< 10 March	12 March >

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

The result was delete. Randykitty (talk) 17:53, 19 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Tommy Jackett[edit]

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

No real demonstration of notability. Struggling to find independent in-depth coverage in reliable sources. References provided are either mentions-in-passing or rely almost exclusively on company produced material and/or quotations. Run-of-the-mill podcaster. Possible COI or paid editing, and likely SPA. Edwardx (talk) 11:13, 25 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. ~SS49~ {talk} 11:47, 25 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. ~SS49~ {talk} 11:47, 25 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 13:28, 25 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep A lot of the coverage is very routine "media personality" reporting, but I think there might be just enough reported non routine activity, eg, 7-11 and oBike, to get over the GNG line. Aoziwe (talk) 06:49, 26 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Comment While COI, PAID, and SPA are red flags, if the content stacks up with reliable references then it does not matter. SPA is not definite here anyway ? Aoziwe (talk) 06:51, 26 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Wikipedia is not here as a venue to publicly profess your love for your co host. TNT this love letter. duffbeerforme (talk) 14:16, 2 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Despite the agreed myriad problems, the disagreement over actual notability makes a relisting worthwhile
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Nosebagbear (talk) 15:11, 4 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 22:51, 11 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Radio-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 22:54, 11 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Refbombed, but most of it looks like WP:MILL coverage. The actual text of the article is drivel. At best, this needs WP:TNT. If somebody points out the WP:THREE best sources, I'll have another look, but from what I see now, it's not worth keeping. -- RoySmith (talk) 15:19, 19 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete and redirect to Aapo (film). Randykitty (talk) 17:52, 19 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Johanna Piiroinen[edit]

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

Another one of these pages that has been around forever. Anyway-former child actress with an amazing 1 role. It says she starred in it (though based off of credit listings she is pretty low on the credits), can't find much notability. So either redirect to Aapo or delete. Wgolf (talk) 22:45, 11 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. MarginalCost (talk) 22:50, 11 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. MarginalCost (talk) 22:50, 11 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Finland-related deletion discussions. MarginalCost (talk) 22:50, 11 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Fails WP:GNG and WP:ENT. As GNG states, "Information on Wikipedia must be verifiable; if no reliable third-party sources can be found on a topic, then it should not have a separate article." GNG superseeds WP:ENT anyways. If we cannot prove her notability with verifiable sources, then it cannot stand. Regarding redicretion, I am not sure how useful that would be. The page barely gets 5 views a week [1]. HickoryOughtShirt?4 (talk) 06:13, 12 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Other than IMDB (which as WP:UGC is not a WP:RS), unsourced after 13 years. Not that there's any real content worth saving. -- RoySmith (talk) 15:22, 19 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect to 2002 United States Senate election in Wyoming. Consensus that NPOL isn't met (non-admin closure) Nosebagbear (talk) 22:40, 18 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Joyce Corcoran[edit]

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

Fails WP:NPOL; failed candidate for public office. Fails WP:GNG; few sources covered. WP:BEFORE complete; nothing found. ––Redditaddict69 ^(talk) ^(contribs) 22:02, 11 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. ––Redditaddict69 ^(talk) ^(contribs) 22:03, 11 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Wyoming-related deletion discussions. ––Redditaddict69 ^(talk) ^(contribs) 22:03, 11 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to 2002 United States Senate election in Wyoming. Best, GPL93 (talk) 22:08, 11 March 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 March 11. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 22:13, 11 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 13:49, 12 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to 2002 United States Senate election in Wyoming as a usual an appropriate outcome for unsuccessful candidates for the US Senate. --Enos733 (talk) 04:03, 17 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Per WP:SNOW, as of now, because there is no prospect of a "delete" consensus emerging. This can be reconsidered after the grounding is over if deemed necessary. Sandstein 14:27, 13 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

2019 Boeing 737 MAX crisis[edit]

If you came here because someone asked you to, or you read a message on another website, please note that this is not a majority vote, but instead a discussion among Wikipedia contributors. Wikipedia has policies and guidelines regarding the encyclopedia's content, and consensus (agreement) is gauged based on the merits of the arguments, not by counting votes.

However, you are invited to participate and your opinion is welcome. Remember to assume good faith on the part of others and to sign your posts on this page by adding ~~~~ at the end.

Note: Comments may be tagged as follows: suspected single-purpose accounts: ((subst:spa|username)); suspected canvassed users: ((subst:canvassed|username)); accounts blocked for sockpuppetry: ((subst:csm|username)) or ((subst:csp|username)).

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

WP:NOTNEWS and WP:TOOSOON, has not become a "crisis" in the normal sense as of yet. funplussmart (talk) 22:13, 11 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: - the article was created less than 5 hours ago, and is still being written. Given that (imo) it doesn't qualify for speedy deletion, it will probably look very different in 7 days when this could be closed --DannyS712 (talk) 22:24, 11 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. DannyS712 (talk) 22:25, 11 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

