< 8 June	10 June >

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

The result was delete. — JJMC89 (T·C) 01:51, 17 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Jared Seide[edit]

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

No evidence of any notability. Refs are own web-sites, interviews or mentions. Nothing here from an independent reliable sources. Searches yield the same but nothing better (LinkedIn, YouTube, Facebook etc.). Fails WP:GNG Velella ^{Velella Talk} 22:54, 9 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Velella ^{Velella Talk} 22:54, 9 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Velella ^{Velella Talk} 22:54, 9 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 23:03, 9 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 23:04, 9 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I can't find good sources.ThatMontrealIP (talk) 01:18, 10 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I don't see any actual press in the references.. Certainly nothing there to justify a large biography. I found 2 mentions in google news but not great sources. He isnt there yet.. ScienceAdvisor (talk) 03:07, 10 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - doesn't appear to meet WP:GNG --DannyS712 (talk) 06:50, 10 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Agree with nom 9H48F (talk) 14:02, 11 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete does not meet WP:GNG Alex-h (talk) 09:18, 13 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I still think this is delete. Here a a set of sources that User:Jaredseide added in a recent edit. When they added them, it broke the Afd formatting, so I am re-adding them:

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

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

The result was delete. — JJMC89 (T·C) 01:50, 17 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Supreme Court Residences[edit]

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

why not just put it in the supreme court article? there is few left to say about it as of now. Viztor (talk) 19:54, 9 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bangladesh-related deletion discussions. Viztor (talk) 19:54, 9 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Economics-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 20:52, 9 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. This building is independently notable as the 8th-tallest building in Bangladesh. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 21:29, 9 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and merge. Simple solution. Being the 8th of anything is trivial. Trillfendi (talk) 21:58, 9 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete It's an apartment building trading off its government building vicinity; no cites that court members actually live in the building, and even if some of them do, then it's just a glorified dormitory with apartment comforts. Nate • (chatter) 23:28, 9 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. The only source provided (a) doesn't say that this is the 8th-tallest building in Bangladesh, and (b) doesn't say that the building was intended as a residence for judges of the Bangladesh Supreme Court. So the article has some problems with sourcing and establishing notability under the general notability guideline. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 05:26, 10 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. The article is orphaned, needs reliable sources to become notable. --MA Javadi (talk) 20:19, 10 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
weak delete. This article lower importance. if anyone want to keep this article, so improve this article and add more source.-Nahal (talk) 12:28, 16 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Consensus is for the article to be retained. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 01:57, 17 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Punyaha[edit]

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

is there really need for this article? shouldn't it be merged as part of a ritual? I'm not an expert but I don't think this has independent notability besides relevant religion, which it could be merged to. Viztor (talk) 19:46, 9 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Religion-related deletion discussions. Viztor (talk) 19:46, 9 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Viztor (talk) 19:46, 9 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. No good reason for deletion offered by nominator. Mccapra (talk) 20:44, 9 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Hinduism-related deletion discussions. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 21:03, 9 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. The nominator appears to be proposing merging articles about religious rituals with the articles about the religions themselves. That would make our articles about religions ridiculously large. Phil Bridger (talk) 08:34, 10 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, just added a source, I do not understand why this is sent to AFD. Nominator made their previous nomination 2-3 minutes before, so again no WP:BEFORE has been performed. Could we be spared this kind of WP:DRIVEBY deletion tagging? Sam Sailor 11:00, 10 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@Phil Bridger and Mccapra:What I'm saying is this belong to an article on the rituals of the religion. We shouldn't be creating individual article for different steps of the same ritual, it would just confuse the reader. Viztor (talk) 11:22, 10 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Viztor: yes and I’m saying that’s not a valid reason for deletion. If there is a merge target article you think is suitable, go ahead and propose a merge following the normal process. There’s no reason to bring it to AfD. If you think it should be merged to an article that doesn’t yet exist,then you kind of have your answer. In any case there is nothing remotely “confusing” about having an article on this specific topic. Users are very likely to encounter the unknown term ‘Punyaha’ and look it up, so this article meets that need exactly. Mccapra (talk) 11:39, 10 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

For example, if someone is arrested and prosecuted, are we going to write an article on the arrest and one on the prosecution? It doesn't make sense of the division. The whole thing makes a story, not the individual steps. It is just a terrible way of writing. And there is no article to merge to, however, that doesn't justify the creation of individual steps of a broader understandable topic which what we need an article on. Viztor (talk) 12:01, 10 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Which ritual do you claim this to be a step of? Phil Bridger (talk) 12:43, 10 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I don't understand why you're so determined to get rid of this. It is meaningful, sourced and encyclopaedic. You say you're not an expert and you also say there's no article to merge it to, so maybe just move on to tackle something that we really need to get rid of because it's a hoax, or unsourced, or promotional or non-notable. Mccapra (talk) 13:42, 10 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Mccapra: I'm not determined, the article is still just terrible writing, it says nothing about the ritual itself besides it being a ritual, and the different names of it. Perhaps you know about the ritual, however, the article doesn't make sense, how is anyone suppose to know if they are notable, from what is currently in this article, it is portrayed as part of other rituals, and there is no article on the rituals as an overview. Not to mention the lack of any other x-wiki mention. If you think this is important, then there is certainly a lot of ways to improve it so it actually makes sense. Viztor (talk) 09:36, 11 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The article makes perfect sense to me, and I know little about Hinduism, and I don't see where this is portrayed as part of other rituals. Phil Bridger (talk) 15:36, 11 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I'm a little surprised not to see a Hindi wiki article about this (at least when I copy/pasted the Hindi on offer in this article) but the sourcing seems to suggest notability here. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 02:54, 11 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep: No good reason for deletion offered by nominator. S/he may wonder if there is "really need for this article?" However such wonderings are not cause for deletion.

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 Withdrawn (non-admin closure) Viztor (talk) 17:29, 10 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Geraldine Weir-Rogers v. Sf Trust Ltd[edit]

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

~~law case with no notability. we are not repo for that, these belong to wiki source.~~ Viztor (talk) 19:34, 9 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Law-related deletion discussions. Viztor (talk) 19:34, 9 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Ireland-related deletion discussions. Viztor (talk) 19:34, 9 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

It's a Supreme Court case so it is clearly notable. The article could do a better job of indicating the notability--although the article does cite two secondary sources: a key text book on tort law that references the case and the canonical Irish Law Reports Monthly. AugusteBlanqui (talk) 21:26, 9 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: (but rename). Indications are the name of the litigant is Weir-Rodgers not Weir-Rogers as per the article title. As soon as we have the searching and the googling for the Weir-Rodgers several newspaper references come tumbling out. Of note the article was the subject of an subject of a Wikipedia educational assignment in March 2019. I might have hoped previous scrutiny including the WP:BEFORE and the educational assignment would have mentioned this issue with the name.Djm-leighpark (talk) 05:57, 10 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and rename to Geraldine Weir-Rodgers v. SF Trust Ltd (the 'F' needs to be capitalized too). I will add additional content from secondary sources. AugusteBlanqui (talk) 09:50, 10 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Keep per WP:SNOW - Meets WP:CASES criteria 1. End of story. Hugsyrup (talk) 11:03, 10 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Withdrawn per above. I can't find anything with the original title, so. Viztor (talk) 17:29, 10 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was merge to Islamic scarf controversy in France. — JJMC89 (T·C) 01:50, 17 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Alma and Lila Lévy[edit]

