standings, 2019 NCAA Division I Baseball Tournament#Final_standings, College World Series#Most_CWS_wins, College World Series#Most_CWS_Finals_appearances, etc.

As far as having 'to be an extreme fan of NCAA baseball', there are many entries in Wikipedia that I am not an extreme fan of, that I am not a fan of at all, and have no interest in at all. I would not think that would be a reason to delete an article.

Looking at WP:Recentism#Suggestions_for_dealing_with_recentism, as long as it is kept up to date, however relevant the info is now, it will be just as relevant in 10 years and it seems obviously to not be a candidate for Wikinews. There are Wikipedia articles that are "recent", whether they, for example, just cover this year's baseball tournament, and ignore all previous years, or cover 6, 20 or 30 years and ignore all previous years. I don't believe preventing that is the intent of WP:Recentism.

Jay Jor (talk) 17:47, 10 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I believe that the article falls under WP:SYN, which is part of the no original research guideline. Yes, results of games have RS, but I believe that the comparison of champions, conferences, etc., falls under the synthesis guideline. Natg 19 (talk) 19:57, 10 June 2019. (UTC)

Thanks for the comment. There was no more intent, than there is in any of the other tables that I listed, to reach or imply any conclusion. To me it is just a list of factual information. However, it is probably immaterial since the consensus is obviously for deleting it, but thanks for the opportunity to discuss it. Jay Jor (talk) 20:23, 10 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

What is the conclusion that you think I was trying to reach or imply, other than just the facts given? Anything that has results by champions, conferences, etc., will unavoidable be a comparison. Obviously, if there is anything that is not factual, that part of the article could be deleted. Jay Jor (talk) 15:00, 12 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete This is somebody's scratchpad and record-keeping to determine something, although I'm not even sure what that something is. The title of the article doesn't reflect the page content, which is nearly all jargon, and I suspect is even incomprehensible to those who religiously follow NCAA baseball and can't even be decoded by those who are smart enough to know sabermetrics. Furthermore, different tables cover different time periods, and the prose covers a time period different than any of the tables. The title says 'recent', which is vague. Whether or not the article is factual, accurate, or supported by references is not the point – the whole thing is plain confusing, will not be understood by more than 99.9% of Wikipedia's readership without an accompanying guide, and is not salvageable as a Wikipedia article. Ira Leviton (talk) 19:54, 10 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Any useful information that is deemed worthy could be moved to the College World Series main page. Dlambe3 (talk) 07:06, 11 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think any of this should be at the College World Series main page, unless it were made into a complete history, instead of just a partial history, not a trivial task. The purpose this serves to me is to answer questions like, "have teams in the PAC won 3 of the previous 7 championships, more than any other conference," "what conference has the most champions and runner ups over some number of past seasons", "how have teams in conferences with the most participants finished relative to their seeding over recent seasons," etc. Jay Jor (talk) 15:18, 12 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Fenix down (talk) 17:48, 12 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Killian Coiffier[edit]

Killian Coiffier (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)

Has not played on a fully professional football team, fails WP:NFOOTY. Provided sourcing is terrible, and I was unable to find better coverage searching online, does not meet WP:GNG. I had proposed this article for deletion via PROD, dePROD by initial editor without any explanation given. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 17:04, 5 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 17:04, 5 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 17:04, 5 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 17:04, 5 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 17:04, 5 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of France-related deletion discussions. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 17:04, 5 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: That article was deleted 5 times on the french wikipedia before being salted, for not respecting their notability guidelines. Regards Comte0 (talk) 17:15, 5 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Speedy Delete Last time I checked links to tweets and personal websites don't establish notability. I also recommend WP:SALTing in light of Comte0's comment above. Best, GPL93 (talk) 17:37, 5 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Looks like vanity page. Fails notability guidelines for footballers and models. No reliable sources to indicate real notability ClubOranje^T 07:46, 6 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. GiantSnowman 08:50, 6 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - fails WP:GNG and WP:NFOOTBALL. GiantSnowman 08:52, 6 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Discounting the nonsensical comment by Smlark. Sandstein 20:01, 12 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Virginia Crosbie[edit]

Virginia Crosbie (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)

Apparently non-notable British politician, stood as a Conservative in Rhondda in 2017, where she got about 10% of the vote, and – according to our Rhondda article – the lowest number of Conservative votes in any constituency in mainland Great Britain in 2017. The present puff-piece is a paid-editor effort, with notably poor sourcing (Twitter, The Sun, something called Women2Win of which she is apparently a director, the Conservative Policy Forum etc.). She has various minor positions in the Conservative Party, and gets some coverage in the press. I don't see that it adds up to anything much. Redirect has been attempted twice, but contested. Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 17:02, 5 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: I should have made clear that although this is paid-editor content, with about all the defects one could expect from someone here to line their own pockets rather than improve the encyclopaedia, some attempt was made at disclosure, and the article was appropriately submitted and accepted through the AfC process. Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 18:30, 6 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 17:02, 5 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 17:02, 5 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. ...William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 08:11, 6 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. People do not get Wikipedia articles just for being candidates in elections they did not win — but nothing else here constitutes strong evidence that she clears the notability bar for other reasons independent of her candidacy. Most of the references here are primary sources that do not count as support for notability at all, and even the ones that are real media mostly represent glancing namechecks of her existence in coverage of other things or people, not coverage that is substantively about her. So there are no grounds to claim that she passes WP:GNG in lieu of actually achieving anything that would get her over our SNGs for people — and Wikipedia is WP:NOTLINKEDIN, so a person's existence is not automatically grounds for a Wikipedia article in and of itself. Bearcat (talk) 18:50, 6 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