keep for now - let's see how this evolves; both the page and the news. At the moment it is getting a lot of coverage and looks like this will span out to be notable; but I am willing to reappraise in a few days. Mtaylor848 (talk) 22:32, 11 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Strong delete - Per TOOSOON and NOTNEWS, the right thing to do would have been to wait a few days (or weeks) and appraise if the article was needed in the first place. As of now, we don't even know if the 2 major crashes occurred for the same reason, as writing this article implies, or that this one had anything to do with the aircraft itself. We don't write a crisis article every time more than one aircraft of the same type crashes, and shouldn't. We have guidelines for a reason, and no discussion was held beforehand by the creator as to why these shouldn't apply. - BilCat (talk) 22:44, 11 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Aviation-related deletion discussions. Icewhiz (talk) 23:01, 11 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Indeed, as BilCat noted, this is way too soon. If it turns out crashes had nothing to with the aircraft's design, the article will become moot, even if the interim crisis is real. For the time being, it would be best to provide a highly condensed description of events in the Boeing 737 MAX article. GregorB (talk) 23:17, 11 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete; I'm unsure if the grounding of Boeing airplanes is a crisis in and of itself because groundings can typically happen involuntarily (or voluntarily) after a crash or other events (i.e. Overhead bins, Non-compliant paperwork, Pilot shortage) between airlines or in an airline. Adog (Talk・Cont) 00:16, 12 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Wikipedia should not read like the National Enquirer. We have to go with what the reliable sources say and not connect these two accidents or refer to it as a "crisis", at least for now: With much still to be learned about the Ethiopia disaster, safety experts are warning about drawing conclusions about the loss of the plane delivered to the airline in November. The jet’s last maintenance was on Feb. 4, and it had flown just 1,200 hours. There is no indication the anti-stall device was at fault in Sunday’s crash; the Ethiopian Airlines plane had passed all safety tests, whereas Lion Air pilots had previously reported problems with how that plane was responding to certain commands. National Post. - Ahunt (talk) 00:44, 12 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
keep at the moment - The burden should be on Boeing and investigators to prove these two incidents did not share a same or similar cause. This page should be deleted if determined there was no connection. — Preceding unsigned comment added by David.truff215 (talk • contribs)
Keep: I agree that the article may have been created a little early - but not by much. Also, the name of the article may be a bit tabloid. However, as matters presently stand, a substantial number of countries and airlines have grounded the model (more than 100 aircraft in total), Boeing's share price has been seriously affected, and the FAA has issued a formal notice about amendments to flight control systems and crew manuals. There is clearly something amiss with the design of the aircraft, even if only the first of the two crashes is to be attributed to that design defect. Anyone who thinks that this issue is going to fade away immediately is clearly mistaken. Bahnfrend (talk) 01:36, 12 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
- Deleting this article isn't about making the issue "fade away", but whether it's appropriate under Wikipedia's guidelines. But let's also remember that media paranoia has always existed, and runs a real risk of permanently damaging a company's reputation. This is something the guidelines are meant to protect Wikipedia from doing. - BilCat (talk) 01:47, 12 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  - The point I was making in my comment is that this isn't a case of media paranoia. There have been two 100% fatal crashes of near new airliners, more than 100 aircraft have been grounded, and the FAA has accepted that there is a serious design defect. This didn't happen with other recently introduced aircraft such as the A380 and the 787. If the second crash turns out to have been caused by a different design defect from the one that caused the first crash, then the crisis will probably become even bigger than it is now. Bahnfrend (talk) 02:08, 12 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    - And the point I'm making is that we still have no idea what caused the crash. It may have absolutely nothing to do wth the manufacturer at all. - BilCat (talk) 02:36, 12 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: per Bahnfrend. Leotext (talk) 02:07, 12 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep for now These are 2 seperate accidents/events, since the article is still new, let's just wait a bit longer. Thegooduser Life Begins With a Smile :) 🍁 02:23, 12 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Draftify for now until the story about the crash gets more information. TheMesquito^buzz 02:35, 12 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - "OMG, a Volvo car crashed this morning, it got repeated on social media a zillion times, let's have a Wikipedia entry on the 2019 Volvo Car Safety Crisis!" XavierItzm (talk) 02:41, 12 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - since 1978, a mass grounding of an aircraft type has only happened 3 times...when the DC-10's type certificate was suspended by the FAA after American Airlines Flight 191 crashed less than a minute after takeoff (138 were grounded in the USA where the plane was a workhorse at the time), the Boeing 787 Dreamliner after battery issues cropped up (with 50 grounded and the most severe effect in Japan]], and now this, with (as of this post) 135 MAX 8 aircraft grounded to date. A significant portion of an aircraft type being grounded is rare, with this being just the 3rd example in 40 years, and thus, in my opinion, this satisfies WP:NOTE. --AEMoreira042281 (talk) 02:52, 12 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep but merge with 737 MAX main article the grounding is gaining momentum and more airlines are now de-scheduling their MAX fleet. I'd keep this article but move it to a subsection in the MAX's main page (much like the Dreamliner's page has a subsection about its battery problems and subsequent grounding. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Makelelecba (talk • contribs) 03:32, 12 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep More and more airlines are grounding the planes. Ethiopian, Chinese, Indonesian, Cayman, and just now Singaporean. So far the number of planes grounded is almost 1/3 of those in service, with 79, the most, by Chinese airlines. The significance of the magnitude of such grounding justifies the existence of the article. 98.207.237.179 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 03:49, 12 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
- By my count, it's actually up to 143 now grounded, with the announcement that SilkAir has to ground its six MAX 8 planes. However, no MAX 9 operators have grounded their jets yet, and the remaining operators would have major operations disrupted (such as Air Canada, which has 24). --AEMoreira042281 (talk) 04:17, 12 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
relatively strong delete - I see the "crisis" word has been changed which was essential for any chance of this article staying. I would wait two weeks and see what the situation is - there really is no hurry - we risk being ahead of the solid secondary sources so necessary for good articles here. Andrewgprout (talk) 05:35, 12 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
- @Andrewgprout: How would you feel about redirecting to Ethiopian Airlines Flight 302#Groundings so that the page history is retained in case a spin-off is warranted? Wugapodes [t^hɑk] [ˈkan.ˌʧɹɪbz] 05:50, 12 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  - Yes but I would be cautious of going too far down the detail everything scenario keep it general and in proportion - be careful of WP:NOTNEWS remembering that most of the existing will have to be thrown away very soon as the situation develops so there may not ultimately be much to preserve. Andrewgprout (talk) 06:11, 12 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Not delete passes the GNG and the grounding of an entire class of airlines by any civilian aviation authority is a rarity so I'm willing to presume notability. There are really significant issues with the tone of this article and it may be worthy of folding into another article until sources develop further however I'm ambivalent on that. Wugapodes [t^hɑk] [ˈkan.ˌʧɹɪbz] 05:50, 12 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Tentative keep - I see there is a strong argument for TOOSOON, but now that the largest market for the craft in Asia has grounded the aircraft, it is possible that this article will continue to gain sticking power. I suggest we revisit this in a September, after it stops being a current event, and re-evaluate whether or not to keep it as a standalone article, or to merge it with the page for the 737 max. BrxBrx(talk)^{(please reply with ((SUBST:re|BrxBrx)))} 06:18, 12 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Pure synthesis and conjecture. Groundings are normal after an air crash. Describing it as a crisis is silly. Not a single order has been cancelled and there is a 4 year backlog. Hardly a crisis and Wikipedia shouldn't state such an opinion in Wikipedia voice. ConstantPlancks (talk) 06:48, 12 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Grounding of a particular aircraft has been the same practice since early aviation accident (despite no matter how many newspapers reported around the globe). It should not be written in a separate article. It may still be written, but under the main Eithiopian Airline accident article. Chongkian (talk) 07:32, 12 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I can see that the name has been changed, which makes it less tabloid. I agree to keep it, at least for now. JanFredrikB (talk) 07:40, 12 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:NOTNEWS (desensationalisation from "crisis" to "groundings" notwithstanding). The content can go under Ethiopian Airlines Flight 302#Groundings, where it will inevitably subsequently be condensed and summarised once the "crisis" has passed. Rosbif73 (talk) 07:43, 12 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
- Change to Keep enlightened by the course of events: This has evolved beyond WP:NOTNEWS and, while the article was probably created a little WP:TOOSOON, it has become clear that these groundings are a notable event in their own right. The content is already partly summarised within the ET302 article, but that does not preclude a separate article. Rosbif73 (talk) 14:23, 13 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Not only is this article only a few hours old but it has already moved to a new title and may well move again. We do not know what content might actually be up for deletion by the time this AfD has run its course. Global media have been raising some very serious allegations against the manufacturer and the story is clearly becoming notable on those grounds alone. We need to give this a few days at least for that to become clear, and I am confident that by then, sufficient RS to demonstrate notability will be all over the place. — Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 07:54, 12 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep This seems to be on track to be a major crisis for Boeing. I'd suggest keeping for now, and reevaluating in a few weeks time. Nick-D (talk) 09:43, 12 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete or Draftify (even after the title was changed) Reasons explained by BilCat. Arguments for keep seem speculative. WikiHannibal (talk) 10:27, 12 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Merge with the Boeing 737 article. Compare Boeing 737 rudder issues as an example for the line at which a separate article is needed for issues with the 737. --LaserLegs (talk) 11:40, 12 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. As more nations ground the 737 MAX, this issue has international implications. WWGB (talk) 11:41, 12 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: As a reader and minor editor of this article I think this previous presentation for all its problems was clearer than this giant ball of text this has turned into. I don't really care if this is another article, but wish the primary entry point to this was a world map with highlighted countries/airlines showing where the plane is grounded, and with details about what each airline or country did when in some other section or a footnote. --Ævar Arnfjörð Bjarmason 12:55, 12 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete This grounding is just temporary and does not warrant a stand-alone article.--Jetstreamer ^Talk 13:17, 12 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
- ~~Keep~~ I fail to see your point. 2010 eruptions of Eyjafjallajökull were also temporary. 386-DX (talk) 14:19, 12 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  - Volcanic events are very dissimilar from airplane groundings and a silly argument at that. Adog (Talk・Cont) 15:07, 12 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - There is enough content to warrant for a standalone article for now and we should re-evaluate at a later date for deletion. SifaV6 (talk) 13:29, 12 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I know it's about a real world event rather than what colour boots a power ranger work for one week in 1997 but this notable event should be kept. Cameron Scott (talk) 13:44, 12 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete WP:SENSATIONAL, WP:NOTNEWS. Wikipedia is not a race to have information. There's nothing here that needs its own article yet, and much of it is already covered in other articles. Sr88, talk. 13:50, 12 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Merge with the Boeing 737 article, per User:LaserLegs. While it is useful and current, I'm not sure it warrants a standalone article. ♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 14:16, 12 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep It has become a very notable event at this time, and being covered as such by numerous major media outlets worldwide. 386-DX (talk) 14:18, 12 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete for now, if it turns into a major issue like with the Boeing 737 rudder issues then it's worthy of its own page. For now, we can cover it in the main article. It's too early to speculate at this point. Zerbey (talk) 14:50, 12 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and wait. If the preliminary results of the Ethiopian crash investigation show the cause was likely related to the same stall recovery system that caused the Lion Air crash, this article will continue to be relevant and notable, and will grow. If the preliminary results show the cause of the Ethiopian accident was completely unrelated (as signs are starting to point to, what with talk of smoke trails and strange noises), then all the nations who grounded the 737 Max are going to look silly and this article is likewise going to look silly—although it still may be relevant and notable. Time will tell. Darkest Tree Talk 15:57, 12 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep This article is filled with plenty of great information already. Really enjoyed reading this, and I think it's well organized and informative, and absolutely relevant. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.84.196.71 (talk) 16:08, 12 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
- Please read WP:ILIKEIT - Ahunt (talk) 16:57, 12 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  - Please read WP:LISTGAP. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 22:00, 12 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete The topic does not need an article of its own.--Sakiv (talk) 16:39, 12 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep This useful article is filled with correct information and is a reaction of the crash. SRich (talk) 16:53, 12 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
- Please read WP:ILIKEIT - Ahunt (talk) 16:57, 12 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and potentially merge relevant portions of this article into either the main article for the Boeing 737 MAX or for Ethiopian Airlines Flight 302. The decision by airlines to ground the 737 MAX 8 is significant, but only within the context of the development of the aircraft or of the response to the crash of Flight 302. It is hard to argue at this stage that this is significant in its own right. Compare that to, for example, air travel disruption after the 2010 Eyjafjallajökull eruption, which was significant in its own right because of the enormity of knock-on effects that the closure of Europe's airspace for an extended period had on travel and commerce worldwide, as well as the fact that there were other effects of the eruptions that could be covered in greater detail in the main 2010 eruptions of Eyjafjallajökull article. I'm not saying that the 737 MAX 8 groundings would have to rise to that level of impact to merit a standalone article, but I do believe that it currently falls short of the mark, and would be best served by folding this information into one of the existing articles. --Delta1989 (talk) (contributions) 18:36, 12 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
- Delta1989, merging is not an option if the article is deleted. This violates Wikipedia licensing terms; see Wikipedia:Merge and delete. If any of the prose is to be preserved by merging to another article, the page must be kept as a redirect at minimum to preserve attribution. cymru.lass (talk • contribs) 21:59, 12 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Despite the sizeable amount of content on the page, I would agree with funplussmart that this page is not a newspaper. Looking at the page, it doesn't seem to warrant its own page. However, there does seem to be parts of this page that could be merged into the main article. Thesmartbird (talk) 17:49, 12 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The article contains much useful information already, and the event is already notable - being covered by many major news sources. Additionally, there is already enough content for it to warrant it's own page. Nullpixel (talk) 17:52, 12 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, but consider merging There is clearly a significant issue here, given that the European Union just said "we're not letting these planes fly in our airspace." That said, this may not be the right place for it. Samer (talk) 18:05, 12 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Boeing 737 MAX per WP:NOTNEWS. It can be spun back out later if needed. ansh 666 18:48, 12 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
keep - further to my earlier comment; I feel the groundings in the last 24 hours are sufficiently notable in themselves. I agree the page was probably created a little prematurely at the time but in itself that is not a valid reason for deletion. Mtaylor848 (talk) 20:03, 12 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep United Kingdom has just banned the plane from airspace. Certainly newsworthy for here. Admanny (talk) 20:41, 12 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
- Wikipedia is not news. Sr88, talk. 22:32, 12 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  - Meh. Could care less. Admanny (talk) 23:42, 12 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep This is already one of the largest and most publicized groundings of a commercial plane since the Concorde grounding in 2003. - ZLEA _Talk\^Contribs 21:05, 12 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Temporary keep, but merge later. A separate list is not necessary for long term, as prose can simply summarize all of the groundings without listing every aviation agency. For now, this is an ongoing news story. So, this listing is just temporary. KyuuA4 (Talk:キュウ) 21:19, 12 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep This grounding event has the potential to have wider implications than what is immediately apparent. Provision for the appropriate coverage of such a development should be kept for now. Reconsider the article's status if all the aircraft end up back in the air without too much fuss. Time will tell, as other's have said. JamsoWamso (talk) 21:21, 12 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep This has never happened before in aviation, multiple self imposed groundings by regulatory authorities and airlines, without the guidance of the manufacturer. It will probably become a defining moment for aviation, there is no legal precedent for this. In the future I suspect there will be a significant number of legal challenges and implications. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 151.210.161.87 (talk) 21:33, 12 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Grounding an aircraft is actually quite common for airlines, especially in non-crash events (see my post above). As others dually note, Boeing 737 rudder issues is a similar precedence for grounding aircraft's. It isn't the first time something like this has happened for airlines or manufacturers, but I will note the scale of such is large for the assumption since the fate of either is still unknown. Adog (Talk・Cont) 22:39, 12 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Easily meets our requireents. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 21:56, 12 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Merge information to Boeing 737 MAX and Ethiopian Airlines Flight 302 as relevant with no prejudice against the article later being split back out. Simply not enough in-depth analysis yet or enduring coverage (WP:NOTNEWS), but I suspect this issue will have received enough coverage in a couple months to spin back off. cymru.lass (talk • contribs) 22:01, 12 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Why are people in such a hurry to delete this? Can't an AfD be opened in a few weeks when the topic has settled on either side of the isle? 205.175.106.187 (talk) 22:43, 12 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, because this event has significantly affected thousands of people in many countries & involves many companies. Jim Michael (talk) 23:02, 12 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep this article is about an ongoing reaction to the two crashes. Deleting it would imply that we refuse to aknowledge the fact that the plane is being grounded in everywhere else other than US. So the reasonable thing to do is have it as it is. Present the truth and keep the page Shadychiri (talk) 23:12, 12 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, and no merge with Boeing 737 MAX. This may have been WP:TOOSOON, but is no longer. This is major international news and is accurately described as an aviation crisis. It's notable, it's real news, and reliable sources are aplenty. Map42892 (talk) 23:45, 12 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. It's neither TOOSOON nor NOTNEWS. The groundings affect worldwide and are easily notable, even after 10 years, especially since the crashes themselves are hugely significant events. As the events unfold, the article can be updated with significantly more materials about the ongoing investigations and results. 71.31.30.66 (talk) 00:17, 13 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Wikipedia again appears idiotic with negative tags on its article on a high-profile, current topic. --Doncram (talk) 02:26, 13 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Lets see how this turns out when the investigation on Flight 302 is complete. This is effecting several airlines and numerous travel plans. This is also a major point in Boeings history. AmericanAir88^(talk) 02:30, 13 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep the content, unclear if it merits its own article or could be merged. I think the groundings are significant enough to pass GNG. Legoktm (talk) 03:56, 13 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Relevant and meets notability criteria. -- Dane ^talk 04:45, 13 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - A highly irregular event that has moved beyond the scope of NOTNEWS. Sounder Bruce 05:39, 13 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep- Right now the article is in alignment with Wikipedia policy. Should anything changes as the news develops, we can always make changes accordingly. There is no need to delete the article entirely. Aceus0shrifter (talk) 05:50, 13 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and merge relevant information with Boeing 737 MAX. This article is a flash-in-the-pan response to a breaking event well-covered in the Boeing 737 MAX article, and a banning of the aircraft would definitely be lifted so long that is no reason for its indefinite banning, and when it's lifted a separate article is not necessary to also document the flash-in-the-pan media coverage when documentation in the main airplane article is more than enough. Optakeover^(U)(T)(C) 07:04, 13 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per the above, there is sufficient coverage to suggest that this meets wikipedia's notability standards. SSSB (talk) 07:41, 13 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep whether or not it was TOOSOON when first created it very much is not now per the amount of news coverage of the event itself and the knock-on effects that would overwhelm the main article. Merging with the Ethiopian Airlines crash would not be appropriate as it's the combination of that incident and the Lion Air crash that resulted in this, not either one individually. Thryduulf (talk) 08:47, 13 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The event is quite notable. BobNesh (talk) 09:23, 13 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I feel this article fully meets the wiki standards. 27.104.229.22 (talk) 09:25, 13 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep This appears to be the most (or possibly only) definitive source of information on the subject. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.92.84.4 (talk) 09:54, 13 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Very strong news coverage over the past 2 days and it continues to develop. StaniforthHistorian (talk) 12:09, 13 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep These groundings have dominated headlines for the last couple of days and this is only the beginning. Grounding hundreds of commercial airliners is a hugely significant event in aviation history. The article was created less than 48 hours ago and already has 30,000 pageviews. Sharper 13:27, 13 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
keep the grounding occupy a lot of news heading the grounding certainly a huge news because the grounding involves new aircraft and the number of airplane is a lot also major grounding happens rarelyStalinium best (talk) 13:57, 13 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep or merge - Story is receiving major news coverage. If this can not be kept, it should be merged into History of Boeing. --Jax 0677 (talk) 14:03, 13 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy keep per WP:SK1 (withdrawal) (non-admin closure) Alpha3031 (t • c) 15:51, 13 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