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

People who are notable only for a single-time event should be merged to the article on the event. Viztor (talk) 19:31, 9 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Viztor (talk) 19:31, 9 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Islam-related deletion discussions. Viztor (talk) 19:31, 9 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of France-related deletion discussions. Viztor (talk) 19:31, 9 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to Islamic scarf controversy in France per WP:BLP1E; don't appear to be independently notable --DannyS712 (talk) 06:51, 10 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Merge and redirect per DannyS712 Hugsyrup (talk) 11:08, 10 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Merge as well as trim. More than half of the article isn't even about the hijab controversy but about the dad comparing the discrimination his daughters faced to the discrimination Jews faced in World War 2. Inter&anthro (talk) 21:02, 11 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Merge They even 16 years after the event are only defined by it, no indepdent notability.John Pack Lambert (talk) 15:39, 15 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Already G11 deleted. (non-admin closure) Viztor (talk) 16:13, 17 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Masonite (web framework)[edit]

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

Put your readme on github. This framwork has no source reporting it besides few package repos disguised as reliable sources even though anyone can publish on them. As a programmer myself, this maybe something remarkable, but not now. It only released its first stable version two months ago. It would at least take a year before it reach maturity. Viztor (talk) 19:25, 9 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. Viztor (talk) 19:25, 9 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete no evidence of significant coverage by reliable sources. --DannyS712 (talk) 06:52, 10 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Nothing in the first comment is true. The project is well over 1 year old and had a stable release way more than 2 months ago. The first stable release was January of 2018. Thats over a year ago it went into 1.x. In fact, Masonite is on a 2.x release cycle. The project has over 160k installs. The project has over 600 pages of documentation for it. Within the next month, the project has almost 1000 stars on Github which is no small feat. This will put Masonite into the .01% of repositories with over 1000 stars. Its more than a mature web framework and people will be looking for more information on it.

Masonite's next release of version 2.2 is also a Long Term Support release so businesses can see the commitment to the project and is currently in conversation about several businesses sponsoring development of the project. The project also does have a readme on its GitHub page | Readme and also does have sources other than other repositories: CodingForEntreprenuers : It was also on this podcast: | python.__init__ and featured and accepted on this podcast as well: | ChangeLog ] along with several large newsletters such as RealPython, Anker Gupta featured it on | import python Also featured on | PycodersWeekly and talked about by Dan Bader and many more times featured on Twitter by other large players on the industry with over 50k+ followers. I am also currently in a contract signed book deal writing "The Definitive Guide to Masonite" with Apress. There are also several articles from the original author of the project on | dev.to here --josephmancuso (talk) 06:52, 10 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Masonite Framework. already has readme file, not even that this is one of the active projects on GitHub, on the time writing this, the last commit was 10 hours ago. It has a stable version 2.0 for almost year now, along with 2.1 major release and Masonite is working on 2.2 LTS release this week, not even that Masonite has 120+ releases including major and minor releases so far. As a programmer myself, I have used Masonite in production for Websiteopedia. Masonite is young, mature and remarkable at the same time, last but not least, check Pageview Analysis for Masonite Framework page on Wikipedia --vaibhavmule (talk) 07:31, 10 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Masonite page shouldn't be deleted, it is a Mature framework and the comment of the user just shows that he do not even opened the docs or the Github page of Masonite. Is a awesome project and the wiki page should be improved, not deleted. --Rfschubert (talk) 15:58, 10 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
- Oh plz, github and package repos are not reliable source, you know better. I've already said it is probably a good framework. However, unless some reliable sources report on it, we can not include it. This is not the place to promo good new frameworks, that's just OR or PROMO. BTW, it has less than one thousand stars, that just proves the point, it is too new and not popular, let alone for mass deployment. Viztor (talk) 16:49, 10 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
LOL, I don't know why I'm arguing with Rfschubert, he's the author, and I've checked history for the above accounts who voted keep, and it is clear to me what he doing, though I will require assist for verification. Viztor (talk) 16:52, 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 speedy keep. Nomination withdrawn. (non-admin closure) Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 15:13, 15 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Edwin C.O. Uzor[edit]

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

Currently does not meet GNG as it only has one source. S0091 (talk) 19:15, 9 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. S0091 (talk) 19:15, 9 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 21:05, 9 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Nigeria-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 21:05, 9 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. The nominator should have done WP:BEFORE. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 21:13, 9 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your comment and I agree. In hindsight, I should have familiarized myself with process first. Should I withdrawal the nomination? If so, how? S0091 (talk) 21:25, 9 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

S0091 - if you plan on withdrawing the nomination, ping me or anyone familiar with non-admin closures to close. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 08:32, 12 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Lee Vilenski - Yes, I would like to withdrawal this nomination. Apologies for the trouble. S0091 (talk) 14:26, 15 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. — JJMC89 (T·C) 01:49, 17 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Shivani Rajasekhar[edit]

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

Fails WP:NACTOR and a case of WP:NYA. GSS (talk|c|em) 17:58, 9 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. GSS (talk|c|em) 17:58, 9 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. GSS (talk|c|em) 17:58, 9 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 18:59, 9 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 18:59, 9 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as WP:TOOSOON with only one upcoming film as a major credit and the coverage so far seems inherited from the father at this stage, thanks Atlantic306 (talk) 19:32, 15 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Sandstein 06:49, 17 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Atlantis Group[edit]

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

Lacks in-depth coverage in third-party sources as required by WP:CORPDEPTH. GSS (talk|c|em) 17:45, 9 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. GSS (talk|c|em) 17:45, 9 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. GSS (talk|c|em) 17:45, 9 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I didn't research anything but I dont see any press listed in the references. If the company is notable there is still no reason to include the information that is in the page in a encycolpedic entry. — Preceding unsigned comment added by ScienceAdvisor (talk • contribs) 03:14, 10 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Not notable, mostly WP:PROMO Hydromania (talk) 04:20, 17 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:G5. (non-admin closure) Ceethekreator (talk) 22:18, 9 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Rudolf Schirmer Ampofo-Domfeh[edit]

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

No evidence of any notability. All the sources are simple directory listings . No evidence of any notability. Draft moved directly to mainspace without review. Fails WP:GNG Velella ^{Velella Talk} 16:51, 9 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. Velella ^{Velella Talk} 16:51, 9 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Ghana-related deletion discussions. Velella ^{Velella Talk} 16:51, 9 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 19:10, 16 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Prof. Crispus Makau Kiamba[edit]

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

Fails WP:NACADEMIC and undersourced in tone. Sheldybett (talk) 16:37, 9 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 17:25, 9 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Kenya-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 17:25, 9 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. “Vice Chancellor of the University of Nairobi from 2002 to 2005[2][3] and served as the Chief Executive Officer at the Commission of Higher Education between 2005 and 2006.” Definitely notable. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mccapra (talk • contribs) 19:22, June 9, 2019 (UTC)
Keep'. In British usage, vice-chancellor is the chief executive officer of a university. The equivalent in the United States is president, which is an automatic pass of WP:NACADEMIC. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 20:14, 9 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Vice-chancellor is the head of the institution (in contrast, chancellor is mostly a nominal position) and thus passes NACADEMIC. --qedk (t 桜 c) 20:26, 9 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per WP:PROF#C6. He may also pass WP:NPOL or WP:GNG for his government activities but with one notability criterion clear we don't need to determine that. —David Eppstein (talk) 21:29, 9 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Passes WP:Prof#C6 and WP:POL. There are plenty of sources. Xxanthippe (talk) 22:27, 9 June 2019 (UTC).[reply]
Keep - meets WP:NACADEMIC per above --DannyS712 (talk) 06:53, 10 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Mccapra & Eastmain.Tamsier (talk) 12:06, 12 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. As a former vice-chancellor (i.e. president) of the University of Nairobi he passes WP:PROF #6, and he easily passes other notability criteria too based on his former government roles. The article needs to be moved to Crispus Makau Kiamba, though, unless his parents named him "Prof". --Tataral (talk) 20:33, 13 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Passes notability ,served as the Chief Executive Officer of Higher Education and Vice Chancellor of the University of Nairobi. --MA Javadi (talk) 21:47, 15 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, lets make a snowman. Coolabahapple (talk) 11:46, 16 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 19:09, 16 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Sunwing Family Resorts[edit]