This is am informative article. §§§§ — Preceding unsigned comment added by Smlark (talk • contribs) 16:39, 12 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 19:39, 12 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Coast to Coast Group[edit]

Coast to Coast Group (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:promo. Sources do not establish notability - passing references or clear PR-placements. Hugsyrup (talk) 15:27, 5 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. Hugsyrup (talk) 15:27, 5 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. Hugsyrup (talk) 15:27, 5 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. Hugsyrup (talk) 15:27, 5 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - This is not a school, but rather a company that sells educational methods. Fails WP:NCORP. John from Idegon (talk) 09:03, 6 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - This is a a non-notable NCORP, owing to lack of multiple reliable independent secondary sources discussing it in significant detail, that markets camps/educational trips. Best, Barkeep49 (talk)
• Delete - promotional and fails NCORP. Society tittle-tattle does not confer notability even if it is in The Times. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 01:46, 7 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Deletre A promotional article that fails to provide independent, reliable, published sources The creator has all the hallmarks of an undeclared paid editor. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 18:09, 7 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, There are other schools of English in UK, Hong Kong or else, what is significant with this one? Not notable Alex-h (talk) 15:21, 10 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 19:39, 12 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Caroline Drewett[edit]

Caroline Drewett (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 individual. Sources looked decent on first glance, but in practice did nothing to establish the notability of the subject. One source used four times is a puff-piece in the times about the subject's wedding. Another two simply use her for quotes, but are not about her. Hugsyrup (talk) 15:24, 5 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Hugsyrup (talk) 15:24, 5 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. Hugsyrup (talk) 15:24, 5 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Journalism-related deletion discussions. Hugsyrup (talk) 15:24, 5 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - I do not believe this individual meets WP:NBIO as I can find no substantial coverage in reliable independent sources. The article has been created by a single-purpose account with a likely conflict of interest. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 18:15, 7 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Likewise I can’t find anything adequa-te to support this article. Mccapra (talk) 04:30, 12 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Sandstein 20:00, 12 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Peter Fletcher (musician)[edit]

Peter Fletcher (musician) (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 did a bit of digging on this because I expected him to be notable, but even based on his own biog there's nothing in his career that would make him notable and there is certainly no coverage elsewhere of him or his career. (I should also note that searching through books, the Peter Fletcher cited in several music related books is not this one.) Praxidicae (talk) 15:21, 5 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per nom. Rogermx (talk) 15:29, 5 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 17:05, 5 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 17:05, 5 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - The article makes no statement of notability so it might be an attempted promotion. He has received a little bit of coverage for occasional recitals and for being taught by masters, but not enough to be featured in an article here as a notable musician. ---DOOMSDAYER520 (Talk|Contribs) 17:45, 5 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Sandstein 20:00, 12 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

AC-DC (song)[edit]

AC-DC (song) (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. Never released as a single, and Released as a single by one artist, but there are no reliable sources providing individual in-depth coverage of the song, and as far as I can tell it has never charted anywhere, in any version by any artist. A redirect doesn't seem possible, partly because it has been covered by two different notable artists (hence WP:XY), and partly because the two artists in question spell the song differently on their albums (AC-DC, and A.C.D.C.) A search for this title is likely to be overwhelmingly for the band, and then the electrical current. Richard3120 (talk) 17:21, 22 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. Richard3120 (talk) 17:23, 22 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. Richard3120 (talk) 17:23, 22 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Strong oppose This was a huge hit in the 70's with Sweet, on Sweet Fanny Adams. But it's written by Nicky Chinn and Mark Chapman and other artists have later recorded it too, such as Joan Jett on the album Sinner. This is about logical separation, Chinn-Chapmann original spelling was "AC-DC" as of the Sweet LP. At that time far more famous than the Australian band - actually. We can't have a blue link to that band when referring to this song. I suppose the Joan Jett part could be left out of it for encyclopedic reasons, but most certainly not totally. Single charts are not issues especially not in the 70's, then what should we do about for instance Jethro Tull and LPs as A Passion Play and Thick as a Brick or Classic music ? We could not even have an article on one of Beatles most famous songs, Yesterday as it never was a single, neither was Led Zeppelin's Stairway to Heaven, etc. (In America perhaps, but not on the charts) Valid questions not ?