List of Kara Mia episodes[edit]

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

Wikipedia is not TV guide, since we don't usually just have a page up for a show that has 9 episodes-or rather a separate page then the page for the show. Either delete or redirect/merge to the TV show. Wgolf (talk) 21:23, 11 March 2019 (UTC) Withdrawn[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 21:32, 11 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 21:32, 11 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Philippines-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 21:33, 11 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

WP:SOFIXIT. Instead of wasting time on inapplicable deletion bureaucracy where there is a clear alternative to deletion, just WP:BEBOLD and merge/redirect it yourself. Can we withdraw this pointless AFD now? postdlf (talk) 23:02, 11 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Well I now realize I should of done that instead. Not sure why I did the AFD, though was not sure what the person who put up the page would of done to that then or what to say. Wgolf (talk) 23:04, 11 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I did that for another article by the same creator just now List of Inagaw na Bituin episodes, maybe someone should put the episode listings on there...Wgolf (talk) 23:05, 11 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Withdrawn-Withdrawing-not even sure why I started this. Someone could turn this into a redirect and put a episode guide on that page. Wgolf (talk) 23:13, 11 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Materialscientist (talk) 00:35, 18 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Qiriako Bullano[edit]

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

A producer who just produced one film. He didn't get any award nominations for it either (if he did I wouldn't of put up a AFD). I can't find any info about him outside of Wikipedia either. Either delete or redirect to Apasionata (the film he produced) Wgolf (talk) 20:35, 11 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 20:52, 11 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Albania-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 20:52, 11 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 20:52, 11 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I would have suggested redirect but I don't believe the film itself is notable either and should probably also be deleted. Praxidicae (talk) 13:18, 15 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as does not pass WP:NCREATIVE with only one film listed here and at IMDb, thanks Atlantic306 (talk) 17:15, 16 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

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

The result was delete. -- RoySmith (talk) 15:24, 19 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Rugged Maniac results[edit]

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

Ugh, despite tagging the article I forgot to add the link to include this at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Rugged Maniac Chicago... Non-notable events with non-notable winners, created by COI/SPA user. Ping @Valereee: @Sandals1:, @TonyTheTiger:. Reywas92^Talk 18:51, 11 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Results for non-notable events that have already been deleted. valereee (talk) 19:31, 11 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Massachusetts-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 20:57, 11 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 20:57, 11 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. wumbolo ^^^ 13:40, 17 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Xymmax ^{So let it be written} _{So let it be done} 18:25, 18 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

