< 8 March 10 March >
Guide to deletion

Purge server cache

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

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) DannyS712 (talk) 00:01, 17 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Danijel Cerović[edit]

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

Fails WP:NMUSIC. Tymon.r Do you have any questions? 23:26, 9 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Montenegro-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 02:34, 10 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 02:34, 10 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Has been placed in rotation nationally by a major radio or music television network.
  • Has been a featured subject of a substantial broadcast segment across a national radio or TV network.
  • Has released two or more albums on a major record label
  • Is cited in reliable sources as being influential in style, technique, repertory or teaching for a particular music genre.
  • Montenegrin Media News Links
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. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 04:23, 17 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Heraclius (son of Constantine IV)[edit]

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

I don't think every child of an emperor or other royalty should get a separate entry, unless they held particular named offices and have enough to say about them that couldn't be mentioned on their parents' pages. Iveagh Gardens (talk) 10:10, 23 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 13:13, 23 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the Article Rescue Squadron's list of content for rescue consideration. --Tryptofish (talk) 00:07, 28 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. Prince Andrew has a large WP article based on a similar position in a less notable household. If Heraclius was alive today with the same RS that we use for Prince Andrew's article, he would have a GA WP article. You are confusing GNG-type arguments with individuals whose RS have long gone. Very minor RS exists from that era, even for emperors. The idea that the second of two children, of what would have been one of the most powerful individuals in the world at that time, is not notable for WP is not sound reasoning. Britishfinance (talk) 19:08, 23 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Regarding Prince Andrew, this would be no better than an WP:OTHERSTUFF argument, even if the cases were comparable, which they aren't. If Heraclius were alive today he would certainly be notable, because numerous reliable source would invariably have reported how there was a living man who was 1400 years old, and that would establish his notability. However, he is not alive today, and we don't have the same reliable sources that we have for Andrew. 'All children of people with title X are inherently notable and saying otherwise isn't sound reasoning' is an argument that flies in the face of established policy: WP:NOTINHERITED. Notability on Wikipedia is based on substantial coverage in reliable sources. This person has not received substantial coverage in any sources (actual sources, not hypothetical lost ones). Agricolae (talk) 21:51, 23 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. Heraclius would have had greater notability in the world in his time then Prince Andrew or even one of the most viewed articles on WP, Prince Harry, Duke of Sussex, does now. Because of the passage of over 1,500 years, Heraclius' equivalent of Daily Telegraph, Times and Guardian articles are long gone. Byzantine kings were known to kill younger siblings and delete any note of them, to remove any potential competition (which is probably what happened to Heraclius) - E.g. Fratricide by his tyrant brother Justinian II.
Here is the WP article on Ealhmund of Kent, the father of Ecgberht, King of Wessex. There is only a tiny actual reference to Ealhmund confirming his existence, and nothing else. That is the reality of many early ages historical figures. There are whole emperors worthy of WP articles whose only definitive fact-base are passing references in specific historical chronicles. Are we to delete all of these from history because they don't meet the GNG criteria of Prince Andrew? Of course not. Being recorded in both Gibbon's Decline and Fall and the Liber - two of the most important historical records of early ages - means you are notable. However, WP:COMMONSENSE knows that the second of only two male children of the most powerful man on earth at that time is worth recording. Britishfinance (talk) 14:11, 25 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Wouldda, couldda, shouldda. Wikipedia is not based on hypotheticals, let alone the elaborate false-narrative you envision for Heraclius. It is anachronistic to assume that the self-publicity, fawning interest and press spouse-attack pieces that surround the British royal family represents the historical norm - the Constantinople Daily News is not lost, it never existed, and given how secretive the House of Saud is about its members, one cannot assume the British model applies to ancient Byzantium. As to Eahlmund of Kent, this is nothing but another WP:OTHERSTUFF argument - notability is not established by spurious analogy. Receiving passing mention in a source, no matter how important that source, is not one of the criteria for notability. We do record Heraclius: he is listed on his father's page. Nobody is arguing he should be purged entirely from Wikipedia, just that having a single source report his and his brother's hair being sent to the Pope as the sole evidence he existed falls well short of established criteria for notability that underlies the justification for a stand-alone article. Agricolae (talk) 15:15, 25 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment, But we only have a single source on Ealhmund of Kent (a single "passing mention" in your words) - so should we delete that article? You use tangential arguments to avoid the core argument (although you now try to label the core argument as a "false-narrative"). You now make WP:PSEUDO claims (in your words) about ancient sources and the House of Saud? Your own arguments disprove your own assertions. Britishfinance (talk) 15:26, 25 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • This discussion is not about Eahlmund of Kent and whether or not his page should be deleted. If you think he is not notable then put forward an AfD, but WP:OTHERSTUFF is applicable - that Wikipedia undoubtedly includes articles on non-notable individuals is not a valid argument to retain any given article on a non-notable individual. (As an aside, you are incorrect about Eahlmund - there are multiple passing mentions in the primary record, in the ASC as King of Kent, in several other ASC entries as father of Ecgberht, in Æthelweard's chronicle, not surprising as it is mostly a translation of the ASC, in the Textus Roffensis, in Asser, in the Historia Brittonum, etc., but that is all beside the point, as it is the degree to which he has received coverage in secondary sources, e.g. modern scholarly writing, that is relevant. For that our article has five cited, many of which give Eahlmund more substantial coverage than what Gibbon wrote regarding Heraclius, most focussed on the question of whether the Eahlmund who was father of Ecgberht is really the same as the Eahlmund who was King of Kent [scholars have generally accepted this], but likewise addressing the veracity of the pedigree attributed to him [opinion is split]. He has been subject to more than passing mention, he has been the direct subject of debate and discussion. Is this enough? Launch the AfD and find out the community consensus, but that is not a relevant question in this discussion of Heraclius.) I am not calling your core argument a false-narrative, unless your core argument is that your personal assumption that Heraclius was probably fratricided is somehow a basis for notability. We don't know anything that happened to him other than that he was born, he had a haircut, and we can presume that he died because he isn't still alive, but we cannot base notability on presumptions of how he died that are entirely baseless. Also, I have not applied WP:PSEUDO to the House of Saud as the record of this discussion clearly shows. If you continue to intentionally distort my arguments, I will begin to doubt your commitment to having a reasoned discussion. Agricolae (talk) 16:19, 25 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Pray tell, what makes him significant? Being lucky enough to have some DNA? Embarrassing that people's standards to have independent articles here are so low. Reywas92Talk 21:34, 24 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Your tone in every conversation I have had with you has been embarrassing. I'd appreciate civility in your