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

Previously deleted. Obvious WP:Promo and WP:COI issues. Undersourced, all sources are from the parent company. Not seeing indication it meets WP:CORPDEPTH or WP:GNG. JamesG5 (talk) 15:22, 9 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Greece-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 15:26, 9 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 15:26, 9 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Spain-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 15:27, 9 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Europe-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 15:27, 9 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete 3 of 6 sources are primary, or 3 non-primary sources, one is of questionable reliability, other two sources both lead to 404, here and here. No apparent WP:N. WookieInHeat (talk) 04:08, 10 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: A brochureware article on a brand, setting out its offering supported by routine announcement coverage. No evidence of encyclopaedic notability. Redirect to Thomas Cook Group could be an option, though I doubt this particular brand merits specific mention there. AllyD (talk) 05:09, 10 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - as per nom. The article creator is clearly an undeclared CoI editor who is still editing after being asked to stop. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 12:38, 10 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete As previous comments. Dormskirk (talk) 13:18, 10 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete with clear COI on a non-notable topic. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 02:39, 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. Malcolmxl5 (talk) 15:42, 15 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Court of General Jurisdiction of the People's Republic of China[edit]

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

I see no mention for such generalization and categorization. Viztor (talk) 12:16, 26 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Law-related deletion discussions. Viztor (talk) 12:16, 26 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Wow! This article has been here for thirteen years! I can see a snippet ref here which indicates that this isn’t a specific court, it’s a general description of courts that don’t have a specific jurisdiction (e.g. the railway courts or the internet courts that exist in China). So no need for us to keep it. Mccapra (talk) 13:58, 26 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
- If what you say is correct, this would be a synonym for Court of special jurisdiction (China) ~~and redirect would be in order~~. SpinningSpark 15:16, 27 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Actually I’m saying it’s the antonym of ‘Court of Special Jurisdiction’. It’s any court that doesn’t have a SJ. Mccapra (talk) 21:30, 27 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, I misread you statement as meaning the exact opposite. I still don't see the value of deleting. Since it is terminology actually in use, why not just reword to make clear it is not itself one of the four levels? Or else redirect to Judicial system of China#Court structure and explain it there. SpinningSpark 22:20, 27 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of China-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 00:52, 27 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. No meaningful content and no source to prove this level of the court system actually exists. Here I don't think China's Supreme People's Court fits the definition of a "court of general jurisdiction" at all. Esiymbro (talk) 12:08, 28 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Randykitty (talk) 15:07, 2 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep (tentative). I looked at the Chinese Wikipedia rather than English sources. I believe this article is referring to this category of "ordinary courts": 中華民國法律#普通法院 or 中華民國法院制度#普通法院

This article when translated by Google says:

According to "People's Republic of China Constitution" and "People's Court Organic Law of the People's Republic of China," people's courts are the judicial organs, can be divided into special people's courts and the ordinary courts. There is no separate administrative court.

The ordinary court is divided into:

The Supreme People's Court is the highest judicial organ of the state ...

The local people's court is divided into three levels:

1. Basic people's courts : including county people's courts, flag people's courts, city people's courts (without districts)...

2. Intermediate People's Court...

3. Higher People's Court : provinces, autonomous regions and municipalities directly under the Higher People's Court...

Specialized people's courts: including military courts (the PLA, level units, and military-level units), railway transportation courts (with intermediate and grassroots level 2), maritime courts (not classified, equivalent to intermediate people's courts ), forestry courts , and farms Courts , petroleum courts, etc.

Based on this, I believe the article in question is referring to what this Chinese article is calling the "ordinary court" (普通法院分为). --David Tornheim (talk) 17:34, 5 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The first two articles you referred to is actually the Court System of Republic of China(commonly called Taiwan), but that's cool. And I don't think this is about the category though, most jurisdiction have courts of general jurisdiction and courts of special jurisdiction (like Court of International Trade of the U.S.) However, that alone doesn't justify the existence of an article on general jurisdiction, because it is what it is literally, there is no need to explain anything, and nothing could be explained besides the word general jurisdiction. Viztor (talk) 18:43, 5 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Viztor: You are correct that my first two links were for Taiwan (which I had not noticed), but I think we agree that it appears to apply the same as to mainland China, since Taiwan is incorporated into the mainland, although I admit, I don't know if the integration has created a dual court system, like was found with 1066 creation of Common_law#Origins. The longer quote I believe applies to the mainland (and possibly equally to Taiwan).

As for "there is no need to explain anything", I think this is actually more an issue of organization, and the problem appears that our articles don't accurately and correctly articulate the structure. This chart does not match Template:PRC_courts. The material I show above is more like the chart than our template. So my feeling is that we need to correct the material to match the WP:RS. Unfortunately, I don't speak Chinese, and I know I can't trust Google translate. I think we need someone fluent in Chinese to help us figure out what is going on and if there are mistakes in the organization of these Chinese court articles. If you know of high quality English WP:RS that shows the organization and matches our template rather than the chart, I would like to see it. Without WP:RS about how the court system is actually structured, I don't think we can determine what do with this article or with other similar articles about the Chinese court system. --David Tornheim (talk) 19:36, 5 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

”Taiwan is incorporated into the mainland”? No, absolutely not! A source describing the judicial system in one country can’t be used as the basis for an article about another. Mccapra (talk) 05:18, 7 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Usually, they just divide it like supreme court, local and special, given that a special court is either subject to a local court's appellate jurisdiction or the supreme one's, and the local ones subject to supreme one's. So IMO, the current template works for me. Supreme court has ALL the jurisdiction, it would be rare if we put it under a category of "General Jurisdiction". Viztor (talk) 19:12, 8 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 14:57, 9 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. A thorough search for legal scholarship on such an entity turns up nothing. There may well be courts having general jurisdiction in the People's Republic of China, but there is no entity with the name, "Court of General Jurisdiction of the People's Republic of China". bd2412 T 00:46, 10 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Non-sourced and not notable. If the terminology actually "IS" in use then we should be able to prove it with at least one source that, at the least, could support a redirect. If we redirect and "explain it there" that would seem to be a merge and would be advancing original research. Otr500 (talk) 10:39, 10 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Per nom, I think there is no need to keep it. --MA Javadi (talk) 20:31, 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 soft delete. WP:REFUND applies. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 01:53, 17 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Soul Button[edit]

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

Fails WP:MUSICBIO/WP:BASIC, no chart placings or major label signings. Ceethekreator (talk) 14:15, 26 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Ceethekreator! I am writing to you as I got a message that you have nominated Soul Button page for deletion. The reason that was mentioned is:"no chart placings or major label signings". Actually, Soul Button's music was listed on some charts and even was at the top of many charts by Beatport which is a very important company in the world of electronic DJs. However, Soul Button is not just a DJ, so we should not decide only based on the success of his own music. He is also an entrepreneur who runs three different record labels. Could you please remove your deletion notice from Soul Button's page? — Preceding unsigned comment added by NMGS19 (talk • contribs) 14:31, 29 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hi NMGS19, Unfortunately Beatport charts are considered to be WP:BADCHARTS Ceethekreator (talk) 16:27, 29 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Ceethekreator, thank you very much for the info! Could you please consider removing the deletion notice, not because of Beatport, but because of the fact that Soul Button is not just a DJ. He is also the founder of three record labels with over 15 different artists. He will also go on a US tour during 2019. So although I think he is notable already, I also think that the potential of this page is big, as it can be a base for all the future successes by these three record labels and their artists. WP:POTENTIAL NMGS19 (talk) 18:20, 29 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