William Hawthorn Lynch[edit]

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

While well-written, article fails WP:GNG and WP:JOURNALIST. Sources include an obituary in the New Orleans Times-Picayune cited nine times, a passing reference at Office of the State Inspector General of Louisiana's website, a Minden Press-Herald article mentioning Lynch, a deadlink to a Hall of Fame for the small town of Winnfield, Louisiana and a site that simply proves his son exists. Penale52 (talk) 16:41, 11 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. Icewhiz (talk) 17:02, 11 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Journalism-related deletion discussions. Icewhiz (talk) 17:02, 11 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Louisiana-related deletion discussions. Icewhiz (talk) 17:02, 11 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete google only finds one more short obit, and the obit cited is a wikilink. Other sources are, or have titles that imply they are, passing mentions. --Danski454 (talk) 18:57, 11 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Like most Billy Hathorn articles, incredibly weak sourcing is used to try to establish notability when notability simply just isn't there. Best, GPL93 (talk) 19:50, 11 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Billy Hathorn genuinely, but wrongly, thought that as long as you could find one published obituary in the person's local media, that obituary all by itself conferred an automatic GNG pass that exempted them from actually having to pass NPOL at all — and thus as soon as that obituary was cited, you were allowed to rely on garbage sourcing for literally everything else. Needless to say, that's not how it does (or ever did) work: local figures get local obituaries all the time for reasons that fall below our notability standards, so the way to make a person notable enough for an article requires a lot more than just an obituary. Bearcat (talk) 17:42, 13 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Well written article but does not meet WP:GNG, Alex-h (talk) 22:16, 15 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Xymmax ^{So let it be written} _{So let it be done} 18:24, 18 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Mark Smith (health spa expert)[edit]

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

Article claims that the subject is a specialized writer who publishes in multiple notable publications but I cannot find any reliable sources that are about him at all and especially not in The Guardian or The Daily Telegraph as claimed. Fails WP:BIO and WP:GNG. Regards So Why 16:28, 11 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Fails WP:GNG and I can't see anything else that shows notability. Sjö (talk) 17:33, 11 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Nothing notable here. A man who visits spas and writes about them - so?--Egghead06 (talk) 18:15, 11 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. So Why 16:31, 11 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Health and fitness-related deletion discussions. So Why 16:31, 11 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. Icewhiz (talk) 17:02, 11 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. Icewhiz (talk) 17:02, 11 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Appears to be a lifestyle blogger who has received at least one passing mention in a Guardian column back in 2013. Not enough to meet notability criteria. Cosmic Sans (talk) 18:40, 11 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Material by him and self promotional and secondary marketing material but I cannot find anything remotely independent or non trivial about him. Aoziwe (talk) 02:42, 12 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Snow delete. This guy is clearly not notable in any shape or form. Ajf773 (talk) 09:32, 12 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete People are presumed notable if they have received significant coverage in multiple published secondary sources that are reliable which clearly fails in this case WP:BASIC. Hence delete this article! AmericanAgent (talk) 09:56, 12 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete PROMO for a health spa consultant.E.M.Gregory (talk) 23:14, 13 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete This really does not seem to meet notability standards. Dunarc (talk) 23:27, 13 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Fails WP:GNG. —Hiwilms (talk) 21:42, 14 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:SNOW. Bearian (talk) 17:40, 17 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) Tymon.r Do you have any questions? 15:45, 18 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Salamanca nightclub shooting[edit]

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

WP:NCRIME. Hiwilms (talk) 15:33, 11 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Crime-related deletion discussions. Icewhiz (talk) 15:42, 11 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Mexico-related deletion discussions. Icewhiz (talk) 15:42, 11 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - the death toll of this mass shooting is 15, hence it's a major event. Had this happened in the US, Canada or Europe, no-one would dispute its notability. Jim Michael (talk) 17:09, 11 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per Jim's comment above. Ideally the article should be expanded to longer than a sentence, but I leave that to someone more familiar with the details of the tragedy. Gimubrc (talk) 15:27, 12 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Fifteen people dead? In what scary alternative universe is this not notable? -- Necrothesp (talk) 13:37, 13 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep This, as opposed to Treseburg, appears to be a real and significant massacre.A.Jacobin (talk) 14:31, 13 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per above. Gosh darn, that's big. Paintspot Infez (talk) 12:06, 15 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep. There is some coverage [2] that is not part of the initial WP:ROUTINE coverage. wumbolo ^^^ 12:38, 17 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy delete. Copyright violation Sarahj2107 (talk) 09:43, 12 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Buddhima Subasinghe[edit]

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

Not enough coverage WP:GNG. Hiwilms (talk) 15:24, 11 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. Icewhiz (talk) 15:41, 11 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. Icewhiz (talk) 15:41, 11 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sri Lanka-related deletion discussions. Icewhiz (talk) 15:41, 11 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete as a copyright violation of http://wieilsbd2018.com/speaker/dr-buddhima-subasinghe/. I've tagged the article accordingly. Phil Bridger (talk) 09:40, 12 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Significant press coverage existence has been proven in the discussion. (non-admin closure) Tymon.r Do you have any questions? 15:43, 18 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Manaswini Lata Ravindra[edit]

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

Fails WP:GNG. Hiwilms (talk) 15:17, 11 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Icewhiz (talk) 15:40, 11 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Theatre-related deletion discussions. Icewhiz (talk) 15:40, 11 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Icewhiz (talk) 15:40, 11 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. [3] and [4] both look like RSes to me. Gaelan 💬✏️ 19:40, 11 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

What? The DNA India page is pretty well promotion, and when I click on your other link I get a page that tries to sell me an "app", and showing a small part of a page related to the subject of this article as a teaser. If I try to scroll to see more of that fragment of a page it moves out of sight, and another one moves into its place to tempt me to download the app. The small part of the page that I can see doesn't remotely begin to be substantial coverage of the subject of the article under discussion, and without installing the app I have no way of knowing whether the rest does, so that at the very least it fails to be verifiable. Breaking sticks (talk) 22:38, 11 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

[5] is a better link for the India today one—sorry I couldn't find that earlier. But you may be right that they're not enough in terms of sources—I'm not familiar enough to say Gaelan 💬✏️ 16:07, 12 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. No verifiable substantial independent coverage in any reliable source anywhere, cited in the article, provided in this discussion, or found in my searches. Breaking sticks (talk) 22:38, 11 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. She has been covered by any independent sources like Hindutan Times, Times of India, India Today, and regional publications of repute like Maharashtra Times, Kalnirnay and Loksatta. Granted, the sources in Marathi but she is a notable playwright in the language. The page does need a bit of cleanup, which I will help with. SerTanmay (talk) 16:33, 15 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - reliable sources have been provided and the article has been updated since the nomination.More sources can be added to improve upon it. iamvardhana (talk) 04:14, 18 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep + the sourcing looks fine to me and she’s clearly notable. Mccapra (talk) 06:32, 18 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. In view of Mu301's request, I'm going to temporarily userfy this to User:Mu301/Step-by-step description of hemodialysis. When you've completed your cross-wiki work, please either ping me so I can delete it, or tag it with Template:Db-u1 so somebody else can handle that. -- RoySmith (talk) 15:11, 19 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Step-by-step description of hemodialysis[edit]

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

Per WP:NOT, this guide is not appropriate for wikipedia. Natureium (talk) 15:16, 11 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. Icewhiz (talk) 15:39, 11 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Seems unsourced (single source at the bottom - [6] - does not seem to support the howto guide). WP:MEDRS issues. And a rather clear WP:NOTHOWTO fail.Icewhiz (talk) 17:55, 11 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete/Merge Hemodialysis could certainly use better information about how the procedure works but this is too detailed and not an encyclopedic article. Reywas92^Talk 19:08, 11 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete ~~to Hemodialysis~~ - the current article shouldn't be kept because it is not what wikipedia is intended for~~, but some of the information can be transferred over~~ --DannyS712 (talk) 22:15, 11 March 2019 (UTC) Changed from merge --DannyS712 (talk) 03:33, 14 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
DannyS712, With the tone that it's written in, what are you planning to merge? It's not informational, it's intended to comfort people going through dialysis. Natureium (talk) 03:26, 14 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@Natureium: Maybe the information about the types of machines? I agree that there is very little worth trying to salvage, but the history shouldn't be deleted if it could be useful to keep. --DannyS712 (talk) 03:29, 14 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
DannyS712, The filters (the actual artificial kidneys) are cylindrical, clear plastic outside with the filter material visible inside (looks like thick paper). They are perhaps 15-18 inches long, and 2-3 inches thick. They have tubing connectors at both ends. I don't see this as being very useful, and it's all unsourced. If more information is needed in hemodialysis, the kind of information can be suggested on the talk page, but as the topic falls under WP:MEDRS, information won't be added without a source. Natureium (talk) 03:31, 14 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@Natureium: I guess you're right. Changing my vote to delete. --DannyS712 (talk) 03:32, 14 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per not how to. Please ping me if deletion is the outcome. I'd like to cross-wiki import to Wikiversity. --mikeu ^talk 23:25, 13 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. 78.26 _{(spin me / revolutions)} 15:34, 18 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Exanimus[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