responses. -- Willthacheerleader18 (talk) 06:02, 25 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • His notability is linked to the copious amount that has been written about him by reliable secondary sources. Actual sources, not hypothetical ones, that have detailed every aspect of his life. The reason why all those sources have been written about him is indeed because of his parentage (at least originally), but his notability is based on the sources, independent of why they were written. Again, not really a pertinent analogy. WP:PSEUDO really applies very well to Heraclius. It indicates that in such circumstances where a person is only known for a single non-notable event, with no reliable sources that cover the individual themselves as a main or sole focus of coverage and if the person is not the main focus of the relevant coverage, we should not be creating a pseudobiography relating the one event and padded out with 'context', that in circumstances where a person is only known for a single non-notable incident, then "it's very likely that there is no reason to cover that person at all." Agricolae (talk) 14:39, 25 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • @Agricolae: You keep repeating that "notability is linked to the copious amount that has been written about him by reliable secondary source" which does not apply to ancient historical figures who have very little actual on them. WP is not chronical of The Telegraph-Guardian etc. It does record important historical figures, and the second son of the world's most powerful man in 685 is notable. We don't need Telegraph-Guardian-Financial Times articles for GNG etc. to tell us that. Britishfinance (talk) 14:50, 25 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • The second son of a 685 monarch is notable not by default, by analogy, by assumption, or by fiat, but if and only if he has received significant coverage in secondary sources. Full stop. That could be in scholarly articles, biographies, encyclopaedias, or yes, even newspapers, but it has to be significant coverage, not passing reference to a non-notable episode. Agricolae (talk) 15:28, 25 February 2019 (UTC) (by the way, please don't ping me - I have this discussion watchlisted and neither need nor want the notification. Agricolae (talk) 16:19, 25 February 2019 (UTC))[reply]
  • Comment. But this is not just a monarch; it was probably the world's most powerful man. An he appears in Gibbons and Liber, two of the most respected scholarly chronicles of the ages. You are arguing against yourself. Do you intend to delete/wipe-out the thousands of ancient history BLPs in WP that rely on a single passing reference for the proof of their existence? Britishfinance (talk) 15:34, 25 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • You have already made these arguments and I have already shown them to be invalid. Constantine was a powerful monarch, not Heraclius, and being born to someone notable does not imbue the child with automatic notability (WP:NOTINHERITED). Mention in a primary source (Liber) is explicitly excluded by policy (WP:BIO) from consideration in evaluating notability. Simply appearing in a secondary source is not the bar for notability, significant coverage is.(WP:BIO again) WP:OTHERSTUFF is among the WP:Arguments to avoid in deletion discussions. Agricolae (talk) 16:19, 25 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment But you have not. I am using other WP examples to show the flaw in your reasoning. But you ignore that. Continually. On your basis, we can start deleting whole groups of early history BLPs in WP. And yet don't, for very good reason. I don't need to use any WP acronyms to understand that. Britishfinance (talk) 17:04, 25 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • I ignore it because it is an OTHERSTUFF argument. 'Some other people are also not notable but they have pages' is not an argument for alternative standards of notability, it is an argument for more AfDs where each can be discussed on their own merits and not collectively. The subject of this page is either notable or is not notable based on the relevant criteria for notability, in this case WP:BIO. The notability of the subjects of other Wikipedia pages can be addressed in their own AfDs but this has no bearing on whether Heraclius satisfies the criteria for notability found in WP:BIO and other Wikipedia policy. Agricolae (talk) 17:39, 25 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment You ignore it because it shows the flaw in your argument. His mother Anastasia (wife of Constantine IV), whom we only know a tiny bit more about than her second son, under your logic, would be next for AfD. Quoting OTHERSTUFF avoids the fact your logic would see thousands of early history WP BLPs of major royal figures deleted (while we keep Prince Andrew-type BLPs). I don't need a WP acronym to know that is flawed logic. Britishfinance (talk) 20:14, 25 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Anastasia is the subject of an entire article in a secondary source, Garland's. That represents a qualitative difference on how the two are treated by this secondary source, Anastasia given specific coverage, Heraclius passing reference. Show us the secondary source that dedicates an article to Heraclius and we will have something to talk about. Again, the distinguishing feature for notability per WP:BIO is how they are treated by secondary sources, not as you suggest, how much we know about the subjects. My 'logic' is that we have a policy on biographical notability for a reason, your overblown red-herring claims of resulting imaginary carnage notwithstanding. The notability of an individual is not in any way affected by the notability (or lack thereof) of any of the thousands of other ancient history individuals who have (or don't have) Wikipedia articles, and nothing is to be gained by you going through them all here, one at a time, as if finding a page on someone even less notable somehow justifies the retention of Heraclius' page in the face of explicit policy to the contrary. (Oh, and as for acronyms, you might want to refresh your memory on what the 'L' in BLP stands for.) Agricolae (talk) 22:00, 25 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Non-sequitur. It is also common that emperor's children have sources about them and what they did; that does not appear to be the case here. Reywas92Talk 21:32, 24 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • This has absolutely nothing to do with the authoritative nature of the sources - accuracy is not the issue. WP:BASIC: "trivial coverage of a subject by secondary sources" doesn't cut it, and that is all Gibbon gives him in that single sentence in which he is named; "Primary sources . . . do not contribute toward proving the notability of a subject," so mention in the Liber is of no weight whatsoever. It is simply not tenible to suggest that the passing mention of a single anecdote in all of the cited sources combined provides the "significant coverage" indicated by WP:BIO as the basis for notability. Agricolae (talk) 23:07, 24 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • First, the Liber Pontificalis is being cited by Lynda Garland of the University of New England in New South Wales. That's a WP:SECONDARY; therefore, the argument that "mention in the Liber is of no weight whatsoever" is untenable. Second, Gibbon is, as you admit, also a secondary source, meeting and far exceeding any and all criteria listed on WP:AEIS; therefore, any claims against it are, again, invalid. Third, clearly the Garland cit. is more than "a passing mention," as her citation clearly arises from her raising an inventory of all bibliography available to her. Who does "passing mentions" that require reviewing all avail. lit? XavierItzm (talk) 23:46, 24 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • If Garland is citing the Liber, Garland is the secondary source, and as such the Liber, as a primary source, does not contribute to notability as per WP:BIO, no matter how authoritative you argue it is. And as to Garland, the only thing she adds to the anecdote is a statement that we know absolutely nothing other than the anecdote in the Liber, which is not "significant coverage" by any stretch of the imagination. And yes, Gibbon is a secondary source, but he only makes passing mention of this anecdote. That is not "significant coverage", that is "trivial coverage of a subject by [a] secondary source[.]" Being mentioned in an authoritative secondary source is sufficient for verifiability, but that is not the same as notability, for which there are more stringent criteria. The question is not your "Who does passing mentions?", but "who has done anything but passing mention?", certainly not any of the cited sources and given Garland's explicit statement that there is nothing else to say, . . . . Agricolae (talk) 00:13, 25 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Heraclius is listed in almost every major historical book on that era, from Gibbons onwards (I could list 20 such references). In the future, historians/readers will want to understand specifically what we know, and what we don't know about Heraclius. Deletion or Redirect of such a figure on WP makes no sense. There is no PROMO/COI here to be addressed.