And Sweet Fanny Adams LP sold enough, the song we discuss was aired on radio all over the UK and Western Europe. I restored this blury blue link (it was a very poor redirection). Remove Joan Jett if you like, but we must separate the song from a the band in question. And we can't do that by twisting history as if this song never has existed. By the way Today the Australian band is far more famous, without doubts, but this was the total opposite as this song first was released. Boeing720 (talk) 11:57, 24 May 2019 (UTC) — Note to closing admin: Boeing720 (talk • contribs) is the creator of the page that is the subject of this AfD. [reply]

Well, firstly, "Yesterday" WAS released as a single, albeit well after the fact... it reached number eight in the UK in 1976. But that's not the point... the issue is that both "Yesterday" and "Stairway to Heaven" pass WP:NSONG because there have been many reliable sources over the years discussing the songs themselves – the fact that "Stairway to Heaven" was never a single is not relevant. There are no reliable sources that I can find talking about "AC-DC", so neither Sweet's version, nor Joan Jett's version, nor any other version is notable.

You say it was "a huge hit in the 70s with Sweet"... no it wasn't, not individually... its parent album was, but that doesn't make the song itself notable, per WP:INHERITED. Otherwise you are arguing that every song on every charting album is notable and deserves its own article. Do we have proof to verify that the song was aired all over the UK and Europe as you suggest? Richard3120 (talk) 12:36, 24 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Beatles "Yesterday" was most certainly NOT released as a original single in the UK, neither together with the Help album. Billboard rankings etc may well be a reason for inclusion. But to exclude a song that hasn't been a single is impossible. As I tried to explain. (Led Zeppelin, Jethro Tull) But mainly I don't like links going around in circles. If this song had came out after AC/DC reached world-wide fame, it would be a silly name. But it's years earlier. As it's a cover it has to have been known enough. Pictures of Home of one of my Deep Purple favorites. Do you wish to remove all such songs ? Boeing720 (talk) 04:06, 26 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I never said "Yesterday" was released as a single in 1965 at the time of the Help! album. I said it was belatedly released as single in 1976. But whether a song was released as a single or not is not the defining criterion as to whether it has a Wikipedia article, it's whether it passes WP:NSONG. "Yesterday" and "Stairway to Heaven" most definitely do pass WP:NSONG, "AC-DC" appears not to, because I can't find any sources about it. Richard3120 (talk) 12:36, 26 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

As an aside, I have heard other songs from this band played ten thousand times on the radio, but never this one (as in literally never). I guess I'm exaggerating mildly as I'm pretty sure that I've heard Desolation Boulevard in its entirety a couple of times.

I also don't see the point in bringing up Thick as a Brick while we're at it. There is plenty of coverage of that album. Now if someone wanted to make song pages for Parts 1 and 2, I'd vote 'delete' for those too. I don't really think that those were valid questions as they conflate issues inappropriately. The whole concept of singles coverage is irrelevant to the Tull album, but not to the song AC-DC. You bring up Joan Jett as she covered this song, but would she have achieved even a fraction of her success if she hadn't had a monster single go supernova on her second album? Which incidentally resulted in the re-release of her first album. Singles charts were hugely important even a decade after the Sweet release. If the song had possessed that kind of mojo, it would have been released as a single instead of Blitz or Fox. Oh, and "Stairway to Heaven" and "Yesterday" meet general notability — they don't even need NSONG.

You can't equate the band with the song. Although I don't think it suffers without more than 'containing' search results, perhaps a silent redirect to the album would be an option. ogenstein (talk) 01:34, 6 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• DELETE - This doesn't meet WP:NSONG in any manner, and it has pretty much zero findability given the band. There is nothing to write about the song except that it was on an album and was covered once. It wasn't released as a single so it never charted. When it was released in North America (on a different album) it had its name changed. It is as non-notable as a song can be, which isn't a bad thing, but it doesn't really exist outside of the albums, which is where it belongs. ogenstein (talk) 01:15, 6 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete could not find any independent sources (or any more sources for that matter), fails WP:NSONG. Rollidan (talk) 17:07, 7 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was merge to Lament (band). Before merging, please read through the full AfD to get a feel for how much material should be merged. In any case, leave a redirect behind. -- RoySmith (talk) 15:51, 13 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Lament Records[edit]

Lament Records (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 record label. Fails WP:GNG and I'm not sure which notability criteria this would fall under but the only notable band on the label is the one that founded it. Walter Görlitz (talk) 03:14, 15 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. Walter Görlitz (talk) 03:14, 15 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Walter Görlitz (talk) 03:14, 15 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Mexico-related deletion discussions. 03:44, 15 May 2019 (UTC) Eastmain (talk • contribs) 03:44, 15 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment. If the label is not notable, a paragraph or two about it ought to be included in Lament (band) Eastmain (talk • contribs) 03:44, 15 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment. I believe that there could be more sources coming soon, based on an upcoming release. However, if it is absolutely not notable, the page should be again redirected to Lament (band). But I believe that leaving it as a stub for a bit more and allowing users to add onto it would assist in the building of the page. Metalworker14 (Yo) 05:27, 16 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • That would make those releases notable, not the label itself. Walter Görlitz (talk) 21:37, 16 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment - a bit tricky, since the label was started as a vanity label, but has since evolved beyond that. The label doesn't appear to be notable, as Walter Görlitz points out there's only a single notable act (the founders), and I can't find any in-depth independent coverage on the label. However, if a fan of obscure Christian metal music was to search for the term, they probably aren't looking for information about the band, so a re-direct might not be helpful, unless there was a selective merge. Including the label's discography into the band's article seems like unhelpful clutter. 78.26 _{(spin me / revolutions)} 14:55, 29 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete I am unable to locate a single reference that meets the criteria for establishing notability as per WP:NCORP. Generally, music labels are not notable in their own right and tend to "inherit" any notability from the acts they've signed. It is a difficult category - some believe labels should fall under WP:MUSIC. Maybe they're right. But until that happens, we look at the articles through NCORP and this article fails the criteria for corporations/organizations/companies/etc. HighKing⁺⁺ 19:36, 6 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Just out of curiosity, where is the official proclamation record labels fall under NCORP and not NMUSIC. I missed the memo. 78.26 _{(spin me / revolutions)} 20:57, 6 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