Unreleased prototype MMOG with little independent sourcing. I'm not sure this meets WP:NVG. Mccapra (talk) 14:55, 4 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Video games-related deletion discussions. Icewhiz (talk) 14:56, 4 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Fails GNG. IGN has a bit on the development and a few bits and pieces elsewhere - but really not much. Icewhiz (talk) 14:59, 4 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sheldybett (talk) 15:04, 11 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete non-notable per nom. Shashank5988 (talk) 15:30, 11 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was soft delete. WP:REFUND applies. Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 12:07, 18 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Nea Anna Simone[edit]

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

The references here don't support a notability claim: the first one is a reference to a book written by the subject, and the two following this are to sources that are not independent (and were probably also written by the subject). Google News produces no hits for her; the nomination for the award for her book is only a nomination, not an award, and while it might be useful for a Wikipedia article on that book, isn't useful for establishing her own notability. One of the references given here says she is a New York Times best seller— I could find no evidence of this (if true, this would probably show up on a Google News search). Not enough independent reliable secondary sources to pass WP:BLP nor WP:GNG (unless I am mistaken?). A loose necktie (talk) 20:46, 4 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Texas-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 22:39, 4 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Africa-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 22:39, 4 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 22:39, 4 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 22:39, 4 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Vanamonde (Talk) 14:54, 11 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was merge to List of songs recorded by Radiohead. (non-admin closure) Tymon.r Do you have any questions? 15:40, 18 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

List of unreleased songs by Radiohead[edit]

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

I created this pages a few years ago, back when Radiohead had several unreleased songs that had been extensively covered by sources. The most notable of those songs have since been released, and so removed from this page. A few weeks ago, a discussion indicated that most editors supported merging the page into List of Radiohead songs or deleting the page. I redirected the page to List of Radiohead songs, but the edit was reverted. Whatever the result, there's no need for this page any more. Popcornduff (talk) 13:39, 11 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 14:22, 11 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 14:22, 11 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 14:22, 11 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 14:23, 11 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Merge - per Nomination and linked discussion in it. There’s no need for two separate articles on such similar subjects. Sergecross73 msg me 15:36, 11 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support merge per nom. Then everything (will be) in its right place. Lugnuts ^{Fire Walk with Me} 17:51, 11 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Merge (then redirect) as suggested above. Now that many formerly unreleased songs are seeing the light of day, this is a useful course of action for an article that is no longer as important as it used to be. ---DOOMSDAYER520 (Talk|Contribs) 14:56, 12 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Merge per above. Aoba47 (talk) 19:08, 13 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect to BASIC 8. Consensus that notability is not satisfied. Given it's becoming a redirect, it can return to articlehood if some older sources are discovered (non-admin closure) Nosebagbear (talk) 16:14, 18 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Walrusoft[edit]

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

Uncited for over a decade, was turned into a redirect recently, which was contested. Searches did not turn up nearly enough to meet WP:GNG or WP:CORPDEPTH. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 11:44, 11 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. – The Grid (talk) 12:30, 11 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Florida-related deletion discussions. – The Grid (talk) 12:30, 11 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Icewhiz (talk) 12:33, 11 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. Icewhiz (talk) 12:33, 11 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to BASIC 8. The company is probably not notable enough for a stand-alone article (I found only passing mentions in CBM related magazines). BASIC 8 is their best known product and the target article has already most of content of this article. Note BASIC 8 article has no RS refs, but there are plenty of reviews of this product in computer magazines of the late 80s. Pavlor (talk) 13:15, 11 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect: Apologies to all for what seems like an incredibly moment of blindness by me (ctrl+F with a typo or wrong focus rather than mk 1 eyeball). I will atttempt to find references to the target as recompense when I get back from on the road. Thankyou. Djm-leighpark (talk) 14:44, 11 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to BASIC 8 due to insufficient standalone notability. Polyamorph (talk) 18:03, 11 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Comment It is a very old name, Walrusoft in basic interpreters. I would have thought there would be more on it. scope_creep^Talk 12:22, 14 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) Tymon.r Do you have any questions? 17:31, 18 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Prabhat Prakashan[edit]

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

Fails WP:NCORP. The sources provided are two of their own websites and a passing mention in a news article. A search returns only their own websites, social media, sales outlets & press releases. There is no reliable, verifiable, independent sourcing or WP:SIGCOV. Cabayi (talk) 11:41, 11 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Cabayi (talk) 11:42, 11 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. Cabayi (talk) 11:42, 11 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. Icewhiz (talk) 12:35, 11 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

This page should not be deleted because Prabhat Prakashan is a 60 year old publishing house in India and it has published works of famous authors and world leaders. Soem notable authors of prabhat prakashan are AP Abdul Kalam, Napolean Hill, Barak Obama and many more notable people have publishd i this publishing house. Sulthan90 (talk) 14:34, 11 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

~~Delete~~ A company, corporation, organization, group, product, or service is notable if it has been the subject of significant coverage in multiple reliable secondary sources that are independent of the subject, which clearly fails in this case WP:ORGCRITE AmericanAgent (talk) 10:07, 12 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Vote struck due to being a sockpuppet Nosebagbear (talk) 16:15, 18 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Here are the articles link from notable persons and their publication with prakash prakashan, List of books by or about Narendra Modi (Prime Minister of India), Kailash_Satyarthi#Books (Nobel peace prize winner), Vasundhara_Raje#Book (Former cheif minister and famous Indian Politician) and Apart from these there are many references found in many personality Indian articles. If you are looking for reliable sources. Kindly see this link (https://www.google.com/search?q=Prabhat+Prakashan&tbm=nws&source=lnt&tbs=sbd:1&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwjy7MXMrvzgAhUQ6nMBHV8jDP8QpwUIIQ&biw=1299&bih=669&dpr=1) which says how popular this publication house in India. And the google books links (https://www.google.com/search?tbm=bks&q=prabhat+prakashan) Sulthan90 (talk) 10:14, 12 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Sources could be improved, I suspect this publisher is more notable than the currently cited sources indicate. – Athaenara ✉ 06:44, 16 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was soft delete. WP:REFUND applies. Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 11:00, 18 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Miguel Lopez-Fitzgerald[edit]

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

What makes this fictional character notable? I don't see any significant coverage outside primary sources and some social media/blog chats. 100% fancrut, not a single sentence about the character's significance. Fails Wikipedia:Notability (fiction). _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 10:05, 11 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. Icewhiz (talk) 10:16, 11 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. Icewhiz (talk) 10:16, 11 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Xymmax ^{So let it be written} _{So let it be done} 18:18, 18 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Bathurst Broadcasters[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

A clear fail of WP:NORG. Kept in the days when everything was notable simply if it was not a hoax... seriously, the prior AfD is an embarrassment. Yes the company exists, but so what? WP:NOTYELLOWPAGES _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 10:03, 11 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Radio-related deletion discussions. Icewhiz (talk) 10:15, 11 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Icewhiz (talk) 10:15, 11 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. Icewhiz (talk) 10:15, 11 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Can't see how it meets WP:GNG or WP:ORG. Doctorhawkes (talk) 10:38, 11 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep surprisingly! Yes the first AfD was a bit of a joke. I too was assuming that this would be a no brainer delete. However, there are mentions of this organisation going back to 1936, eg, here, a lot of these are routine but equally some are not routine. There are a lot of more recent mentions. Some of the more recent more substantial references include:

Over all there are sufficient and sustained IRS available to satisfy WP:NEXIST to allow this current micro stub to be improved, possibly even as far as start class. Aoziwe (talk) 11:03, 11 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Aoziwe: Good finds, but I am afraid they don't sway me. The first seems like (nonetheless) routine article about potential merger/acquisition, plus it is part a WP:INTERVIEW quoting involved parties. The second one, I am not sure exactly what it is? A politician page that is a partial transcript of some public / radio debate? --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 05:11, 12 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The second would have been better listed as this government transcript record. It is a formal speech in the Federal Parliament. I was not relying on just these two but rather that the subject has been in the news in many dfferent ways since 1936. Regards. Aoziwe (talk) 10:35, 12 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Right, but if those are the best sources we have, they are still not sufficient. I agree the subject has been in the news, but in passing or as WP:ROUTINE type of reporting. Nobody so far found any sources that would IMHO warrant a keep. They exist, yes, but WP:NOTYELLOWPAGES. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 06:51, 13 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: fails WP:NCORP / WP:CORPDEPTH. --K.e.coffman (talk) 00:28, 16 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. trivial per WP:NOTNEWS and fails WP:CORP. Kierzek (talk) 21:53, 17 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 11:00, 18 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Bergdís Bergsdóttir[edit]