His father's WP article is already modest, and therefore any Merge with Constantine IV will probably see future editors remove the little detail we have on Heraclius as unnecessary given the modest size of his father's article (and potentially with justification). I think it is a perverse application of the GNG rules to do this. We should be able to record what little we know about this – at one time exceptionally notable character –– properly and not bury it inside another article where it will get edited away. Britishfinance (talk) 14:31, 27 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Heraclius was never the third most important person in the western world. He would not have had plenty of RSs were they not. He was not an exceptionally notable character. This is all anachronistic thinking. Everything we know about him amounts to a single sentence: that his father sent locks of his and his brother's hair to the Pope. That one sentence could be put on Constantine's page right now (indeed, it just has), without merging. If that one sentence can't survive on Constantine's page, it certainly shouldn't survive as the basis for a stand-alone page, no matter how much it is bloated with 'context' in the fashion of a pseudobiography. Agricolae (talk) 16:42, 27 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • But your entry doesn't note that JM Hussey lists him as being born in 670? It doesn't note that Dale de Lee Benjamin records him as surviving his father. It doesn't note that his father did not make Heraclius Agusti unlike what Constans II did for him. It doesn't note that the lock of hair was a sign of the Pope Benedict II adopting Heraclius. Or that is Greek name was Herakleios.
Even Google have a "Knowledge Graph" entry for Heraclius, son of Constantine IV, with his biographical details listed. /g/11hd1s3c8x but WP feels that he is not worthy of coverage (outside of one line buried in his father's bio). Our readers will have to rely on en.everybodywiki.com That is how absurd this is? Britishfinance (talk) 11:18, 28 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
He existed, he was a younger son, and he got his haircut. All the rest is fluff, speculation and pseudobiographical backfill. That you are now resorting to citing Google searches, Wikipedia mirrors and (on his page) geni.com is exactly how absurd this is. Agricolae (talk) 14:07, 28 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • According to RS, he was adopted by the Pope, he was born c 670 (plus more as noted above). Your response above shows that you have a strong POV here (as do I); yours is a subset of the facts; and you POV the RS of other historians as "fluff, speculation and pseudobiographical backfill".
But readers are not coming here to read your (or my) view of Heracilus, they are coming to find the RS from known historians on Heraclius – and it is clearly more than one line. Sadly, they will have to rely on en.everybodywiki.com or Google KG to find it. Britishfinance (talk) 14:31, 28 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
There is no RS that says he was adopted by the Pope. There are RSs that say the sending of a child's hair, such as happened for him and his brother, can be (not must be) indicative of a symbolic adoption, something that says more about the father than the child even were it true. Where do the birthdates come from? - he was a younger son and we know how old his brother was. From that, and that alone, come Garland's more-than-a-decade range and Hussey's approximation, but the fact is that he was younger brother to Justinian. As to him surviving his father, that directly contradicts Garland's statement that we don't have that information. That he wasn't named co-Emperor is what he wasn't, not what he was, and it wasn't Heraclius who made the choice, so this this may tell us something about his father's ruling philosophy, but not him. All of this, the contradictions, the discussion of different authors' guesses, the elaborate accounting of what he wasn't, are not indicative of the need for an independent article. They are the result of having a single historical datum, that Constantine sent locks of his two sons' hair to the Pope, and trying to spin the various RS's passing reference to this event and its otherwise completely unknown, historically-irrelevant younger son of Constantine into a full Wikipedia biography - this is part of the reason why Wikipedia has notability guidelines, because non-notable people don't have enough known about them to be able to avoid writing what is nothing more than a pseudobiographical Wikipedia entry about them.
All these words spilled here, about dire consequences and the hoards of readers desperate for information about Heraclius that will have to resort to Google searches and Wikipedia mirrors, and yet it is really as simple as this: no reliable source has given this obscure individual any more than scant passing reference, and as such he does not meet any of the relevant policies or guidelines for notability. Agricolae (talk) 16:40, 28 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Again, this is not about my (or your views) on the subject. It is to capture and chronicle what historians do say about Heraclius. Even in the specific issue of the Pope adopting Heraclius, I can produce over 10 works that discuss the affair (and Heraclius). Your POV comments show that you have decided an outcome, but the more you assert your POV, the more RS that is produced to show that it is a POV. All I am doing is adding RS to this article on aspects of Heraclius life, and they keep building up.
Sadly, given Heraclius had been compared to Eric Trump (again, notwithstanding the irony I raised earlier re Prince Andrew, that ET has a huge WP article, but in 1,000 years time ET will be forgotten where as Heraclius will be chronicled), perhaps my efforts are to nothing. Britishfinance (talk) 19:35, 28 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
And as you bloat the article with passing references that represent nothing but alternative spins on the same one datum we know about him (and only one of which sources dedicates an actual sentence to him, that being Garland stating that we don't known anything else about him), it only demonstrates exactly how utterly obscure this infant is. This is clearly not a notable person. In spite of your groundless and endless insistence that the well-established criteria for notability should be blatantly ignored (and repeated referral to irrelevant modern people), he does not merit a page. WP:BIO applies, even to ancient royal infants, and this royal infant has never received the required significant coverage, anywhere. Agricolae (talk) 21:20, 28 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • No. I am adding RS on facts we do know. Repeating Garland, Garland, Garland (an RS I added), is not going to change the fact that we know more than one sentance. I am trying to do some actual work on this article and adding actual RS content. I am not the soure of the "bloating", "groundless", "instance".
Britishfinance (talk) 02:24, 1 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
You seem to by trying to incorporate as it it were a different piece of information every passing reference, every implication that a different author has drawn from the single datum that we know about this obscure person. Agricolae (talk) 14:12, 2 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
:Above it was said that «Heraclius was never the third most important person in the western world». Oh my. How many wars, how many coups, how many died in the times of kings because of succession issues, whether real, made-up or even just gossiped about? There is simply no question that the son of any Byzantine emperor was one of the most important people in the planet, merely by breathing. The Empire of the Romans was the most important polity of Heraclius' age, stretching from the Black Sea shores of the Caucasus, across the Mediterranean, to the Balearics and Septem (Ceuta) in the west. The Empire at this time kept the Arabs confined to the East and South, the Slavs to the North and East, and the Franks, Lombards and Visigoths in their homelands. The position that Heraclius is not one of the most critical persons in the planet at the time is simply untenable. XavierItzm (talk) 00:36, 2 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