WP:NCORP is for organizations (i.e. record labels). WP:MUSIC provides guidelines for the artists, bands, albums, and songs, not the distributors. It is a debate that occurs occasionally at AfD for labels and it usually resolves on those lines. HighKing⁺⁺ 14:10, 7 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Not historically, this is a more recent development. For instance, WikiProject Record Labels was moved from under WikiProject Corporations to WikiProject Music. Don't get me wrong, record Labels are funny creatures that pertain to both business and music. It's just important to think about what makes a record company notable: The music (or other art form, but usually music) they release. If they are releasing music by notable bands, they've probably had an impact on culture, and are of interest to musicologists, music historians, and discographers. You are correct in that notability isn't inherited. Say a label is only releasing albums of re-recorded "greatest hits" material by washed-up artists, and has no interest in the musical development of said bands, then I would consider the label non-notable by artistic standards no matter how many notable artists were on the label's roster. Anyway, my intent is certainly not to badger, I appreciate your thoughtful contributions to the topic, it's just that I feel compelled every now and then to demonstrate that notability, or what is worthy of encyclopedic attention, is more complex than some discussions would indicate. 78.26 _{(spin me / revolutions)} 14:24, 7 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I agree, a lot of music labels are more than merely distributors and in my opinion, the notability requirements to have 2 independent references of significant coverage, etc, etc, is just too high a bar to meet the criteria for notability for a lot of these organizations. Perhaps some other substitutive criteria comes into play and those discussions and decisions can only really be hammered out at WP:MUSIC. I'm simply applying the minimal criteria for two references as set out in WP:NCORP and it fails on that count (in my opinion). HighKing⁺⁺ 17:43, 8 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Merge to Lament (band). It mystifies me that this simple solution to label-started-to-issue-band's-work is almost never considered. Why is it preferable that this be a redlink? Why is it at AfD in the first place? Chubbles (talk) 21:47, 6 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

A selective merge and redirect would be fine, but the label has evolved past a vanity label, and now represents several artists in addition to Lament. I'm not convinced the label is notable, and I think your and Eastmain's proposal is better than anything I can come up with. But wouldn't the label's discography on the band's page be confusing to readers? I appreciate the AfD discussion, as opposed to having the page unilaterally redirected, which I believe to be a form of speedy delete without process. 78.26 _{(spin me / revolutions)} 21:56, 6 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment. I too struggled to find obvious refs to support this, but I am far from being an expert in musical sourcing; pinging @Atlantic306: might be able to help? I don't think it would be a problem merging it with the Lament band article, which is not so big. A little awkward, but better than losing this material (via redirect or delete), and clearly it is very connected. Britishfinance (talk) 15:00, 13 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Sandstein 19:56, 12 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Maria Maurigi[edit]

Maria Maurigi (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)

Outside of tv soap's blog and some basic announcements, there is no coverage of this actress. I am struggling to find a single in depth source about her. All of the sources in the article itself are either not reliable, not independent or not coverage. I think this is a case of WP:TOOSOON and I originally was going to suggest redirecting it to the soap she appeared in but there's almost no information on that and her role is only a 4 episode arc. Also worth noting this is currently salted at it wiki. Praxidicae (talk) 14:35, 5 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Even if the role is more than 4 episodes, I'm still not convinced based on the total lack of independent, in depth coverage in any language, that she meets notability criteria. Praxidicae (talk) 14:47, 5 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. 94rain ^Talk 14:41, 5 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. 94rain ^Talk 14:41, 5 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Italy-related deletion discussions. 94rain ^Talk 14:41, 5 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, on IMDB there is only 4 episodes written because it is not complete, also the soap episode list is not complete. From October 2018 the character played by Maria Maurigi is on air almost every day and is becoming increasingly important in the plots. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Xixis092 (talk • contribs) 14:42, 5 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

IMDb is not a reliable source nor are most of the others in the article. Praxidicae (talk) 14:46, 5 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Precisely because IMDB it is not a reliable source I told you that the information entered (as you said only 4 episodes), is false. Starting from October 2018 Maria Maurigi is present in almost all the episodes and is currently a character that is being discussed a lot in the soap. You can check what I'm telling you by simply viewing the advances by entering the name on google. Xixis092 (talk) 14:50, 5 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep or Redirect. Being the person who accepted it, I believe they are notable. However, I recognize the legitimacy of a WP:TOOSOON argument and the sourcing issue (especially as I don't know Italian and wont know exactly what to input into Google). With their present role in a long-running soap opera and other minor roles. they borderline satisfy WP:NACTOR, and thus I side with inclusion. If consensus is to delete, I request that it be redirected to Un posto al sole. Thank you, Vermont (talk) 14:56, 5 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect it to what? The role she plays in the soap isn't even mentioned in the article. Also keep based on what? WP:V is required here - which means it needs to be established in independent reliable sources, which I cannot find. Can you please provide those?Praxidicae (talk) 15:33, 5 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