A consensus has to be made first. Ceethekreator (talk) 11:51, 31 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Ceethekreator (talk) 14:15, 26 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. Ceethekreator (talk) 14:15, 26 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Italy-related deletion discussions. Ceethekreator (talk) 14:15, 26 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, RL0919 (talk) 15:02, 2 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 14:50, 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. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 19:08, 16 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Billie (company)[edit]

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

Company brochure article. Fails WP:ORGIND and WP:CORPDEPTH. Moved to draft, but moved out by author. scope_creep^Talk 10:14, 2 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. Ceethekreator (talk) 10:55, 2 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Ceethekreator (talk) 10:55, 2 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. Ceethekreator (talk) 10:55, 2 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 14:47, 9 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Article was written by a promotional account that has since been indef'd. scope_creep^Talk 10:43, 10 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails WP:SPIP, none of the references meet the criteria for establishing notability, topic fails GNG and WP:NCORP HighKing⁺⁺ 18:08, 16 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete subjects lacks the in-depth, independent coverage needed to meet WP:NCORP and WP:SIGCOV; press releases, funding announcements, and passing mentions wont cut it. Some sources that announce the company's intent to combat the pink tax are speculative in tone and based on WP:PRIMARY information, and thus do not confer undue notability on the subject.--SamHolt6 (talk) 18:44, 16 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. — JJMC89 (T·C) 01:47, 17 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Algani[edit]

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

Fails WP:ORGIND and WP:CORPDEPTH scope_creep^Talk 10:11, 2 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. AllyD (talk) 10:50, 2 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Georgia (country)-related deletion discussions. AllyD (talk) 10:50, 2 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 14:47, 9 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. I added some references. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 22:38, 9 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Still fails WP:SIGCOV. They are local papers and only two references. No coverage whatsoever. scope_creep^Talk 10:18, 10 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Eastmain has participated in enough AFDs to understand what the criteria for establishing notability are. Not a single reference added or already in the article meets the criteria. HighKing⁺⁺ 17:46, 16 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Per Nom. As presented there are 4 references from "The Financial", a primary source, and an interview. This gives the appearance of an promotional article. Otr500 (talk) 11:19, 10 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I am unable to locate any references that meet the criteria for establishing notability, topic fails GNG and WP:NCORP. HighKing⁺⁺ 17:46, 16 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was soft delete. WP:REFUND applies. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 10:18, 16 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Barry Shrier[edit]

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

Subject does not meet WP:BIO FunkyCanute (talk) 08:46, 2 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. FunkyCanute (talk) 08:46, 2 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. FunkyCanute (talk) 08:46, 2 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 09:22, 2 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 14:47, 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 soft delete. WP:REFUND applies. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 10:10, 16 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

LAPA Publishers[edit]

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

non notable business. No significant coverage in google searches. Only a reference to the companies own website given. noq (talk) 08:10, 2 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. Ceethekreator (talk) 08:29, 2 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Ceethekreator (talk) 08:29, 2 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of South Africa-related deletion discussions. Ceethekreator (talk) 08:29, 2 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 14:47, 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 soft delete. WP:REFUND applies. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 10:12, 16 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Dilly Braimoh[edit]

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

No evidence of notability. Google search (I know, not the be-all-and-end-all) brings up Youtube, Facebook etc but no reliable independent coverage. Page has been mainly edited by Braimoh123 which suggests a massive conflict of interest if not self-promotion. Emeraude (talk) 07:45, 2 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 08:03, 2 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Journalism-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 08:03, 2 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 08:03, 2 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 08:03, 2 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 14:47, 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. — JJMC89 (T·C) 01:48, 17 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

World Book of Records[edit]

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

I do not believe this book meets WP:NBOOK as I can find no substantial coverage in reliable independent sources.

It seems to me to be a bogus or insubstantial entity, see this article from the Huffington Post, and not something Wikipedia should be endorsing by inclusion. Despite being called "World book of records", all the quoted records are from India.Cwmhiraeth (talk) 08:52, 26 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 09:07, 26 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 09:08, 26 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

It is not a bogus or insubstantial entity. Please go through all the referenced material about it. There are lot of independent sources. Yes, Huffington Post has carried out a story but it is just one of its kind which they have published, there is no such story elsewhere. While creating the page, I went through the organization's website and social media in which they have initiated a legal action against that news portal. Other than lot of credible independent references, the organization has been endorsed by lot of influential people including the Prime Minister of India. Request you to go through all the references and take the decision accordingly. Also, I suggest for any conflict, we should have used the Talk page to reach on some consensus rather than nominating a properly referenced material for deletion. Thank you! Edwige9 (talk) 11:10, 26 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. None of the sources are about the book. Rather, they mention an entry in the book to try to help show the importance of the event, like a political rally, that the article is actually about. It thus fails the GNG requirement to ...address the topic directly and in detail.... There is a strong hint of promotion in all this, which should not be so surprising since the book's founder has stated the book is a vehicle for his own political ambitions. SpinningSpark 15:06, 27 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Yes, it is not a Book but a brand substantially covered in the press and media. All the sources cited about it are the awards that it has given. However, more content about the subject is required and not deletion of the page. Rudra9 (talk) 10:35, 28 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 07:30, 2 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Delete at this point I agree with the nominator and with Spinning spark's assessment. Lubbad85 (☎) 19:06, 2 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
DELETE - I don't see anything about the org either in the references, through a search, or, FWIW in the article. It's really just a list of entries combined with WP:PROMO. There's nothing that indicates objectivity regarding the honours or records and zero WP:ORGDEPTH in any of the sources. It's a quirky list though and kind of interesting in how it sort of borrows most of the Guiness name and locates itself in the UK, presumably to give itself an overseas veneer. ogenstein (talk) 21:29, 3 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I understand everyone has an opinion on this subject but there are other pages within similar domain that do not have enough references. E.g. India Book of Records and Asia Book of Records. If you compare this page's references with the other two that I have posted, you will find that this page not only has more but better references. I feel it should not be deleted but more references and content can be added to improve it. :All the content that has been added on the page has been referenced properly. Here are the three sample references:

https://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/india/mega-bjp-convention-in-bhopal-enters-world-book-of-records/articleshow/65967021.cms https://www.indiatoday.in/television/top-stories/story/comedy-king-kapil-sharma-gets-honoured-by-world-book-of-records-london-1527154-2019-05-17 https://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/entertainment/hindi/music/news/daler-mahndi-nominated-as-the-brand-ambassador-of-world-book-of-records/articleshow/69268738.cms As far as notability is concerned, so many Indian news portals have covered the subject and renowned Indian pop singer Daler Mehndi is its brand ambassador. Also, World Book of Records is the name of the organization, although their site has mentioned that they publish a book as well. So, in my opinion, the argument on notability is not correct. Request everyone to relook at my case. Edwige9 (talk) 07:56, 5 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Pointing to other articles is an WP:OTHERSTUFF argument, which does not cut the mustard here. Maybe they should be deleted as well, we are discussing this article only. The references you cite are passing mentions, despite being in a headline. SpinningSpark 08:28, 5 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

No, I didn't mean WP:OTHERSTUFF. Before creating this page, I searched for similar pages in this domain. The reason why i pointed out to these pages is that i was confused why they are notable and not mine. Anyway, whatever the community decides. Edwige9 (talk) 09:14, 5 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

That's exactly the kind of reasoning that OTHERSTUFF describes. Did you even read it? You are confused in thinking that those other pages are notable because they exist. That is only established after they have been through some kind of review, which most pages on Wikipedia have not. In fact, the first one you link is possibly a candidate for speedy deletion since it has previously been deleted at AFD. SpinningSpark 09:46, 5 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Okay got it! So, is there a way to retain this page by improving it? I mean there are lot of references but only one carries the information about the organization. The other references mention the awards it has given and the people associated with it. All of them are renowned, but this doesn't make the page notable, right? Edwige9 (talk) 13:30, 5 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 14:47, 9 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 09:34, 16 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, does not meet WP:ORG, not enough significant coverage available, other similar wikiarticles not relevant. Coolabahapple (talk) 09:41, 16 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Comment, after having another look at the two articles mentioned above, agree they may be similar to this one, have added notability concern tags to them. Coolabahapple (talk) 09:49, 16 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. Michig (talk) 06:19, 16 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Laman Ama[edit]