The fact that an important person has 'an heir and a spare' does not automatically make the spare 'one of the most important people on the planet' and place at his feat responsibility for the stable succession of an empire, particularly when a place like Constantinople did not have a tradition of stable succession. It is anachronistic to assume modern rules of succession even applied, and to therefore conclude that that makes this infant important. We know precisely one thing about his life - he had hair a hair cut. Yes, we have a few articles on similar individuals, but only because historians have waxed extensively about how history would have been different if only . . . , but no historian has given this individual more than passing mention. Agricolae (talk) 14:12, 2 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • He was the second eldest prince to the most powerful man in the western world, and adopted by the most powerful religious leader in the western world; and his older brother became the most powerful man etc. I could paste 30 references from works of RS historians on the period which all list Heracilus (I have already added several, and several have their own WP page). In another 1,500 years time, a very material % of WP BLPs will have been deleted because their subjects, despite meeting our WP:GNG, had no long-term notability. Heraclius will still be getting chronicled. I say we keep and preserve whatever pieces – which is more than one line – that we have on him. It seems totally absurd to do otherwise?
What is strange about this discussion is that none of the Deletes/Redirects want to discuss any of the additional material (ahem, hard work), added and sourced from major historians (with their own WP pages). Usually in an AfD, when somebody adds high-quality RS to the article is warrants discussion. In this AfD, it is ignored, and the POV is just amplified that there is "just one line", when the facts patently now show that our knowledge of Heraclius is more (which is I guess why amplifying the POV-argument is the only option). Britishfinance (talk) 10:29, 2 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Someone who appears in 30 lists is still only receiving passing reference. Do any of these authors give him a full paragraph? Is there even a full sentence where he is the sole subject (except for Garland saying we don't know anything about him other than the haircut)? Agricolae (talk) 14:12, 2 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I will discuss the additional material: None of it is "significant coverage" per the GNG, they are brief mentions on his existence and relationship but nothing actually about him. None of the additional material is content that is not already at or cannot be added to Constantine IV. The notability or reliability of the sources does not translate to the notability of the subject or the necessity that it be in a separate article. Reywas92Talk 02:28, 3 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • The point would be that the person is not independently notable, so the article is contrary to policy. We do not know when he was born. He was not emperor, but then neither was I. He is known from one episode. No information need be deleted. It can all easily be covered with less fluff in his father's article, where anybody can see it. Srnec (talk) 15:06, 1 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Not true. One of the most regarded Byzantine historians, Joan M. Hussey, puts it at 670. Neither Prince Andrew nor Prince Harry will ever be king (or at least have less of a chance then Heraclius) and have WP articles. This article quotes major historians which give other facts on him. This is the same POV-argument made above but it has been shown not to be true. Britishfinance (talk) 15:44, 1 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
And why does Hussey say he was born then? Because he was younger than his brother, who was born about 668, so yeah, let's put Heraclius at 670. That's it. There is nothing more behind this. It is just another passing reference based on the same single actual fact, that he was the younger of two sons whose hair was sent to the Pope. Andrew was not relevant when you first mentioned him and continues to be irrelevant, as is Harry. Notability by analogy is not a valid concept. Agricolae (talk) 19:07, 2 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • No you can't. As shown above, historians – who are notable enough to have their own WP article – have more to say about Heraclius than one line. It is surreal that in an infinite project like WP, in a case with zero PROMO/COI, that a POV-argument is being pushed to remove RS content about a 1,500 year old prince (2nd in line) of the most powerful person in the western world at that time? Never mind the tens of thousands of WP BLPs on figures that will be deleted within a 100 years; in another 1,500 thousand years, this charachter will still be chronicled. However, under this AfD, and the POV views above, you will have to go to Everybodywiki: Heraclius (son of Constantine IV) to find more. Britishfinance (talk) 10:23, 2 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
He was not necessarily 'second in line'. It is anachronistic to apply to Byzantium the strict rules of succession that are applied to modern monarchies. (Under this AfD, a non-notable person will only be mentioned on his father's page. Oh, the humanity!) Agricolae (talk) 14:12, 2 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • But when you made a similar blanket comment above about about him not being adopted by the Pope, which was shown to be false (with major references who had written paragraphs on the affair), you went silent?
I suspect you would like me to go silent, but that he was adopted is still implication rather than fact, again derived from our sole datum, that his father sent the Pope his hair. Agricolae (talk) 19:16, 2 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Why not contribute to the article rather than POV-posting in AfD - but that would add even more content to the article, which would defeat your POV (in a way, your POV it caught in a trap). However, I share your sentiments on the humanity. Britishfinance (talk) 15:19, 2 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
There is nothing to add. The article is already fluff. We do not know when he was born: "was born between 667 to 685" means after his older brother and before his dad died. That he was never emperor or co-emperor is, I suppose, a fact about him. Maybe we should also mention that he was not a pineapple while we're at it? The sentence In contrast, the brothers of his father, Heraclius and Tiberius, had been crowned Augusti with Constantine IV during the reign of their father Constans II, but in 681 Constantine IV had them mutilated so they would be ineligible to rule. tell us nothing about Heraclius. The same goes for in contrast, his brother Justinian II's death is known as 711, while his mother Anastasia outlived all her family and died sometime after 711. We are reduced to one episode in one source, as everybody has been saying. If it were a lengthy episode, perhaps an article on that would be useful so as not bog down Constantine IV's article. But it isn't. Srnec (talk) 17:43, 2 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • No, Joan M. Hussey says he was born in 670 (as referenced in the article). Arguments like him not being a pineapple (which you haven't even referenced; unlike everything that has been added to this article during this AfD) show that you are not interested in a good faith discussion here, but have a POV-view. You forget to mention that he was adopted by the Pope, and you forget to mention that his not being made Agusti was in contrast to his father's treatment of his brothers. You only demonstrate you are here to push an agenda regardless of the well referenced fact-base, or of the value of this fact base is to our readers. If I need a POV-encloypedia according to Srnec, I know where to go. Britishfinance (talk) 02:00, 3 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
And both of these so-called facts about him, his approximate birthdate and his supposed adoption, are just implications drawn from the only actual fact, that his father sent the hair of two sons to the Pope, and he is the second-named. Both the tonsorial gift and the failure to crown the boys, as decisions made by their father, tell us much more about Constantine than they do about the two kids who likely played no conscious role in either the act or the non-act of their father. Agricolae (talk) 02:28, 3 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Jovanmilic97 (talk) 21:09, 2 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Tymon.r Do you have any questions? 22:59, 9 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. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 04:19, 17 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Conspiracy Series with Shane Dawson[edit]