You need a source in which it is mentioned the role that she plays? The web is full of them! Xixis092 (talk) 15:42, 5 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

A core tenet of Wikipedia is verifiability which requires WP:IRS. You've yet to provide a single one of these sources. Praxidicae (talk) 15:43, 5 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

https://www.google.com/search?q=maria+maurigi&newwindow=1&source=lnms&tbm=nws&sa=X - You can see all the news in which it is mentioned and choose the one you like best. Xixis092 (talk) 15:46, 5 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Xixis092 Read WP:ONUS, a google search isn't a source. Praxidicae (talk) 15:46, 5 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

https://www.sorrisi.com/tv/soap/un-posto-al-sole-le-anticipazioni-larrivo-della-piccola-lila/ - This is one of the many recent articles in which it is mentioned. The article talks about the entry of Alessandra Parisi's sister, and Alessandra Parisi is played by Maria Maurigi. Xixis092 (talk) 15:50, 5 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

That establishes nothing more than she's an actress in a series. It is not in depth coverage of her. Praxidicae (talk) 15:52, 5 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

http://www.scrivonapoli.it/maria-maurigi-ad-alex-regalo-ogni-giorno-qualcosa-di-me/ - This link that you have deleted, however, is not a blog but an online journalistic headline and is also written at the bottom. Xixis092 (talk) 15:55, 5 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

That is an interview and thus fails INDEPENDENCE from the subject and it's certainly not a reliable source as a publisher. Praxidicae (talk) 15:56, 5 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, I see that you find a problem in everything. You certainly like to abuse your role, making a free encyclopedia in your personal encyclopedia. It is useless to stay here to discuss. Xixis092 (talk) 15:58, 5 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Xixis092 There is absolutely no "abuse" here - I have no more power than you do as an editor. That being said, I'd ask that you strike your personal attack or go substantiate it at WP:ANI. Thanks. Praxidicae (talk) 15:59, 5 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I wish you a good day, do what you want. ByeXixis092 (talk) 16:02, 5 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete – all I can find are blogs or mentions in passing. This fails NACTOR and SIGCOV. – bradv🍁 16:17, 5 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Notability clearly isn't there at this time. Trillfendi (talk) 16:22, 5 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete I made a mistake in accepting this draft. Although there is a claim to notability, it is WP:TOOSOON for this subject, especially considering the lack of acceptable sources. Thank you, Vermont (talk) 16:30, 5 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy keep per WP:SNOW. (non-admin closure) Andrew D. (talk) 18:01, 5 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Jean Orry[edit]

Jean Orry (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 source besides the "well-documented account" Viztor (talk) 14:15, 5 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Viztor (talk) 14:15, 5 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of France-related deletion discussions. 94rain ^Talk 14:23, 5 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. There are additional sources available for this article, as can be seen when reading the article of the same name in the French Wikipedia. Notability is clearly established. Risker (talk) 14:34, 5 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Speedy Keep. Plenty of sources available. The article needs work, and I'll happily have a go at improving it, but there's no basis for deletion. Hugsyrup (talk) 14:39, 5 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Changed to speedy. Literally dozens of English-language sources available. See: [4] Hugsyrup (talk) 15:06, 5 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    • Yes, this was a poor nom, poorly "researched"! Johnbod (talk) 16:18, 5 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Even before recent additions, any early 18th-century figure who had a biography published in 2006 is clearly notable. Johnbod (talk) 15:00, 5 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Amusingly, and since this article stands the proverbial snowball's chance of being deleted, another search turns up John Huxtable Elliott writing in 1977:

  Philip V was accompanied to Madrid by a number of French advisers, of whom the most notable was Jean Orry.^{— ISBN 9780452006140 p. 369}

  So there's a history professor saying it. I'll let you guess which three words I put into the search engine. ☺ Uncle G (talk) 16:52, 5 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Sandstein 19:54, 12 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Pixel Corps[edit]

Pixel Corps (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 working references. May no longer exist. Rathfelder (talk) 13:50, 5 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. Rathfelder (talk) 13:50, 5 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. 94rain ^Talk 14:07, 5 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete not sure whether they’re still operating but I can’t find reliable independent sources to support this article. Mccapra (talk) 04:40, 12 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 19:38, 12 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Dragon (programming language)[edit]