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

No evidence of any notability for this film. Two very weak sources and searches reveal nothing better. Fails WP:GNG Velella ^{Velella Talk} 19:53, 26 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. Velella ^{Velella Talk} 19:53, 26 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Velella ^{Velella Talk} 19:53, 26 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep As much as the quality of the article is questionable, the film has received praise in regional reliable sources, see Imphal Free Press, Imphal Times. The latter is not signficant coverage but is independent and reliable. --qedk (t 桜 c) 05:21, 27 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 06:56, 2 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 14:45, 9 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep: Per the one review (Imphal Free Press) provided by User:QEDK. Otr500 (talk) 11:32, 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. No arguments fro deletion beyond the nominator, and clear consensus to keep. Michig (talk) 06:16, 16 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Camila Morrone[edit]

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

To be conservative you could say it’s “Too Soon” but Jesus Fitzgerald Christ if I see another “Leonardo DiCaprio’s girlfriend” story I might chuck my phone at the wall. She has no career to speak of. No sources go in-depth on her (prime examples: People wasting an article to talk about her jeans then plugging DiCaprio’s movie), I mean see for yourself there are a bunch like it; but they can’t wait to mention that her mom was Al Pacino’s partner and that’s how she met DiCaprio. Catalogue work for Urban Outfitters, Topshop, and VS Pink does not make a notable model. Trillfendi (talk) 13:38, 1 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 15:49, 1 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fashion-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 15:49, 1 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Argentina-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 15:49, 1 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 15:49, 1 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 15:49, 1 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 15:50, 1 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 15:50, 1 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The subject is notable under WP:NACTOR#1, with significant roles in the notable films Never Goin' Back and Mickey and the Bear. Reviews in The Guardian [1] and Variety [2] confirm the significance of the roles. Bakazaka (talk) 20:30, 1 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

If appearing in two indie movies that combined didn't even earn the amount of college tuition all of a sudden qualifies an acting "career" then there's a substantial problem with that category. She isn't even known for being an actress, at that. A "career section" made up of 4 sentences divided by 2 subsections? Trillfendi (talk) 20:56, 1 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep passes WP:NACTOR criteria 1 (only one criteria needed) with prominent roles in nationally reviewed films, thanks Atlantic306 (talk) 23:02, 3 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The nadir that people will sink to on this website is so pathetic I’m actually guffawing. Every source in and outside of this article (if you could even call it that) is about being "Leonardo DiCaprio’s model girlfriend" (as if that’s an accomplishment; certainly not even getting the credit for "actress") offering absolutely nothing of notability or substance yet "appearance" in 2 b-movies not even released in theaters "all of a sudden" equate to "notability" for an actress, huh. Notable actresses have more than a "film review" for their career. Notable actresses get profiled and interviewed by reliable sources like the New York Times, Variety, GQ, Rolling Stone, etc. Notable actresses have sources about their career, not love life. For God’s sake since does 2 movies make a career? Since when does 4 sentences with one source make an article? With more burden given to her early life since she has a common law relation to a famous actor than her own "career"? Since when is this acceptable? Yet people wanted to delete Sonya Curry? At least she has real in-depth sources unlike the "actress". Hilarious. The goal posts truly never cease to entertain or amaze. Trillfendi (talk) 23:33, 3 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

- Resorting to abusive exaggeration means youve lost the argument, stubs on models amd mothers of famous people are so encyclopedic? Atlantic306 (talk) 17:43, 5 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Atlantic306: It doesn’t matter if they’re stubs or B-class, at least they have enough career accomplishments in their respective field to speak of profiled (you know, actual articles that go into detail on the subject themselves) in reliable sources that aren’t trivia tidbits with Instagram photos about being a girlfriend, and they’re not famous for being girlfriends. If she had a career to speak of, more than 4 sentences here, they wouldn’t be even mentioning Leo. They certainly didn’t do that to Toni Garrn. Or, did policies just change overnight? Should I go make an article for Georgina Rodríguez? Aka the only baby mama Ronaldo will publicly acknowledge? Is this turning into the Daily Mail or the Sun? But hey, I’ve only written 100 model articles so what would little ol’ me know about the subject of fashion? It’s not like any of you are jumping to create or contribute to anything. Conveniently, of course. Trillfendi (talk) 18:46, 5 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I got a lotta problems with you people, and now you're going to hear about it! is not a valid deletion rationale. Bakazaka (talk) 23:43, 3 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The rationale is clearly that no notability is there at this time, whatsoever, and that currently she’s only reported for who she is dating (as EVERY article on the subject exhibits) and her "step dad"; notability isn’t inherited. A movie review does not by any stretch of the imagination create notability. And the modeling "career" isn’t even that of a newcomer. I would know I’ve only written 100 modeling articles. But I’m never gonna not point out hypocrisy. If you look at this article of 6 sentences, 2 in early life and 4 in career (divided by 2 of course) with 3/5ths of the sources being about her boyfriend offering while absolutely nothing else besides trivia about her "squad" and family instead of career, one source blurb, and one being a directory for an agency, and you legitimately think that is notability, then you just can’t be reasoned with. Trillfendi (talk) 00:01, 4 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep – meets WP:BASIC/WP:GNG with: AFP "Camila Morrone: From doubling up with dad to Hollywood's next big thing", Buenos Aires Times (the English-language Perfil) "Camila Morrone: the Argentine model-turned-actress taking Cannes by storm", and more fluffy coverage like InStyle "These Behind-the-Scenes Photos of Camila Morrone’s Cannes Gown Are as Gorgeous as You’d Expect", W (magazine) "Who Is Camila Morrone? Meet the 20-Year-Old Model and Actress Who Has Been Spotted with Leonardo DiCaprio", Harper's Bazaar Austrialia "Who is Camila Morrone? The 21-year-old model who stole Leonardo DiCaprio's heart". – Levivich 07:24, 4 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
So now a bunch of slideshow images of red carpet appearance and 3 vapid stories about being someone’s girlfriend are now general nobility? Not ... gossip? Extraordinary. Once again, shit like this (which is literally the verbatim story as BATimes, both inadmissable) only talks about her boyfriend and "step dad" with her "movie" as a complete afterthought. Even from the first sentence. You people have officially lost the plot. But if it was "anyone else" all of a sudden it’s "promo", "unreliable", and deleted at once. I have to laugh.Trillfendi (talk) 11:56, 4 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
To properly analyze this, you have to set aside personal preconceived notions or beliefs, such as, "a person isn't notable for being Leo's girlfriend". While that may be true, the fact that a person isn't notable just for being "someone's girlfriend" doesn't mean that "someone's girlfriend" can't be notable nevertheless. For example, you won't find a biography of Jacqueline Kennedy Onassis that doesn't extensively discuss her husbands John F. Kennedy and Aristotle Onassis, and in fact, she is kind of notable for being their wife. Nevertheless, she is notable, because she meets WP:BASIC/WP:GNG by virtue of being the subject of significant coverage in multiple independent reliable secondary sources. So it's just about source analysis, not about who the article subject is dating or married to. Applying source analysis here, this is where I get to:
A full profile in Agence France-Presse such as this can't be discounted for any article subject. AFP I believe is the third-largest wire service behind Associated Press and Reuters. When they write a profile about somebody, it runs widely, internationally – BATimes is one example, but you'll find that story running all over the place, because it's an AFP wire. That's coverage of the article subject in a reliable, independent source–heck, this AFP wire even has a byline (Fiachra Gibbons, AFP). Is it significant? Yes, it's 800-1,000 words, entirely about the subject. It talks about her background (Argentinian), where she was born (Hollywood, though she may not be speaking literally), who her parents are (model Maximo Morrone is her father and Al Pacino is her stepfather), her childhood (lived in a studio apartment sharing a bed with her father until age 15), where she went to high school (Beverly Hills 90210), her modeling career (quit three years ago), her role model (model-turned-actress Charlize Theron), her movie career (the Mickey and the Bear film that just did well at SXSW and Cannes Film Festival). In fact, that she's dating Leo is only mentioned in the lead and one other time. It's less than 10% of the article. The rest is a straight biography of her, with independent reporting and statements in the author's voice. This is one example of WP:SIGCOV that counts for BASIC/GNG, and it's not even really debatable–there is absolutely nothing "inadmissible" about this AFP profile.