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

Articles about this series have already been deleted three times:

I closed two of those, so I'm sort of WP:INVOLVED, and it's questionable whether this version is sufficiently identical for WP:G4. So, bringing it here for a wider look, and more authoritative decision. -- RoySmith (talk) 00:13, 23 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. ___CAPTAIN MEDUSAtalk 12:54, 23 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 13:29, 23 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 07:06, 2 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Tymon.r Do you have any questions? 22:56, 9 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. Overall consensus is for deletion. North America1000 02:54, 17 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

John Pylka[edit]

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

His article survived PROD in 2010 but the sources are not reliable, notability is not demonstrated and the subject of the article is not significant. Mccapra (talk) 22:48, 9 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Washington, D.C.-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 02:36, 10 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. -- Patar knight - chat/contributions 23:31, 16 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Joe Lanham[edit]

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

This is an article on a radio personality. There's no claim of notability anywhere in the article - see WP:MILL. It is completely unsourced since its creation in 2008 and I couldn't find any reliable sources to cover this biography of a living person. RetiredDuke (talk) 22:35, 9 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Ohio-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 02:37, 10 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Radio-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 02:37, 10 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. North America1000 03:05, 17 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Giampaolo Pasquile[edit]

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

Fails WP:NBIO. Reliable coverage not found. GeoffreyT2000 (talk) 22:09, 2 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 22:25, 2 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Italy-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 22:25, 2 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 22:26, 2 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Jovanmilic97 (talk) 22:34, 9 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 no consensus. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 04:18, 17 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Frederick Greenwood (magistrate)[edit]

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

I had speedied this earlier and it's back. There is no content in the article that indicates that this individual is notable -- the article indicates he held a position as magistrate, and lists various genealogical connections. Fails WP:JUDGE. References appear to be lists and other passing mentions. UninvitedCompany 22:32, 9 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 02:40, 10 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 04:40, 10 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Law-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 04:40, 10 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. -- Patar knight - chat/contributions 23:32, 16 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

OTG exp[edit]

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

This midsize operator of airport concessions does not appear to be notable and the article tone suggests that it may be paid placement. References are passing mentions. The article is not neutral in tone and is a borderline speedy. UninvitedCompany 22:25, 9 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 02:41, 10 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Food and drink-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 02:41, 10 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 02:41, 10 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
..assuming verifiable sources exist. scope_creepTalk 22:15, 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. North America1000 02:57, 17 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Paul Lamb (author)[edit]

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

An extremely promotional page on a non-notable individual (in the encyclopedic sense). Subject does not meet any of the criteria of WP:NAUTHOR. Sourcing is very weak and I couldn't find any better; the only RS here is the one from the Hamilton Spectator. Article also has an interesting story of declined drafts and SPAs. RetiredDuke (talk) 22:03, 9 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. ~SS49~ {talk} 22:30, 9 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. ~SS49~ {talk} 22:30, 9 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. -- Patar knight - chat/contributions 23:32, 16 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Stephen Gormley[edit]

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

A glass maker I'm trying to find notability for. He is apparently popular in Asia, as well as his own website. But not quite what it makes to be on here. (Surprise it wasn't tagged in 2013 when it went up, this isn't like one of those older articles, we were getting pretty strict before then) Wgolf (talk) 21:31, 9 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Artists-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 02:43, 10 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 04:31, 10 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. -- RoySmith (talk) 02:01, 17 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

StudyPoint[edit]

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

Possibly non-notable business, was AfD'd once before with a close of delete. I'm finding mentions but not significant coverage. Possible COI creation. valereee (talk) 19:16, 2 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Valereee: Deleted in 2009 after AfD, but restored with full page history in 2011, see [3]. Bakazaka (talk) 20:00, 2 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Bakazaka, ah! Thanks! valereee (talk) 20:12, 2 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Massachusetts-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 19:35, 2 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 19:36, 2 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 19:36, 2 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Tymon.r Do you have any questions? 21:01, 9 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. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 04:17, 17 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

G. Kent Ketcher[edit]

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

Fails WP:NPOL and WP:GNG. Small town mayor who's only references are either obits or reports of his dying in office by local news sources. GPL93 (talk) 20:45, 9 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 20:48, 9 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Oklahoma-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 20:48, 9 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Missouri-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 20:49, 9 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. -- Patar knight - chat/contributions 23:32, 16 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Michael R Hart[edit]

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

Subject is the mayor of Commerce, OK (Population: 2,473). His position fails WP:NPOL and he doesn't appear to pass WP:GNG either. GPL93 (talk) 20:11, 9 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. Kbabej (talk) 20:24, 9 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Oklahoma-related deletion discussions. Kbabej (talk) 20:25, 9 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. Kbabej (talk) 20:28, 9 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 no consensus. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 04:17, 17 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Tom Brandt[edit]