Dragon (programming language) (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 cites only two sources: the programming language author's web page, and rosettacode.org, which is an open wiki. All the information there appears to have been uploaded by the language's author. I've searched and I can't find additional sources, so it appears this does not meet the general notability guideline and should be deleted. In your searches, note that this programming language has no relation to Dragon NaturallySpeaking and that product's associated scripting language. MrOllie (talk) 13:49, 5 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. 94rain ^Talk 14:13, 5 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. 94rain ^Talk 14:13, 5 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Both citations are unreliable. With the article's prose seeming a bit promotional, I'd say we should delete it. Invalid^OS (talk) 17:04, 5 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete No indication that this is a notable programming language. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 01:56, 6 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete! Its' name suggests it was written after, or even while, reading the Dragon Book, and, who ever they are, they are not making history, nor would I waste my time learning it since they do not offer any innovation to speak of. If we can't have a page for Owl Lisp, let alone Otus Lisp, then we definitely shouldn't for this one either. -- Shyam Has Your Anomaly Mitigated (talk) 07:33, 7 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The creator of the page even went so far as to add the name of the language designer to the List of programming language researchers; I'm sure the creator of the page is the language designer. -- Shyam Has Your Anomaly Mitigated (talk) 07:50, 7 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

This user is a menace! If you go through their contributions page, you will see for yourself! -- Shyam Has Your Anomaly Mitigated (talk) 07:55, 7 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

File:Dragon-langnew.png is unoriginal piracy! We know their real identity, so we can send them to prison! -- Shyam Has Your Anomaly Mitigated (talk) 08:04, 7 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

We should "kill Ring" as well. -- Shyam Has Your Anomaly Mitigated (talk) 08:22, 7 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete as failing WP:GNG and WP:NSOFTWARE. Author sadly does seem to be trying to use Wikipedia for WP:PROMO, not just with this article, but also by adding mentions of themselves and their language to pages like List of programming language researchers, and infoboxes for popular programming languages. Colin M (talk) 16:02, 10 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete No significant coverage from third-party sources.Charmk (talk) 16:18, 10 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Sandstein 19:54, 12 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Shari Cantor[edit]

Shari Cantor (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)

Was deleted 2 years ago, however speedy was declined since there are subsequent new sources. The issue is those sources are only more of the same routine coverage of a local political candidate. Fails WP:NPOL. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 12:16, 5 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 12:16, 5 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Connecticut-related deletion discussions. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 12:16, 5 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. 94rain ^Talk 14:27, 5 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep It now passes WP:GNG when it did not two years ago. Since it passes GNG the nominators claim that it doesnt meet WP:NPOL is spurious and irrelevant as WWP:NPOL is a lower standard than WP:GNG. Horse Eye Jack (talk) 14:44, 5 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Even if we want to use WP:NPOL the "Major local political figures who have received significant press coverage” standard is met... Articles like www.courant.com/hartford-magazine/hc-hm-shari-cantor-west-hartford-mayor-20190428-20190422-euj3b27qefgyhidjekcook77xi-story.html are *not,* as has been claimed, routine coverage. Subject meets both WP:NPOL and WP:GNG, but again meeting WP:NPOL is irrelevant if WP:GNG is met. Horse Eye Jack (talk) 14:54, 5 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Passes WP:GNG. They have sufficient sources across the internet to make them notable. As stated under WP:NPOL (as Horse Eye Jack pointed out above) "...such people can still be notable if they meet the general notability guideline." If WP:NPOL is the only reason for deletion, this doesn't need to be up for discussion in the first place. Dontaskjustwonder (talk) 17:25, 7 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep per WP:GNG. Adequate indicia of notability. NPOL is an SNG, which is a guide to GNG, not something that supercedes it for deletion. Meeting either NPOL or GNG is enough to keep, don't need both. Montanabw^(talk) 19:43, 11 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was soft delete. WP:REFUND applies. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 10:00, 12 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

BlogTV[edit]

BlogTV (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 WP:GNG and WP:NWEB. Störm (talk) 16:37, 29 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 18:51, 29 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 18:52, 29 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 18:52, 29 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Israel-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 18:52, 29 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 18:52, 29 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Malcolmxl5 (talk) 00:10, 12 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Phillip Stackhouse[edit]

Phillip Stackhouse (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)

None of the references in this article indicate that the subject has notability. Merely being mentioned in articles about newsworthy individuals does not make a person notable. If there were significant news coverage of him specifically, he might be notable. But all of the references that I looked at contained only incidental mentions of him, with no indication of his notability. DeRossitt (talk) 20:18, 29 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 21:07, 29 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Colorado-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 21:07, 29 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Law-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 21:07, 29 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Massachusetts-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 21:09, 29 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of North Carolina-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 21:09, 29 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete as PROMO for a WP:MILL attorney. E.M.Gregory (talk) 14:43, 5 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - non-notable, every source contains only incidental mentions and there is no credible indication of his notability. The article itself does not even claim he is notable. Also WP:MILL attorney. — DeRossitt (talk) 16:48, 5 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was soft delete. WP:REFUND applies. Randykitty (talk) 14:35, 12 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Edmund Reggie[edit]

Edmund Reggie (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:JUDGE ...William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 22:05, 29 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Law-related deletion discussions. ...William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 22:05, 29 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Louisiana-related deletion discussions. ...William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 22:05, 29 May 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 Tokuro Fujiwara. Randykitty (talk) 14:35, 12 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Whoopee Camp[edit]

Whoopee Camp (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 on small developer - 3 years in length, now defunct. Known for producing two games before folding,