W (magazine) [3] and Harper's Bazaar [4] are both major magazines. Mainstream, international coverage in independent reliable sources. Each one has a separate byline, and they both include a mixture of in-own-voice independent reporting and an in-depth interview with the article subject. One was March 2018 and the second was December 2018; both predate the AFP story which is more recent (May 2019). They are rather similar in content, suggesting these were the result of interviews set up by publicists, who probably fed a fact sheet press release to the reporters, and that detracts from them somewhat from a source analysis standpoint. But even if you count these as one, rather than two sources, between these and the AFP story, you have the requirements of WP:BASIC/WP:GNG: significant coverage in multiple (more than one) independent reliable secondary sources. So we cross the line right here. (By the way, not that it matters, but these two spend less than 50% on Leo, though it is significantly more Leo than the AFP article.)

InStyle [5] is a little icing on the cake. InStyle is a major mainstream publication, and while they have a lot of pictures of celebrities and what they're wearing, they do not publish an entire slideshow on just anybody that went to Cannes. She has been noted by InStyle, and a relatively significant number of pictures of her were published by InStyle. It's not just anyone that gets a slideshow like this for a public appearance, it's like a "best dressed at the Oscars"-type thing. "Best dressed at Cannes", I guess. It's not, in and of itself, enough to establish notability, but it is evidence of notability. It's properly added to the "pile".

On top of those, add the pure-Leo coverage. Search for her name in Google News, and you'll find story after story after story about her+Leo, in major publications like US Weekly and USA Today. That's also evidence of notability, even if it is notability for being someone's girlfriend. But notability is notability–it comes from the reliable sources, not from what WP editors think is important–and if the reliable sources are taking note of someone because of who they're dating, well, that's stupid, but it's still notable stupidity. That she's Leo's girlfriend doesn't make her notable, but it doesn't detract from her notability either. At least that's how I see it. – Levivich 20:11, 4 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Who cares how "major" the magazine is IF THEY'RE NOT ACTUALLY POINTING OUT NOTABILITY. IT'S USELESS. The Harper's Bazaar "article" is 3 sentences, for God's sake. And one of them is That, and she just so happens to be romantically linked to one of the biggest actors on the planet. Morrone has been dating 44-year-old Oscar winner Leonardo DiCaprio, who is 23 years her senior, since December 2017. The W source is a listicle of Instagram photos (that literally leads with Leonardo DiCaprio has a tendency to date much younger women), yet if it was any other model that can't type of article couldn't even be used (an administrator actually told me that months ago). What do you even plan to do with a source that is just "look at this Cannes dress"? Logically? How in the hell is "pure-Leo" coverage notability? Have I missed something? Did policies change? Being a girlfriend is now notability? A bunch of articles about being a girlfriend despite the fact that one of the policies of Wikipedia is WP:NOTGOSSIP? Are you ~~shitting me~~ kidding? Trillfendi (talk) 20:41, 4 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The Harper's Bazaar "article" is 3 sentences, for God's sake. This is false. I sincerely hope this is just a cognitive or technical error, as misrepresenting reliable sources is a form of disruptive editing. Bakazaka (talk) 20:58, 4 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The Harper's Bazaar article is not 3 sentences. It's 600 words. [6] Harpers recounts these facts: born in Buenos Aries, 21 years old, starred in two movies, appeared on the cover of Vogue Latino America, travelled the world, attended the Vanity Fairs Oscars, stepdad is Al Pacino, parents names, that parents were divorced in 2006, recounts receiving acting advice from Pacino, dates Leo, runway debut in 2017 for Moschino, signed to IMG, cover of Vogue Turkey, LOVE magazine advent calendar, appearance in the films Bukowski, Death Wish, Never Goin' Back. The W magazine article is 700 words. [7] W magazine recounts these facts: all the same facts as Harpers (except she was 20 at the time of the earlier interview), plus: now lives in LA, likes feral pigs, friends with Kendall Jenner, cover of Jalouse and in a Sephora campaign, Instagram reach, plus the usual personal life celeb stuff about her friends and parties she's been to. Did you scroll to the bottom of the articles? You don't need to use the source (as in InStyle) in the article in order for the source to be evidence of notability. What you say about "actually pointing out notability" suggests to me a fundamental disagreement about what notability is. I think I just view it differently than you view it. The way I view it is: Notability is something that's evidenced by the sources. It's not something that we, as WP editors, decide, sitting in judgment of people and their accomplishments in life. She's notable because she has been noted, i.e., if a person gets significant coverage in the mainstream media, then that means the person is notable. Whether you or I think she should be notable is entirely besides the point. The media has made that decision for us. (BTW: who cares if they're major magazines? WP:AUD cares. Just like WP:SUSTAINED cares that the significant coverage is from March 2018, December 2018, and May 2019. Hence, these sources "count" for GNG.) – Levivich 20:59, 4 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The first time, the page stopped loading for me at that 3rd sentence so I basically went of that. (But the fact that they deemed that leadworthy is telling. It's like we've gone back 50 years.) it's the same run through of the Instagram listicle with the same trivia of "the girlfriend", "the step-daughter", "2 sentences dedicated to career" set up that doesn't contribute notability at all. That's why I strongly think this page is under the Too Soon category. It looks equivalent to an IMDb trivia page. Wikipedia has standards. Trillfendi (talk) 21:17, 4 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 14:35, 9 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per Levivich; meets the basic "notable because people have taken note" standard. (I find the bit in Harper's Bazaar apropos: But while her love life has undoubtedly boosted her fame, the Buenos Aires-born beauty is impressive all on her own and doesn't need the star power of DiCaprio to succeed in Hollywood.) XOR'easter (talk) 20:47, 9 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@XOR'easter: What I’m saying is, when you take away the whole Leonardo aspect from the situation giving the attention, what she’s done so far career wise is simply not enough to amount to an article as a model or an actress right now (hence the blatant, apparent lack of citations on it and hence only 2 jobs mentioned in each category. And the smattering of things Levivich pointed out don’t add weight either.). I’m just being honest here.