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

28-year-old footballer played 21 games across two seasons in 2012 and 2013 for a 3rd-tier minor league team (SW). While that's a technical NFOOTY pass, there is no SIGCOV to support GNG. The most significant coverage is this ROUTINE article about his professional debut. It was published in a local newspaper that prints 3x per week, The Patriot-News (now PennLive). Their website doesn't provide editorial information (no masthead), and the owner, PA Media Group, describes itself as a "marketing agency". The remaining coverage is non-independent and not very significant. This bio is put out by the player's university announcing his joining the university's team. This ROUTINE coverage of Brandt being drafted is published by the league, MLS Soccer, and written by a freelance journalist whose beat is to cover this particular team franchise. This blog post about the player's home field debut was written by the same journalist on his personal blog, published on the website of the university's alumni magazine (The Penn Gazette). The only coverage has been from his local newspaper, his own team, and his own university. While NFOOTY is met, GNG is not, and this article should be deleted. Leviv ich 17:04, 9 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Leviv ich 17:05, 9 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. Leviv ich 17:05, 9 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Leviv ich 17:05, 9 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Pennsylvania-related deletion discussions. Leviv ich 17:05, 9 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Leviv ich 17:06, 9 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • There are many other articles discussing him as a footballer as well in a simple Google search. Those are not the only four sources. As I've said, I believe PennLive does meet our standards for RS. SportingFlyer T·C 07:25, 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. -- Patar knight - chat/contributions 23:32, 16 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Cosmic Nitro[edit]

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

Fails WP:GNG for lack of significant coverage in reliable sources. Nothing significant to find in my searches besides the 148Apps (that is situational per WP:VG/RS) review that is already in the article. There are 2 sentences about it on Macworld, but is not WP:SIGCOV. Jovanmilic97 (talk) 15:47, 9 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Video games-related deletion discussions. MT TrainTalk 18:18, 9 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. -- Patar knight - chat/contributions 23:33, 16 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Country Life (video game)[edit]

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

Fails WP:GNG for lack of significant coverage in reliable sources. Nothing to find in my searches except for blogs. Jovanmilic97 (talk) 15:11, 9 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Video games-related deletion discussions. MT TrainTalk 18:20, 9 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. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 04:15, 17 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Theodore "Ted" Jones[edit]

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

Louisiana lobbyist who fails WP:NPOL and WP:GNG. Sources used in this article are: 1 & 7) his voter registration records; 2) a search on usa-people-search.com; 3) his bio in the Louisiana Political Hall of Fame, which has a lower threshold of notability than Wikipedia; 4 & 8) original research by the article's since-banned author, which only states that he couldn't actually find the information he was looking for; 5) the website for a consulting firm that his son used to work for; 6) Permanent dead link about the inductees from his year to the LA hall of fame in a local newspaper; 9) an article regarding a minor political scandal that he was partly involved in; 10) a dead link to a wealth management firm. None of these sources are enough to establish notability. GPL93 (talk) 14:38, 9 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. GPL93 (talk) 17:23, 9 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Louisiana-related deletion discussions. GPL93 (talk) 17:23, 9 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. ~ Amory (u • t • c) 18:39, 16 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

International Emerging Talent Film Festival[edit]

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

PROD-ed by Mccapra with the rationale Based on the IEFTA website this festival only ran once in 2007 and if therefore not notable. and de-PROD-ed by MarkZusab with the rationale WP:NOTTEMPORARY, subject may be notable. I've searched Google, Scholar, Newspapers.com and there's no secondary coverage, just mirrors of this article and self-published sources. Therefore I think it fails WP:NEVENT. SITH (talk) 14:17, 9 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. MT TrainTalk 18:21, 9 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. MT TrainTalk 18:21, 9 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. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 04:14, 17 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Tension & Trauma Releasing Exercises[edit]

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

This page has been tagged for three years as an orphan. It seems to be a promotional piece for a fringe therapy, and I've been unable to find any significant coverage ~dom Kaos~ (talk) 09:35, 2 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. Icewhiz (talk) 09:41, 2 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ~SS49~ {talk} 14:13, 9 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. TonyBallioni (talk) 18:22, 9 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Tyler Morris[edit]

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

Does not seem to quite meet WP:MUSICBIO. Long history of promotional edits from single-purpose accounts Tyler5150ful and BobKelley. Eman235/talk 03:34, 23 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Sheldybett (talk) 04:56, 23 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Sheldybett (talk) 04:56, 23 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Massachusetts-related deletion discussions. Sheldybett (talk) 04:56, 23 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 07:07, 2 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ~SS49~ {talk} 14:12, 9 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. -- RoySmith (talk) 01:58, 17 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hierarchical software models[edit]

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

I prodded this as a "one sentence stub definition", which was declined because length is not a reason for deletion. A WP:BEFORE shows little-to-no usage as a term, which fails both WP:GNG and WP:NOT#DICT. DannyS712 (talk) 00:49, 2 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. J947 (c), at 00:58, 2 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, Wikipedia is not a dictionary, and subject does not appear to be notable. Jeb3Talk at me here 20:34, 5 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ~SS49~ {talk} 14:12, 9 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete the use of the phrase in the literature is inconsistent. It is used in other contexts than just quality attributes. I don't see enough reliable sources referencing the title to justify notability. --mikeu talk 23:38, 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 keep. Consensus is for the article to be retained. North America1000 06:20, 16 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hubert Invents the Wheel[edit]

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

I’m not sure whether the sources cited count as ‘non-trivial published works’ and therefore not sure if this passes WP:NBOOK. Mccapra (talk) 12:24, 2 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. Sheldybett (talk) 12:30, 2 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Poetry-related deletion discussions. Sheldybett (talk) 12:30, 2 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 13:39, 9 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 no consensus. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 04:14, 17 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Justin Tellus[edit]

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

Footballer who has never played in a fully-professional league, failing WP:NFOOTY. Prod removed twice by article creator on the incorrect claim that the league is fully-professional. Number 57 22:20, 2 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Malta-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 22:27, 2 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 22:31, 2 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 22:32, 2 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 22:32, 2 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions.CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 22:33, 2 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 13:15, 9 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 no consensus. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 04:10, 17 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Clifton House Preparatory School[edit]