WP:BEFORE search brings up little to state notability. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 08:48, 5 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Video games-related deletion discussions. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 08:48, 5 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 08:48, 5 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Japan-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 10:58, 5 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• REDIRECT to Tokuro Fujiwara. I searched through the news search results, and added some references and information to the article, but couldn't find any significant coverage of it. Famous game developer starts his own company, releases two games, shuts down company because they don't make enough money, then starts it up again years later as a consultant company. That's all there is to it. Dream Focus 11:19, 5 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect - not notable, and in terrible shape, but it is a plausible search term. I’d probably prefer the target of Tomba, which probably generally has a higher recognizability factor to the general reader, and less likely to be deleted or merged than the relative poorly sourced/written target proposed above. Sergecross73 msg me 21:08, 5 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

  Someone might search for it as the guy's current consultant company, so best to have the redirect target to him. Dream Focus 14:10, 6 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

  I don't really get this argument. He wasn't the only employee, was he? Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 15:00, 6 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

  I mean, sure, maybe, but I think it much more likely readers recognize the game name than the director. We’re not exactly talking about Steven Spielberg here. He’s not a household name... Sergecross73 msg me 01:36, 7 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

  His article reads IGN listed Fujiwara at number 13 in its "Top 100 Game Creators of All Time" list. He is quite a famous game designer. Dream Focus 07:19, 7 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect to AStory. Randykitty (talk) 14:34, 12 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Lee Sang-baek[edit]

Lee Sang-baek (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)

Previously deleted with an expired Prod (reason:No Indication of notability, seems run-of-the-WP:MILL TV producer.) Nothing has changed. Some of the series may be notable, but I see nothing to show that the producer is notable in his own right. He isn't even mentioned in the Variety or Korean Film Biz sources so that doesn't leave much. One might consider a redirect to AStory but I am not convinced that is notable either. Hugsyrup (talk) 07:46, 5 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Hugsyrup (talk) 07:46, 5 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. Hugsyrup (talk) 07:46, 5 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of South Korea-related deletion discussions. Hugsyrup (talk) 07:46, 5 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Redirect to AStory and worry about the notability of that article another time. It looks like the filmography was ripped from that article anyway, and the only biographical information (birthdate, marriage, children) is unsourced. A quick Google search doesn't turn up much. Add salt if needed. PC78 (talk) 23:21, 5 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment Hi. I am a new editor. Thank you for noticing the flaws of this article. I am planning to add sources from Naver the Korean search engine. The site mentions his birthdate and other things. The filmography was ripped off of the AStory article. however, this is reasonable because he has produced every single one of the films/dramas by AStory. I need to find more sources of him to prove that he is indeed a notable person. I will work on the article as soon as possible. However, this article is my first and this might take some time. Thank you. Elliott080212 (talk) 14:43, 6 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Redirects may be added at editorial discretion. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 07:18, 12 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Mactan-Cebu International Airport Terminal 2[edit]

Mactan-Cebu International Airport Terminal 2 (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 need, original airport article serves the purpose Viztor (talk) 06:47, 5 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. Viztor (talk) 06:47, 5 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. Nothing here that isn’t covered in Mactan-Cebu International Airport. Mccapra (talk) 07:09, 5 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete and redirect to Mactan-Cebu International Airport. Reyk _YO! 10:46, 5 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Aviation-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 10:50, 5 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete and redirect per above --_SUBWAYguy 18:23, 5 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as not independently notable. I don't know how much of a search term this would be so I'm neutral on the redirect piece of this.Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 01:59, 6 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete and redirect to Mactan–Cebu International Airport - There is no need for a content fork at this time as the target article isn't too long for WP length standards. Oakshade (talk) 03:33, 6 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment- Given the fact that this article was nominated for deletion a mere 1 hour and 20 minutes after it was created, it may be hasty to cast "delete" opinions based on a lack of content. I'm not sure what the author's intent was in creating this page, it is possible that there is additional content he/she planned to add, but it does not appear that anybody attempted to contact them to ask first, other than a deletion template on the user's talk page. The user appears to have only been editing Wikipedia for a couple of months, with what seems like constructive edits mostly on topics related to The Philippines. RecycledPixels (talk) 15:45, 6 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

  The article's creator has continued editing on Wikipedia without returning to the article, so it does not appear that any further expansion of it is likely, so delete as an unnecessary fork of Mactan–Cebu International Airport. RecycledPixels (talk) 21:56, 10 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. The terminal is already covered in Mactan–Cebu International Airport#Terminal 2, and a fork is not warrented per WP:SPLIT. I don't know how much purpose redirects from Foo Bar Bunnybunny to Foo Bar really serve us, but if a redirect is created it should be an ((R to section)) to Mactan–Cebu International Airport#Terminal 2, not as two editors suggest a redirect to Mactan-Cebu International Airport which will create a WP:2RE. Sam Sailor 09:34, 7 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Philippines-related deletion discussions. ...William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 00:59, 8 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete as per above comments. No need for a separate article that is already well covered in the main airport article. Ajf773 (talk) 02:19, 8 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete No need for a separate article. It is 30 years ago this month my wife and I traveled through Mactan-Cebu International Airport and stayed in Cebu while on our honeymoon....William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 12:48, 8 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as per above comments. The terminal is already covered in Mactan–Cebu International Airport#Terminal 2. --MA Javadi (talk) 20:38, 10 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 07:17, 12 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Adrian Justinussen[edit]