[Aside: And let’s make one thing clear to all: being signed to IMG Models (or any agency) does not, I repeat, does not make a model notable for it. It’s a logical fallacy that continues to resurface practically everytime a model is AfD’d. Hundreds of completely unknown, un-notable, and or undeveloped models are also signed to them. Same goes for Ford, Women, Next, Elite/The Society, Storm, etc. Just because an agency has other famous models doesn’t make the notability inherited. Trillfendi (talk) 21:47, 9 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, she was a Vogue Latin America and Elle Czech Republic cover girl after all. -- Willthacheerleader18 (talk) 02:40, 10 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

A magazine cover, wow. Is someone gonna go looking for it on Amazon.com? Trillfendi (talk) 02:51, 10 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

More sources (plus a few from before the relist):
- First, TLDR: the WP:THREE for me are (1) Agence France-Presse 2019, (2) Vogue UK 2019, (3) ¡Hola! 2016.
- Other coverage, pre-Leo: ¡Hola! 2017, Mujer Hoy 2016, ABC.es 2016
- Other coverage, post-Leo: Elle Italy 2018, W (magazine) 2018, Harper's Bazaar 2018, Vogue France 2019.
- Appeared in Sports Illustrated in 2015
- Interviewed as a new Victoria's Secret Pink model by Vogue in 2016 (she is listed at List of Victoria's Secret models)
- While it's true she did "only" two movies, they were notable movies. 2018's Never Goin' Back was reviewed by the New York Times, premiered at the Sundance Film Festival and screened at South by Southwest (SXSW). 2019's Mickey and the Bear premiered at SXSW and after being screened at the Cannes Film Festival, it was picked up for distribution and will be released in US theaters this fall [8]. That's not bad for any actor's first two starring roles.
- In my !vote above I noted that she had a slideshow in InStyle for what she wore to Cannes. Since then, Vogue Australia ran an interview, "Micah Schifman on dressing Camila Morrone for the Cannes red carpet" – Levivich 05:12, 10 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

List of Victoria's Secret models is a page that is about half red linked, so... where is the notability there? And no! She didn’t appear in Sports Illustrated Swimsuit issue, ~~expletive~~ she appeared in the Casting Call! Most of the models who do those videos never even make it into the actual magazine! *sigh* The old "appearance = notability" misinterpretation. Trillfendi (talk) 05:32, 10 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Straw man arguments. I didn’t say everyone on the VS list is notable, nor did I say "Swimsuit Issue", nor did I say appearance = notability. I’m saying she meets WP:GNG based on those sources I posted above. (She also ticks a few WP:SNGs, but this is a GNG keep.) – Levivich 05:47, 10 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

You said she’s listed at the Victoria’s Secret list article and I said, that doesn’t really mean anything. If she were an Angel it wouldn’t be a question. But catalogue work? Come on. You brought up the SI Casting Call link, and she’s never been in the magazine. It’s an assortment of Instagram photos from 4 years ago. Nothing materialized. Trillfendi (talk) 06:15, 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. Fenix down (talk) 17:11, 16 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Ilirian Gjata[edit]

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

Contested PROD (sort of, due a twinkle bug the page was not actually tagged, but the author of the page did object to deletion when notified). Concern was Article about a footballer who fails WP:GNG and who has not played in a fully pro league. PROD was contested on the grounds that he had played in the Kosovo 2nd division. Since this is not a fully pro league, per WP:FPL, this does not satisfy WP:NFOOTBALL. Sir Sputnik (talk) 13:21, 9 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Sir Sputnik (talk) 13:21, 9 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. Sir Sputnik (talk) 13:21, 9 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Kosovo-related deletion discussions. Sir Sputnik (talk) 13:21, 9 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Albania-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 15:31, 9 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 15:31, 9 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions.CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 15:32, 9 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - fails WP:GNG and WP:NFOOTBALL. Giant Snowman 15:34, 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. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 10:04, 16 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Eritrea at the 2022 Winter Olympics[edit]

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

WP:CRYSTALBALL, no athletes qualified so far for the 2022 Winter Olympics, and it is unclear whether any would qualify. Ymblanter (talk) 09:05, 9 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 09:10, 9 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of China-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 09:11, 9 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Most of the article focuses on the last time Eritrea competed at the Winter Olympics, with some info on someone who could qualify, but as yet, has not done so. Lugnuts ^{Fire Walk with Me} 11:50, 9 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as per above Qaei ☎ 12:01, 9 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete simple cut and dry WP:CRYSTALBALL. As mentioned above, as of this time, nobody qualifies yet. Snowycats (talk) 13:39, 9 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Speed delete The qualification process is not known... Sportsfan 1234 (talk) 14:59, 9 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. no athletes qualified so far for the 2022 Winter Olympics. --MA Javadi (talk) 18:53, 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. Seems like the sources discussed have been deemed inadequate during the course of the discussion Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 07:57, 16 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Alana Bunte[edit]

AfDs for this article:

Articles for deletion/Alana Camille Bunte

Articles for deletion/Alana Bunte

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

Not meeting WP:NMODEL. The coverage in reliable sources are mostly about her being married to a German prince. Not meeting WP:GNG independently. See WP:BLP1E and WP:NOTINHERITED. Hitro talk 07:19, 9 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Hitro talk 07:19, 9 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fashion-related deletion discussions. Hitro talk 07:19, 9 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Germany-related deletion discussions. Hitro talk 07:19, 9 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. Hitro talk 07:19, 9 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 07:48, 9 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Strong delete Absolutely no reliable sources. (Also the fact that someone thinks Premier Model Management is an American agency personally gives me the shingles.) We already have AfD precedence for saying getting married is not an accomplishment, even if it is a prince. Trillfendi (talk) 15:18, 9 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as sources show significance as a fashion model. Editorials in Vogue, Harper's Bazaar, L'Officiel, Elle, and Marie Claire are no small feat. And while marriage itself is not an accomplishment, significant coverage of her getting married is still coverage. Many sources (such as this article) regarding her wedding actually go into detail about her career. -- Willthacheerleader18 (talk) 02:48, 10 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:BLP1E policy and failure to meet WP:GNG guideline. All of the news sources are repetitive of a single incident: a wedding. The other references about her work offered no significant coverage or are not independent. An outside search found no significant coverage of her career by independent reliable sources. — CactusWriter ^(talk) 16:28, 10 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: As not notable. Assertions of BLP1E is because the "splash of fame" comes from the wedding to a Prince which does invoke NOTINHERITED. Sixteen references appear to have been added since the AFD began. Seven on one sentence is severe citation overkill (see talk) sometimes referred to as "ref bombing" (fourteen on three sentences) and some are just photo op references and other non-reliable sources. This was a previously deleted article and I do not see that the recent marriage as adding to notability (maybe some fame). Likely at some point the subject may be considered an "ex-model" but that would be a focus of more "celebrity writings", on if she becomes a princess model, and not really an encyclopedic topic. Otr500 (talk) 15:06, 11 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete a non-notable model.John Pack Lambert (talk) 15:37, 15 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete fails WP:GNG. Geoffroi (talk) 20:45, 15 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Fails WP:ORG. Just Chilling (talk) 12:37, 16 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Club Dance Studio[edit]

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

Article has lacked sources since its creation. The subject doesn't appear to have received significant coverage in reliable independent sources. Cordless Larry (talk) 07:14, 9 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Dance-related deletion discussions. Cordless Larry (talk) 07:14, 9 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 07:23, 9 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 07:23, 9 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Arizona-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 07:23, 9 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Concur with nom. Local business. Searching turns up routine listings in yellow pages and similar. The only mention in a RS I could find was just a passing mention. MB 12:50, 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. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 07:56, 16 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Lake Humphreys, Oklahoma[edit]

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

This is just a lake. It's not an unincorporated community. No article needed. Paper Luigi ^{T • C} 06:54, 9 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 07:24, 9 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Oklahoma-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 07:25, 9 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. All lakes are notable. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 11:00, 9 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. Lakes are generally notable, but when it was nominated, the article said that Lake Humphreys was both a community and a lake. I removed the bits about it being a lake, since the lake itself is adequately covered at Lake Humphreys. I cannot verify that it is a community, but this may be because there are so many hits for the lake. GNIS has a listing for the lake but not the community. Comments from editors from Oklahoma would be particularly welcome. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 11:32, 9 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete Place does not exist, no evidence of notability in substantive sources. Google Maps shows the area around the lake is part of incorporated Duncan, Oklahoma. Redirect is fine. Reywas92^Talk 13:07, 9 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. If this is supposed to be a community, why do the coords point to the middle of the lake? SpinningSpark 18:21, 9 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
- Because those coördinates were added 4 years later by the same person who changed the subject from "community" to "a lake and […] community". Uncle G (talk) 18:35, 9 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
"Speedy" Delete: (amended up from "delete"). It is not notable because it does not actually exist. The one USGS reference indicates the classification as "lake". I owned a home/camp on the 13,680 acre Lake Limestone and there are publications indicating that residents are considered members of the "Lake Limestone community". This is a broad term usually meaning all residents living around the lake. Some areas around the lake are individually named "sub-divisions" with their own associations and members must be residents of that "community". These are not "unincorporated communities" as recognized by any definition or statues as settlements or historical communities and a lack of any available sources will likely bear this out. Otr500 (talk) 16:38, 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. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 07:55, 16 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Elk Plaza, Oklahoma[edit]