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

This is a private primary/elementary school and such schools need at least a distinctive feature or good coverage in RS to have any prospect to be considered notable. This school has no such feature or coverage and fails WP:ORG. Delete. Just Chilling (talk) 22:32, 2 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 22:38, 2 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 22:38, 2 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 22:38, 2 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
For information:-"CLIFTON HOUSE SCHOOL". www.aeden.plus.com. Retrieved 3 March 2019.: is one reference but not RS. ClemRutter (talk) 12:43, 3 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - I would normally agree. However, it is not mentioned there and a redirect to an article where it is not mentioned is bad practice since it would simply be annoying to the reader. That section lists notable secondary schools so adding it there would be inappropriate. Just Chilling (talk) 21:05, 7 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    • I agree with you in that case we shouldn't generally redirect to a page where the topic isn't covered. Unless we normally cover preparatory schools in sections large towns then it should be deleted. We obviously do this for villages but this is more difficult for large towns since its more likely to overload the article. I still think mentioning it in the education section may be viable though. Crouch, Swale (talk) 21:20, 7 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 13:01, 9 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment The list of schools articles are just that, simply a list, all of the English ones were reduced to this previously (see for example). Personally I think that the lists should be more informative and at least give basic details for each entry as most of them would be classed as non-notable. You can then have a redirect to the list or an article for each entry. Keith D (talk) 15:07, 10 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 no consensus. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 04:09, 17 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Carlton World[edit]

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

This channel, similarly to Carlton Kids, has NOT been tagged with sources for over 10+ years. Just like Carlton Kids, I do not believe this channel is notable enough to have its own page. HurricaneGeek2002 (talk) 22:35, 2 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 22:37, 2 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 22:37, 2 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 12:55, 9 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 redirect Unclear why nominator created a stub from a redirect and then AFDed it instead of just re-redirecting it when realizing it already existed. Reywas92Talk 21:29, 9 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Río de la Mina (Rio Grande, Puerto Rico)[edit]

Río de la Mina (Rio Grande, Puerto Rico) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Is a duplicate of Río de la Mina (Río Grande, Puerto Rico) <-- and this one created a little later is in better shape. Thanks. the eloquent peasant (talk) 11:05, 9 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

And besides the one I marked for deletion article title is missing the diacritical mark on the "Río" of "Río Grande, Puerto Rico" so should be deleted. Again, it's a duplicate of a more correct article.--the eloquent peasant (talk) 11:40, 9 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Oh. Sorry about that. --the eloquent peasant (talk) 14:44, 9 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) DannyS712 (talk) 19:36, 16 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

List of beauty queen-politicians[edit]

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

A work of synthesis. People do change their career, but where are the sources discussing any significance in this particular career change? : Bhunacat10 (talk), 09:49, 9 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. : Bhunacat10 (talk), 09:49, 9 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists of people-related deletion discussions. : Bhunacat10 (talk), 09:49, 9 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Beauty pageants-related deletion discussions. : Bhunacat10 (talk), 09:49, 9 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 no consensus. WP:NPASR. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 04:09, 17 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

InCab University[edit]

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

Managed to get through AfD back in 2006 but the only surviving sources I’ve found date from 2006 and just seem to be launch publicity. Doesn’t seem to have lasted long and I can’t find which authority accredited them. I don’t think it’s notable. Mccapra (talk) 22:47, 23 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. ~Ruyaba~ {talk} 23:46, 23 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. ~Ruyaba~ {talk} 23:46, 23 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. ~Ruyaba~ {talk} 23:46, 23 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. ~Ruyaba~ {talk} 23:46, 23 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. ~Ruyaba~ {talk} 23:46, 23 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. ~Ruyaba~ {talk} 23:46, 23 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ~SS49~ {talk} 00:24, 2 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Tennessee-related deletion discussions. J947 (c), at 01:00, 2 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 09:29, 9 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. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 04:08, 17 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Abdulaziz Al Kuwari[edit]

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

Struggling to find any independent in-depth coverage in reliable sources - lack of WP:SIGCOV. Fails WP:BIO and WP:NACADEMIC. Run-of-the-mill businessman. Promotional article, created by a possible WP:SPA. Edwardx (talk) 22:41, 23 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. ~Ruyaba~ {talk} 23:49, 23 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Qatar-related deletion discussions. ~Ruyaba~ {talk} 23:49, 23 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Constructive input on how to improve the article is appreciated --MGhazi (talk) 05:05, 24 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ~SS49~ {talk} 00:24, 2 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. J947 (c), at 01:03, 2 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 09:29, 9 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. North America1000 03:02, 17 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Imobilien[edit]

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

Declined for PROD in 2009 but still lacking proper refs. Website dead. Nothing in the article supports notability. Mccapra (talk) 22:27, 23 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Brazil-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 22:34, 23 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 22:34, 23 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ~SS49~ {talk} 00:23, 2 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 09:27, 9 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 no consensus. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 04:07, 17 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Shinobu Akiyama[edit]

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

I hesitate to nominate these scientist stubs, because I like having them in the encyclopedia (certainly more than many other things); but I don't think this researcher meets either WP:GNG or WP:NACADEMIC. She is a productive botanist with some species descriptions to her name, but unfortunately that's not equal to prestigious honours, substantial impact on the field, or widespread personal coverage, which is what we require. --Elmidae (talk · contribs) 16:47, 23 February 2019 (UTC) Elmidae (talk · contribs) 16:47, 23 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 19:09, 23 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 19:10, 23 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Japan-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 19:10, 23 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. —David Eppstein (talk) 19:19, 23 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Based on the references given, I'd say borderline; although ref #2 appears to be the kind of source that, when present in multiples, does suffice for establishing coverage requirements. --Elmidae (talk · contribs) 15:25, 25 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
So, Shinobu Akiyama has to wait for her obituary to become notable? Because Albert Callay was no more notable after his obituary than he was before. Abductive (reasoning) 05:23, 26 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Yes to the first, in the worst case; no to the second. If the obituary is the occasion on which someone deems the person a fit subject for in-depth treatment, then that's what it would take to document notability. In effect, the person only becomes notable by our criteria once someone writes about them in this manner - whatever level of hero/genius/saint they are in reality. Remember that part about us merely summarizing what the rest of the world has decided is worthy of coverage (i.e., our definition of "notability")? - Note that I'm not demanding that Shinobu Akiyama will have to die before there can be an article, just that based on what is present in sourcing and what I can find, there is insufficient coverage to meet the notability threshold at the moment. --Elmidae (talk · contribs) 15:13, 26 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ~SS49~ {talk} 00:18, 2 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Fair enough, and that may be a useful criterion. It would be highly useful to codify it somewhere though; if there's no established consensus behind it, I don't see how it could (or should) trump notability guidelines, as a general practice. And it will keep coming up at page review (there's quite an influx of these currently). Let's get a discussion going once this is done? --Elmidae (talk · contribs) 18:24, 3 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 09:24, 9 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. Closing as soft delete per low participation in the discussion. North America1000 03:10, 17 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Calamity Adventure 2: People and Traditions[edit]