Adrian Justinussen (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 footballer never played in a professional league, nor has international appearances at the senior level, thereby failing WP:NFOOTY. I do not see correspondence to WP:GNG either. Ymblanter (talk) 05:55, 5 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. Ymblanter (talk) 05:55, 5 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Denmark-related deletion discussions. Ymblanter (talk) 05:55, 5 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 06:07, 5 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions.CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 06:08, 5 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - fails WP:GNG and WP:NFOOTBALL. GiantSnowman 07:38, 5 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete fails WP:NFOOTBALL Seasider91 (talk) 16:35, 5 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nomination, GiantSnowman and Seasider91 - fails WP:GNG and WP:NFOOTBALL. Geoffroi (talk) 16:55, 7 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete a non-notable footballer.John Pack Lambert (talk) 22:13, 8 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Randykitty (talk) 14:32, 12 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Ushuaia Rocks![edit]

Ushuaia Rocks! (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 reliable independent sources found for this band. Mccapra (talk) 05:07, 5 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. Mccapra (talk) 05:07, 5 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Argentina-related deletion discussions. Mccapra (talk) 05:07, 5 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 06:23, 5 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete: fails WP:GNG and WP:BAND. Yeah, as far as Argentine rock bands go, this lot fall short of the status attained by Soda Stereo, Babasónicos and Los Fabulosos Cadillacs... like, a long way short. Clearly written by the band's leader Ezequiel Deregibus (the only two major contributors to the article are "Ederegibus" and an IP based in the band's home town), this is just a promotional effort for a band that never made it big and only released a couple of EPs. It doesn't even look like they played anything more than a handful of shows in their home town – the XLR Club where they allegedly had their "largest attendance ever" has a capacity of fewer than 500 people. Richard3120 (talk) 13:38, 5 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Consensus to keep and also withdrawn by nominator. RL0919 (talk) 04:41, 12 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Adele Uddo[edit]

Adele Uddo (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)

PROMO Viztor (talk) 03:58, 5 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Viztor (talk) 03:58, 5 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete an overly promotional article.John Pack Lambert (talk) 03:59, 5 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - First off, I, too dislike WP:PROMO, but that's not a reason to delete an article that still meets WP:NMODEL and WP:GNG. This will be an easy re-write. Orville1974 (talk) 04:22, 5 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The article has been scrubbed of WP:PROMO since it's nomination. Viztor and Johnpacklambert, please take another look to determine if it meets WP:NMODEL. Thank you! Orville1974 (talk) 05:49, 5 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fashion-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 06:12, 5 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 06:12, 5 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 06:12, 5 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 06:13, 5 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep - I improved the article by adding a bit more content with sources and by removing POV. Subject has had sustained wide coverage in the media as evidenced by the cited reliable sources. Easily passes WP:GNG and meets notability criteria as per WP:NMODEL. - AuthorAuthor (talk) 06:25, 5 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for the edits, AuthorAuthor. I'm glad you stepped in when you did. Orville1974 (talk) 06:46, 5 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Weak Keep The variety of sources helps to assert notability. At a minimum I think the sources provide material for the generic Hand model article, which is currently lacking in same, and which could be expanded to Parts model which is not defined in the Uddo lede. Bogger (talk) 10:07, 5 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment There does seem to be something CoI-ish about the article creator who's only made trivial grammatical edits before creating this first article as fully formed. Worth keeping an eye on, I guess. Bogger (talk) 10:15, 5 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - Hi and thank you for the review and cleanup of the article I started last night. I'm a new Wikipedia editor. I do NOT have a COI. I'm interested in models and beauty subjects, so I added the article last night. I had also planned to update the hand model article, but honestly got too tired last night. I planned to update it later today with similar sources. Adele Uddo was the most prolific hand and parts model I know about, so I started here. I'd like to do whatever I can to improve this article. Thank you. Workerbeenc (talk) 13:53, 5 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• WithdrawnThe status of the article now is okay for me, at least not PROMO.Viztor (talk) 14:08, 5 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Viztor: Hey, there's a 'delete' comment. So, the nomination can't be closed as 'withdrawn', unless the user changes his mind. --Mhhossein ^talk 06:06, 8 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I know, I withdrawn because I changed my mind, and I did not close the discussion.Viztor (talk) 06:12, 8 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Randykitty (talk) 14:32, 12 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

This Is Not a Crocodile Tear[edit]

This Is Not a Crocodile Tear (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)

Another short film of very little if any notability. I can't find any sources at all, all I can find is stuff about crocodile tears, not this film. Wgolf (talk) 03:57, 5 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Africa-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 06:14, 5 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 06:14, 5 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per nom (and make it snappy....) Lugnuts ^{Fire Walk with Me} 11:09, 5 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete – Source searches are providing almost nothing; fails WP:N. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 09:58, 12 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]