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

He fails WP:NFOOTBALL and WP:GNG. The claim he has played for Iceland is unsourced. Dougal18 (talk) 08:26, 11 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. Dougal18 (talk) 08:26, 11 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Iceland-related deletion discussions. Icewhiz (talk) 08:29, 11 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Icewhiz (talk) 08:32, 11 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Close to BLPPROD turf. One of the sources is about someone else (Halldór Orri Björnsson). Note that per the name (and the sole source in the article that is on her - [7] - indicating play in 1. deild kvenna B riðill - women's division) she is a woman per my understanding. I don't quite see how she passes NFOOTY, and she definitely doesn't pass GNG. Icewhiz (talk) 08:35, 11 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Until sources provided for claims mentioned.BabbaQ (talk) 09:23, 11 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Fails WP:NFOOTBALL and WP:GNG. She seems to have only played two seasons in Iceland, 2015 and 2016, with 20 league appearances and 1 goal, per her profile on the Football Association of Iceland website. She hasn't played for the senior or youth national teams of Iceland according to the same source. Can't find any articles about her in the national media. Dammit_steve (talk) 09:48, 11 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Giant Snowman 08:41, 12 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - fails WP:GNG and WP:NFOOTBALL. Giant Snowman 08:43, 12 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete fails GNG. desmay (talk) 14:26, 12 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 11:00, 18 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Marteinn Már Jakobsson[edit]

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

Jakobsson fails WP:NFOOTY by never playing in an FPL or for a senior national team. I can't find any record of him playing for Motherwell or in England. His Swiss team are fifth tier. He also fails GNG. Dougal18 (talk) 08:16, 11 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. Dougal18 (talk) 08:16, 11 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Iceland-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 08:23, 11 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 08:23, 11 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 08:23, 11 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Motherwell is in the Football Manager game per the article. Doesn't seem to pass NFOOTY, and fails GNG regardless. Icewhiz (talk) 08:28, 11 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Fails WP:NFOOTY and WP:GNG. Never played for the senior or youth national teams of Iceland per this. No articles about him in the national media. Dammit_steve (talk) 09:55, 11 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete – Fails NFOOTY, and I cannot find any coverage of this player, significant/reliable/independent or otherwise. FYI I cleaned up the article a bit. It doesn't matter what team he played on in a video game. No sources in the article or that I can find support the claim that he played for Motherwell, or in England, Switzerland or Thailand. Without any sources, we cannot write an article. Delete. Leviv ich 15:56, 11 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Giant Snowman 08:41, 12 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - fails WP:GNG and WP:NFOOTBALL. Giant Snowman 08:43, 12 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 11:00, 18 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

World Famous Kenton Club[edit]

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

Just one of the many local bars. Lacks general notability for inclusion in Wikipedia. Graywalls (talk) 07:22, 11 March 2019 (UTC) I am also nominating the following related pages because it re-directs to this article:[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. Graywalls (talk) 07:37, 11 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Food and drink-related deletion discussions. Graywalls (talk) 07:39, 11 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 08:16, 11 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Oregon-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 08:16, 11 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Fails WP:NORG, local coverage only. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 09:26, 11 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: This article should be expanded, not deleted. ---Another Believer _(Talk) 14:46, 11 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Noteing that Another Believer created the page. I am perfectly willing to believe that a bar in Portland could be notable, and that it is beloved by locals. But I note that all of the 3 sources on the page are local, Portland papers.E.M.Gregory (talk) 17:16, 11 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

There is some coverage in The Oregonian as well, which is not just a local paper. Trying to add some of the (paywalled) sources to the talk page for future reference. There's also a profile published by The Portland Tribune, but I acknowledge this is additional local coverage. ---Another Believer _(Talk) 17:21, 11 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

comment There are many editors with interest in topics related to the Pacific Northwest and you're not the exceptionally few with access to non Google retrievable sources. Many people have access to newspaper sources outside of their metropolitan area through their public library card and students often have database access through academic database subscriptions through their institution. Most public library and institutes of higher education in Oregon should have access to the Oregonian. So "paywall" is a relatively unimportant hurdle.Graywalls (talk) 17:56, 11 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I wasn't suggesting paywalled sources are problematic, I'm simply saying there is some sourcing that does not come up in a simple Google search. ---Another Believer _(Talk) 18:11, 11 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I believe there's enough coverage, but I doubt I'll be able to rescue this one in time because I'm also working on several others nominated by the same editor. I may just have to start over in the draft space, which is unfortunate but happens sometimes. Meantime, I'm not surprised folks would elect to delete the current version of the article. ---Another Believer _(Talk) 17:44, 11 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Another Believer: Belated comment here. I took a look at the sources you posted on the article's talk page, and I'm skeptical there's enough coverage to satisfy WP:NORG. The Portland Tribune source is a good find, enough to pass GNG in my view, but still local coverage. The Oregonian articles only mention the bar in passing, and I wasn't able to turn up anything else in Multnomah County Library's Oregonian database. The article could certainly be expanded from its current state, but are you sure there's enough coverage to establish notability? Lord Bolingbroke (talk) 22:28, 15 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Lord Bolingbroke, No, but don't worry, I've saved a copy at Draft:World Famous Kenton Club for future expansion when I have more time. The current article should have just been redirected or moved into draft space from the start... ---Another Believer _(Talk) 22:30, 15 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete There is no evidence this is notable or significant, as shown by the total lack of in-depth coverage. Hyper local "coverage" (and I'd hardly even call it that) is all that appears to exist and doing a book search brings up a Simon Kenton Club which is unrelated. Praxidicae (talk) 14:55, 11 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete fails WP:SIGCOV. If, however, someone expands and sources it up to speed, feel free to ping me to reconsider.E.M.Gregory (talk) 17:16, 11 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Many local venues have routine local coverage that includes feature articles but I don't believe that meets Wikipedia's requirements of significant coverage. Reywas92^Talk 19:12, 11 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - lack of WP:Significant coverage needed to establish notability --DannyS712 (talk) 22:22, 11 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy delete (G5). — JJMC89 (T·C) 22:50, 16 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Tendamix[edit]

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

Non-notable record label. The record label has not gained significant coverage in reliable sources to have a stand-alone article. None of the sources in the article are reliable.The page creator created an AFC draft of the page, which was declined. Also despite the page submission being declined, the creator still created the page in the mainspace. Ceethekreator (talk) 07:05, 11 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

This article can easily be improved with better sources and revision. I do not think it needs to be deleted. It was once marked for speedy deletion before and the notice was removed after allowance of time for improvement. It can be improved further. User:Bonginkhosim (talk) 09:59, 11 March 2019 (UTC) WP:SOCKSTRIKE 22:49, 16 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. Icewhiz (talk) 08:14, 11 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Icewhiz (talk) 08:14, 11 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of South Africa-related deletion discussions. Icewhiz (talk) 08:14, 11 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Anyone interested in merging the contents with Ma'din may contact an administrator to recover deleted text. — Nearly Headless Nick {c} 11:44, 17 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Vicennium[edit]

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

I prodded it with "It is unclear what is this article about (neologism? organization? event). Any and all fail WP:GNG." The creator unprodded it with comment "Added a category. It is a notable conference which was named differently and the name became popular". Errr. Categories for this article are still "Latin words and phrases" and "units of time." At best I can offer a guess that it seems to be some sort of event in India, but the article is still a confusing mess that warrants WP:TNT, in addition to failing WP:GNG - any refs here are offering either passing mention of this term, or seem like re-written press releases. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 08:53, 4 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. Icewhiz (talk) 11:04, 4 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. Icewhiz (talk) 11:04, 4 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Icewhiz (talk) 11:04, 4 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to Ma'din. While a bit jumbled, this isn't a DICTDEF (the first sentence explains the Latin origin - that's it). This is a 3-year celebratory event for the marking of 20 years of the Ma'din academy. There is coverage for this (big event - e.g. this is coverage of the finale - [8]), however I don't think the 20 year celebrations really need to be separate from the institution at current article lengths. Icewhiz (talk) 11:07, 4 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 05:23, 11 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Merge with Ma'din. It can be briefly covered there; no need for a separate article. Though I am certainly not opposed to the nominator's WP:TNT suggestion - it definitely took some digging to really figure out what this was about. Jmertel23 (talk) 12:17, 11 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 10:59, 18 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Minimum intrusion Grid[edit]

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

Both sources are primary, appears to fail software notability and general notability as a "Minimum+intrusion+Grid" source search suggests this doesn't have the requisite significant coverage. SITH (talk) 18:32, 4 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. Icewhiz (talk) 19:57, 4 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. Icewhiz (talk) 19:57, 4 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, unexpectedly enough. A Scholar search is more informative: [9] There certainly is a high preponderance of the same names popping up (notably B. Vinter), but more than a few people seem to have picked up the concept and talked about it or done something publishable with it - by the looks of it, beyond the circle citing that often goes on in labs. Article urgently needs to make use of some of that sourcing though... --Elmidae (talk · contribs)

Oh, and needs to be moved away from the capital G. --Elmidae (talk · contribs) 21:27, 5 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Elmidae: I'd be convinced - but look, all of those top hits have a single (co)author: "B Vinter". As such, I am not convinced this concept received independent attention. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 09:30, 11 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I see references to a specific model or project called "Minimum intrusion Grid" which is abreviated MiG. (a possible play on words with the Russian Aircraft Corporation MiG.) Is the article title a considered a proper name? --mikeu ^talk 03:03, 10 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 05:21, 11 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. There is some academic coverage, but most of it limited to a single author. Single-person concept tend to not be considered to have significant impact until others start publishing about them. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 09:30, 11 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - WP:NEO. Can't find any coverage where B Vinter is not directly involved. ~Kvng (talk) 16:10, 16 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - lacks notability due to too few independent reliable sources. It is too soon to create an aricle on the topic. It might become notably discussed in the literature in the future. At that time a well written article would be appropriate. --mikeu ^talk 16:39, 17 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 10:59, 18 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