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

This is not an unincorporated community. This is a small shopping center in Duncan, OK. There's nothing noteworthy about it. Paper Luigi ^{T • C} 06:53, 9 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Oklahoma-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 07:26, 9 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 07:26, 9 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Shopping malls-related deletion discussions. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 11:51, 9 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. This does not appear to be a notable shopping mall. I can confirm it exists with Facebook, and I can look at it with Google Street View, but I can't find out anything about it. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 11:53, 9 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Very shoddy work by the creator. Reywas92^Talk 13:11, 9 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Agree its bad, and should e deleted. I do not even remember creating this either. But Reywas92, you don't need to be so rude about it, I created this almost 6 years ago.--Seacactus 13 (talk) 16:35, 9 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Fails WP:V as any kind of a settlement. Can't find any evidence that it is anything but an unremarkable shopping center. • Gene93k (talk) 05:37, 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) 07:55, 16 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Catalina (actress)[edit]

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

A BLP that lacks sources that discuss the subject directly and in detail. Fails WP:ENT / WP:BASIC. K.e.coffman (talk) 05:00, 9 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 05:27, 9 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 05:27, 9 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 05:29, 9 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 05:29, 9 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Mexico-related deletion discussions. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 05:29, 9 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. Arguably this Vice article, while silly, discusses the subject in some depth. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 05:33, 9 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sexuality and gender-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 05:52, 9 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been added to the WikiProject Pornography list of deletions.CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 05:53, 9 June 2019 (UTC) [reply]

Delete - Actress who won only one - not so important - prize. Poor sources.Westmanurbe (talk) 17:55, 9 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Winning the award of "Super Slut" 16 years ago is at best... cocktail party fodder. Trillfendi (talk) 22:00, 9 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
DELETE Very non-notable. The vice article referenced to above speaks more to the interests of the writer (Miss Tasty, in her sole Vice contribution) than to the notability of the subject. I didn't find any references using the linked google search but as an aside, I did find numerous references to the island. ogenstein (talk) 07:29, 10 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Nothing particularly worth keeping here. Montanabw^(talk) 19:50, 11 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete does not meet the general notability guidelines.John Pack Lambert (talk) 03:16, 12 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as no evidence of notability, fails PORNBIO & GNG. –Davey2010^Talk 19:39, 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 soft delete. WP:REFUND applies. Randykitty (talk) 16:15, 16 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Metal Injection[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

Cannot find secondary, reliable sources that discuss it online. Fails WP:GNG. Walter Görlitz (talk) 03:07, 9 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 03:14, 9 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of News media-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 03:14, 9 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Journalism-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 03:14, 9 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 03:14, 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 merge to Sounding rocket. AS nobody proposed a merge target, I have selected what appeared to me to be the best target, but feel free to discuss a different target on the talk page of the article if needed. Randykitty (talk) 16:13, 16 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Nike-Deacon[edit]

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

No ample third-party source to expand the article. Tyw7 (🗣️ Talk) — If (reply) then (ping me) 01:18, 2 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. Tyw7 (🗣️ Talk) — If (reply) then (ping me) 01:18, 2 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Astronomy-related deletion discussions. Tyw7 (🗣️ Talk) — If (reply) then (ping me) 01:18, 2 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Environment-related deletion discussions. Tyw7 (🗣️ Talk) — If (reply) then (ping me) 01:18, 2 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. Tyw7 (🗣️ Talk) — If (reply) then (ping me) 01:18, 2 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Aviation-related deletion discussions. Tyw7 (🗣️ Talk) — If (reply) then (ping me) 01:18, 2 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Tyw7 (🗣️ Talk) — If (reply) then (ping me) 01:18, 2 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Merge Along with the rest of these rocket stubs. Reywas92^Talk 17:32, 2 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 03:06, 9 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Merge: Per User:Reywas92 with other stubs. Otr500 (talk) 00:30, 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 keep. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 07:53, 16 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

In the Zone of Special Attention[edit]

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

Non notable Soviet film. No awards and reviews. Links to the interview with the Director Andrei Malyukov and retelling the plot.--Kirill Samredny (talk) 22:52, 2 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 2. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 23:07, 2 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 02:02, 3 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Russia-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 02:02, 3 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: in 2010 this went through an AfD under a differently translated title. Phil Bridger (talk) 06:48, 3 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: For reference, the previous AfD discussion is located at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/In the high attention area.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 02:44, 9 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. The film was a success, according to the references. It was shown at a festival of military-themed films in 2008, many years after the film was first released. This says the film won a silver medal, although it doesn't explain who awarded it. The discussion at at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/In the high attention area makes it clear that this is a notable film. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 04:51, 9 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as the references above and in the article are sufficient to pass WP:GNG Atlantic306 (talk) 17:59, 15 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect to Honorverse#Ad Astra databooks. In case there is any reliably sourced information that could be merged. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 07:54, 16 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Saganami Island Tactical Simulator[edit]

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

Fails to meet WP:GNG. The most significant sources I could find were this review and this review, both of which I would argue fail WP:RS. TheTechnician27 (Talk page) 02:25, 9 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Games-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 03:10, 9 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Both the reviews found by TheTechnician27 are on user submitted sites, so have no bearing on notability as well as having dubious reliability. SpinningSpark 18:13, 9 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Merge (very selectively) into Honorverse#Ad Astra databooks. Not notable enough for a standalone article, but no reason why this shouldn't see a paragraph or two in its parent article. Lowercaserho (talk) 06:59, 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 and redirect to Cody Rhodes and Goldust. RL0919 (talk) 00:22, 16 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The Brotherhood (professional wrestling)[edit]

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

No notable wrestling stable, doesn't meet WP:GNG. Only worked at independent level. The new article can be a redirect to Cody Rhodes and Goldust HHH Pedrigree (talk) 00:11, 9 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Wrestling-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 03:07, 9 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 03:08, 9 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Agree with nominator. This team appears to fail WP:GNG, but the page name would make a good redirect for Cody Rhodes and Goldust. - Galatz גאליץ ^{שיחה Talk} 14:19, 11 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and redirect This stable isn't notable but a redirect to the Rhodes brothers would work.LM2000 (talk) 00:02, 14 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. — JJMC89 (T·C) 01:37, 16 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The Tennessee Volunteerz[edit]

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

No notable wrestling stable, doesn't meet WP:GNG. Only worked at independent level and sources are mostly WP:ROUTINE. HHH Pedrigree (talk) 00:13, 9 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Wrestling-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 03:07, 9 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 03:07, 9 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Not finding anything that meets WP:GNG - Galatz גאליץ ^{שיחה Talk} 14:16, 11 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - As per Galatz. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 08:22, 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. — JJMC89 (T·C) 01:36, 16 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Larry Stephens (wrestler)[edit]

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

No notable wrestler, doesn't meet WP:GNG. Only worked at independent level, with sources being WP:ROUTINE. HHH Pedrigree (talk) 00:12, 9 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Wrestling-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 03:07, 9 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 03:07, 9 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of North Carolina-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 05:42, 9 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Not finding anything to meet WP:GNG - Galatz גאליץ ^{שיחה Talk} 14:15, 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.