DWAW-FM[edit]

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

Probable hoax. The 2018 list of the National Telecommunications Commission shows: (1) no radio station airing in Region 4 Province of Quezon using 101.1 frequency; (2) the call sign DWAW is assigned to an FM station in Region 5 Province of Sorsogon (DWAW 99.9). Bluemask (talk) 05:15, 11 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Radio-related deletion discussions. Sheldybett (talk) 06:51, 11 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Philippines-related deletion discussions. Sheldybett (talk) 06:51, 11 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. This may be a hoax or it may just be a real radio station that used to exist but doesn't anymore, but that doesn't really change anything either way as the issues are still the same: the notability clincher for a radio station is not what the article says, but how well the things it says are referenced to reliable source coverage which properly verifies that they're true. But this features zero sources, even its own self-published website linked in the infobox just goes to a domain reseller rather than a radio station's web page, and the creator slipped up and betrayed their conflict of interest when they wrote about what "we" believe instead of what "the station" believes. Bearcat (talk) 13:27, 17 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. I believe there is sufficient consensus now demonstrated. Clarityfiend has also made various changes to narrow the notability and inclusion issues. I'm going to rename List of holidays honouring individuals - two renames were suggested and this seems the narrower. If editors want to rename to PamD's proposal, that's obviously cool. (non-admin closure) Nosebagbear (talk) 08:06, 18 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Famous People with holidays[edit]

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

An incomplete list, with many of the mentioned holidays being virtually unknown. There would be thousands of people around the world with their own named days, documenting it all in a wikipage will result in a very long incomplete page. We would also need criteria and all, but this page just randomly has names that the author knows(like pewdiepie day). There would certainly be some criteria by which these types of pages should be deleted. Daiyusha (talk) 03:17, 11 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Rename List of holidays honoring individuals, but keep only officially recognized and lasting days (i.e. not one-offs). That'll get rid of most of the entries. Also strike Christmas. Clarityfiend (talk) 06:30, 11 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists of people-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 08:19, 11 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 08:20, 11 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Show me the WP:GNG and I'll even consider. But see Clarityfiend's comment which suggests nightmarish difficulties with inclusion criteria. – Finnusertop (talk ⋅ contribs) 08:38, 11 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as one big WP:OR mess. A large number of these days just link the persons name and don't even make any claim to an official holiday named after them. Ajf773 (talk) 09:19, 11 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
~~Delete~~: as Clarityfiend says, there could be a List of holidays commemorating individuals (hmm, or just "days" as not all commemorative days are actual holidays), but to be at all useful and encyclopedic it would need to link to articles/sections about the holidays (not just the people), say where observed, show the dates, include sources. ~~This is so far off from that model that deletion seems the best choice right now.~~ PamD 22:29, 11 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I've overhauled the list to include only articled and officially sanctioned days. Clarityfiend (talk) 07:08, 12 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep after Clarityfiend's work - but there's more to be done, see my comments on talk page. Possibly needs to be renamed to List of holidays and annual celebrations named after individuals, with some sort of rubric which excludes routine saints' days which are not official holidays anywhere, and firm scope rules which can allow Burns Night but filter out the non-notable and one-off. Tricky but do-able. PamD 08:54, 12 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, unexpectedly; this is something I would have thought already existed, but doesn't. We have plenty of holiday categories, but no one category or list that covers this particular aspect. Definitely rename. PamD and Clarityfiend seem to have workable scope & criteria ideas. --Elmidae (talk · contribs) 15:12, 12 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Being a long list or incomplete one is not a valid reason for deletion. Perfectly valid list article, just rename it as suggested. Dream Focus 23:58, 16 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. -- Patar knight - ^chat/_{contributions} 15:52, 18 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Margaret Hunter (jurist)[edit]

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

"special magistrates" are not notable officials. "Medal of the Order ofAustralia" is the lowest of the 4 current ranks of Order of Australia. In other countries we presume notability only for the highest and second highest ranks of civil orders, and we need to do this here also. DGG ( talk ) 02:35, 11 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Hello! I am the original author of the article. I respectfully disagree -- "special magistrates" exercise all of the same judicial power as standard magistrates (they can sentence up to 5 years in gaol and make civil awards up to $250,000). The subject is also a coroner and has made notable recommendations to government.^[1] The contribution for which she has been recognised is also unique in its contribution to women in the legal profession. In any case, the Wikipedia guidelines on biographies of living person relating to judges holds the minimum standard of notability at "judges who have held... sub-national office (statewide/provincewide)" which Special Magistrate Hunter clearly holds.^[2] The biography policy generally also holds the minimum standard as "the person has received a... significant award or honour" and "the person has made a widely recongised contribution thatis part of the enduring historical record in his or her specific field".^[3] She has an OAM (addressing that first point) and the OAM is for her contribution to women in the legal profession (addressing the second point). She was a founding member of Australian Women Lawyers. It also holds that "people are presumed notable if they have received significant coverage in multiple published secondard sources that are reliable, intellectually independent" and "if the depth of the coverage in any given source is not substantial, then multiple independent sources may be combined to demonstrate notability".^[4] I would submit that she satisfies the first given the several sources in the article, however, would also argue that the second combination test would also be satisfied in any case. Lastly, the Women in Red Wikiproject is all about fixing the fact that only 15% of biographies on Wikipedia are about women -- here we have a woman who holds a statewide office, has received an OAM and has specifically contributed to women in her profession for which she has been recognised. I find it difficult to see how she is anything but notable, but on the fact that she meets the minimum criteria of the policies of notability set out by Wikipedia, the article should remain. Rileyb ( talk ) 05:00, 11 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

References

^ Burdon, Daniel (17 August 2017). ""How many others have died since?": ACT government responds to Coroner on prescription monitoring". The Canberra Times. ((cite web)): Cite has empty unknown parameter: |dead-url= (help)
^ "Wikipedia:Notability (people)", Wikipedia, 2019-03-07, retrieved 2019-03-11
^ "Wikipedia:Notability (people)", Wikipedia, 2019-03-07, retrieved 2019-03-11
^ "Wikipedia:Notability (people)", Wikipedia, 2019-03-07, retrieved 2019-03-11

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. AllyD (talk) 07:51, 11 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. AllyD (talk) 07:51, 11 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Law-related deletion discussions. AllyD (talk) 07:51, 11 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: For the notable achievements explained above.--Ipigott (talk) 08:07, 11 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I agree with NOM's specific points, if each taken individually. None of the single events by themselves are especially notable. However, that is also the point, ie, there have been multiple important events/recognitions/achievements over time, all reported in reliable sources, with non trivial information available. Hence GNG is satisfied by virtue of sustained coverage allowing core in-depth material. (If the subject was a male association footballer, this would be a speedy keep!) Aoziwe (talk) 11:26, 11 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Thsmi002 (talk) 12:21, 11 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep as per Riley's rationale. Cosmic Sans (talk) 22:04, 12 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment 1. Neither special magistrates nor regular magistrates nor city state and provincial trial judges aren necessarily notable--we've said it only for appealate judges and for Federal/National district court judges,

and for UK orders, we've always rejected Member OBE as not necessarily notable. This Australian level corresponds.

The Women in Red project is for bios of notable women. The standards for notable women active in the 21st century are the same as for men. DGG ( talk ) 23:18, 12 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. Low-level judges are not generally considered to be notable (no, they do not meet WP:POLITICIAN, otherwise all judges and magistrates appointed by national or state governments would be considered to be notable, which in most countries is all of them). Recipients of low-level awards such as the OAM are not generally notable (no, they do not meet WP:ANYBIO; if they did, then the recipient of any award would; I await a flood of articles on winners of the Military Cross and British Empire Medal). I'm finding it hard to see what makes her stand out. -- Necrothesp (talk) 13:19, 13 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Australian courts fall into 4 broad levels (1) High Court (2) State Supreme Courts & Federal Court (3) district/county courts (4) magistrates. As I understand the approach to date, being a judges of 3 or 4 is not of itself considered notable & the person must meet some other notability requirement. Similarly being an member (AM) or medal (OAM) of the Order of Australia does not meet WP:ANYBIO. In this case the description "special" does not denote some higher level of magistrate, but rather they are appointed for a special purpose. While Hunter does not have an entry in Australian Women Lawyers as Active Citizens, it doesn't purport to be comprehensive. Describing her as a jurist seems a bit of a stretch. Hunter is a coroner which can result in a person being notable due to the higher profile of cases, investigative role & recommendations for legislative change & these are specifically reported in AustLII where the vast majority of decisions by a magistrate are not reported (yes I am aware court judgments are not necessarily notable). I will consider her notability & come back Find bruce (talk) 01:09, 15 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Two further things to consider: 1. It is unclear to me how further policy applies other than that set out by WP:JUDGE, which is very clear that "sub-national (statewide/provincewide) office" is a minimum level for notability. Hunter clearly meets that. 2. An important point to consider in the ACT, given the four levels of courts that Find bruce has set out is that in the ACT there is no level 3 court -- the Magistrates Court is both a magistrates court and a district/county court in one. This magistrate is one of only 14 judicial officers in the entirety of the ACT, which makes magistrates more notable in the ACT context than say, NSW, where there are possibly hundreds of magistrates, dozens of district court judges, a number of supreme court judges and then a number of appeal court judges. The small number of people that wield judicial power in the ACT makes them important and notable in a general sense (as opposed to the specific grounds set out by Wikipedia policy, which Hunter clearly meets). Rileyb ( talk ) 02:27, 16 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry Rileyb but you are misreading WP:JUDGE - sub-national refers to the Supreme Court of the Act. Find bruce (talk) 04:28, 16 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I'm happy to be shown where it says this Find bruce, but where/how does sub-national refer to the Supreme Court? The wording says "sub-national (statewide/provincewide) office". Is there a definition somewhere else that I am missing? A magistrate is a magistrate for the entirety of the ACT and thus is a statewide (well, technically, territory-wide but this is a minor difference) office. They also have jurisdiction over the Jervis Bay Territory and the Australian Antarctic Territory for which they regularly exercise (magistrates travel to JBT every 3 months and exercise their territory-wide power and there are current cases in the Magistrates Court covering prosecutions in the Australian Antarctic Territory). Any guidance on how "sub-national (statewide/provincewide) office" is defined would be useful in helping clear this up. Rileyb ( talk ) 04:53, 16 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Sandstein 08:33, 18 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Menace Dement[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

Non-notable band; lacks significant coverage in independent reliable sources, failing WP:BAND / WP:GNG. Kept in 2008 AfD; users didn't address the article's lack of coverage, which hasn't increased in ten years. -- Wikipedical (talk) 02:34, 11 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 08:21, 11 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 08:21, 11 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete First off, let's be very careful - lacking significant coverage in independent reliable source ≠ failing WP:BAND. WP:BAND has multiple other criteria, and the subject of this article appears to pass #6 of the criteria as two of its members are independently notable and have articles here. However, you're probably right about the lack of significant coverage in independent reliable sources, because I was unable to find any coverage about this band on the internet. Owing to the fact that there needs to be objective evidence from reliable sources to verify claims of notability, I support deleting this article. Zingarese talk · contribs 03:43, 16 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Not enough SIGCOV to achieve notability. Eagleash (talk) 05:21, 18 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Reliable sources that support this subject have been presented during the AfD discussion. (non-admin closure) Steve Quinn (talk) 04:59, 14 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Interchange lemma for context-free languages[edit]

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

No coverage in independent third party sources. No demonstration of notability. Steve Quinn (talk) 02:21, 11 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. The subject of this article has been covered in academic journals including SIAM Journal on Computing ([10]), Information Processing Letters ([11]), Theoretical Computer Science ([12]), and in the book Context-free Languages And Primitive Words. MarkZusab (talk) 02:51, 11 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep Based on the abstracts of the articles provided by MarkZusab, it seems highly likely that these papers discuss the subject with significant depth. Unfortunately, I can't access the articles themselves to verify that. _signed,Rosguill ^talk 03:12, 11 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Language-related deletion discussions. Icewhiz (talk) 08:19, 11 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. Icewhiz (talk) 08:19, 11 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, but rename to Interchange lemma. Searching google-scholar for "Interchange lemma" I get a few full length articles + coverage in many other articles - and said coverage seems to be all in the content of context free languages. Icewhiz (talk) 08:22, 11 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep It can be also found in the standard textbook for the field, A Second Course in Formal Languages and Automata Theory by Jeffrey Shallit. domotorp
Comment. Based on the above responses I will withdraw this AfD. I will also try to move the page to "Interchange lemma". I won't have time to do it right now - but within 18 hours. If someone else wants to close this AfD then please feel free to do so. I think the outcome is pretty clear. Steve Quinn (talk) 03:55, 14 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect to State of Palestine#Religion. Content can be merged from history subject to editorial consensus. Sandstein 08:33, 18 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Religion in the State of Palestine[edit]

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

This is essentially a Content Fork for material that already exists in the following article: State of Palestine (see Religion section). It is redundant. Also, there is no material in this article that is not already covered in the other article. Steve Quinn (talk) 02:18, 11 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

- NOTE If "there is no material in this article that is not already covered in the other article" was ever true, it certainly isn't now. This is much longer. Johnbod (talk) 15:51, 14 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Revert back to initial edit, which is a redirect – this is a redirect page that someone copied a content fork over. Or delete it, and re-establish the redirect. — The Transhumanist 02:26, 11 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Religion-related deletion discussions. Icewhiz (talk) 08:16, 11 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Israel-related deletion discussions. Icewhiz (talk) 08:16, 11 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Palestine-related deletion discussions. Icewhiz (talk) 08:16, 11 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to State of Palestine#Religion - present article state has NPOV issues (e.g. lack of Jews, focus on Christians) as well as sourcing issues (citations lacking for much of the content). If the article is properly expanded - then it can be standalone, but at present the redirect target is better than what we have here. Icewhiz (talk) 08:19, 11 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

There are Jews living in the State of Palestine? Are you sure? How many? The source at note 1 says "A small number of Jews associated with the Neturei Karta movement oppose Zionism on religious grounds, and refer to themselves as "Palestinians."" - it doesn't say they live there, and at least the vast majority don't. The NPOV/error elephant in the room is that all the Muslims are said to be Sunni, which is (unsurprizingly) not the case; the main State article is better on this. Johnbod (talk) 15:42, 14 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Depending on the definition of the State of Palestine (e.g. if it includes the entire West Bank) - then yes - there are quite a few Jews in the State of Palestine (e.g. see CIA factbook for one estimate). Icewhiz (talk) 16:03, 14 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Well, I wasn't - you may not have noticed, but West Bank ≠ State of Palestine. As I understand it, that the various Jewish West Bank settlements and part of Hebron are not in the territory controlled by the SOP is a matter of great contention. Johnbod (talk) 18:49, 14 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to State of Palestine#Religion; this one has more detail, though see above. Johnbod (talk) 15:42, 14 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Sandstein 08:29, 18 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Nicole Dennis[edit]

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

not yet notable. DGG ( talk ) 02:07, 11 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 03:41, 11 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 03:42, 11 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 03:42, 11 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 05:41, 12 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, does not meet WP:NACTOR (needs to have had significant roles in multiple notable stage performances), may be WP:TOOSOON. Coolabahapple (talk) 05:44, 12 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Even after this next role, still a long way from passing WP:NACTOR. Searches did not turn up enough in-depth coverage to meet WP:GNG. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 11:40, 17 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Sandstein 08:28, 18 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

ScaleMP[edit]

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

Fails WP:NCORP, does not have significant coverage in independent reliable sources. Rusf10 (talk) 21:22, 4 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 22:35, 4 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 22:35, 4 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Israel-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 22:35, 4 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of New Jersey-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 22:36, 4 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment This is one where I have concerns over the notability of the organisation however the product at first glance looks a little different, but the article doesn't demonstrate that. A very quick glance indicates a rescue might be possible but depends on independent reviews which might be scare. However at a quick glance isbn 9781614990406 but be good for a start, and there's good load of Google Scholar hits too some of which not likely be independent...Djm-leighpark (talk) 09:53, 5 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 02:05, 11 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: I would have improved the article apart from the early relist and not letting run for 168 hours. But the early relist has wound me up like it did on Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Marketing resource management. Perhaps someone else will do a rescue. Thankyou.Djm-leighpark (talk) 05:52, 11 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the Article Rescue Squadron's list of content for rescue consideration. Djm-leighpark (talk) 05:52, 11 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Sandstein 08:28, 18 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Suliman Facet Hasan[edit]

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

No clear notability, largely COI edited, self promotional. Melcous (talk) 01:39, 11 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 03:43, 11 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 03:44, 11 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Passing coverage in niche sources, fails WP:NBIO. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 09:52, 11 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete ut supra --Goldsztajn (talk) 16:26, 11 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was moot. The page has been moved twice since it was nominated, and is now at Draft:AJ Green (Basketball). Any further discussion belongs at MfD, where the concerns about notability are less valid given the fact that the page is a draft that is actively being worked on, but users are welcome to create an MfD if they disagree with my dicta. (non-admin closure) DannyS712 (talk) 03:44, 11 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Brettforeman 3/sandbox[edit]

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

Fails notability for athletes. Not played pro. Malformed title that looks like a sandbox but is in mainspace. The creator reverted my fixes and attempt to speedy the page Legacypac (talk) 00:00, 11 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. This appears to have been a user's sandbox and AfC submission that was accidentally moved into the mainspace. I suggest moving it either back to the user's sandbox or to draftspace. MarkZusab (talk) 00:17, 11 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

User will just revert that. Subject is not notable. Waste of time to send to draft or anywhere else. Legacypac (talk) 00:20, 11 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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