Calamity Adventure 2: People and Traditions (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Non-notable video game, no third party sources, never got a real release. Wizardman 16:17, 23 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Video games-related deletion discussions. Bakazaka (talk) 18:50, 23 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. Bakazaka (talk) 18:50, 23 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ~SS49~ {talk} 00:17, 2 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 09:15, 9 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 no consensus. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 04:06, 17 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Nancy Moran[edit]

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

Fails the notability guideline for musicians and bands and the general notability guideline due to a lack of significant coverage in independent, reliable sources. De-PROD-ed by Michig along with several others. I was going to bundle these as nearly all of them cite no reliable sources that suggest they pass WP:BAND aside from database-style entries in AllMusic or affiliated sources and were created by the same user, however I am mindful of avoiding a trainwreck so I am nominating each of them individually. SITH (talk) 10:53, 23 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. SITH (talk) 11:16, 23 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Pennsylvania-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 12:39, 23 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Tennessee-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 12:40, 23 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 13:01, 23 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, verifiable by some editors, even if not by all. We can't know whether WP:MUSICBIO#C1 is or is not passed without knowing what reviews exist, for example. Quotes in other sources indicate that Moran was reviewed in the magazine Dirty Linen, but as that's not online, it's probably not possible to confirm that, unless someone has access to the back copies. Finding evidence requires digging, which takes time. RebeccaGreen (talk) 15:56, 23 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ~SS49~ {talk} 00:15, 2 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 09:14, 9 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. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 04:05, 17 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Jim Henry (musician)[edit]

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

Fails the notability guideline for musicians and bands and the general notability guideline due to a lack of significant coverage in independent, reliable sources. De-PROD-ed by Michig along with several others. I was going to bundle these as nearly all of them cite no reliable sources that suggest they pass WP:BAND aside from database-style entries in AllMusic or affiliated sources and were created by the same user, however I am mindful of avoiding a trainwreck so I am nominating each of them individually. SITH (talk) 10:51, 23 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. SITH (talk) 11:18, 23 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ~SS49~ {talk} 00:14, 2 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 09:14, 9 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. Xymmax So let it be written So let it be done 19:27, 16 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Mark of Cain (novel)[edit]

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

Declined PROD, courtesy ping MarkZusab. Fails WP:NBOOK due to lack of major reviews, awards or other significant coverage in independent, reliable sources. SITH (talk) 13:53, 1 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 14:22, 1 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Israel-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 14:22, 1 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 08:36, 9 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 G5 deleted and salted by admins Bbb23 and Lectonar. (non-admin closure) Alpha3031 (t • c) 07:10, 16 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Dharmendra Kumar[edit]

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

I do not see why this person is notable. The only claim seems to be 100000 yourube subscribers. Might qualify as a speedy, but a history shows that similar concerns have been raised before, therefore an AfD seems a better venue to deal with the article. Ymblanter (talk) 08:26, 9 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. GSS (talk|c|em) 13:54, 9 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 Tékumel. Xymmax So let it be written So let it be done 19:24, 16 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The Journal of Tékumel Affairs[edit]

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

Lacks all notability. User:BOZ, please stop creating articles based only on "capsule reviews" in Space Gamer, the subjects of these reviews often are of extremely limited notability and finding better sources seems to be next to impossible. Fram (talk) 14:50, 1 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of News media-related deletion discussions. Bakazaka (talk) 19:09, 1 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Games-related deletion discussions. Bakazaka (talk) 19:09, 1 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ansh666 07:44, 9 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 19:14, 16 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

MXW Pro Wrestling[edit]

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

Appears to not meet WP: CORP or WP: GNG. Promotion was only active six years and did not do anything significant. Not much coverage in reliable sources. StaticVapor message me! 08:02, 23 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Sheldybett (talk) 10:37, 23 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. Sheldybett (talk) 10:37, 23 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Wrestling-related deletion discussions. Sheldybett (talk) 10:37, 23 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. Sheldybett (talk) 10:37, 23 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ~SS49~ {talk} 00:11, 2 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Coverage all appears WP:ROUTINE - Galatz גאליץשיחה Talk 15:44, 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) 07:31, 9 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. Michig (talk) 07:11, 16 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Krtin Nithiyanandam[edit]

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

This article is about a student at university who is not notable in any way. The number of students who have won awards at science fairs is very high, and just having won awards at school science fairs does not indicate a notable researcher making contributions to the field. The page is serving as a resume booster at the moment, and I propose its deletion. 128.12.255.132 (talk) 07:07, 9 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 02:58, 10 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 02:58, 10 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. I do not think the nominator acted in bad faith when they made this nomination. However, I think that the nomination is sufficiently flawed and that Shahidul Hasan Roman would not be the only editor to point out that the subject meets the notability criteria. —C.Fred (talk) 18:43, 9 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Nafisa Kamal[edit]

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

She is not even notable person to list in the Wikipedia!

This article is biased and created by admin some unauthorized site information in different language

Wikipedia:Notability (people) policy does not follow this article An admin created this article,please remove it! Mrittika.mehjabin (talk) 05:01, 9 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. Whilst the keep votes are technically correct that the player passes NFOOTY, the stronger arguments presented here are that the presumption of GNG that this provides is incorrect in this case. No sources indicating sufficient coverage to satisfy GNG have been presented. Given the player is now retired it seems unlikely this situation will change in the future. There is consensus through AfD that where players only barely pass NFOOTY and have retired that they need to clearly show GNG. This is not the case here. Fenix down (talk) 08:52, 16 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Jeremy Cheeseman[edit]

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

28-year-old footballer played 3 pro games in 2012–2013 for a total of 23 minutes (SW). No SIGCOV at all. The closest is this three paragraph local newspaper article about him doing a guest clinic for 8-year-olds, and the rest is game report, college game report, high school game report, high school game report, and this article about a different guy with the same name who robbed a bank, which is honestly the most interesting part of the BEFORE search. 3 games, 23 minutes is too weak of an NFOOTY pass, and this subject completely fails GNG. Leviv ich 04:47, 9 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Leviv ich 04:48, 9 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. Leviv ich 04:48, 9 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Leviv ich 04:48, 9 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of New Jersey-related deletion discussions. Leviv ich 04:48, 9 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. Leviv ich 04:48, 9 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Ohio-related deletion discussions. Leviv ich 04:48, 9 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Leviv ich 04:50, 9 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as nom. Leviv ich 04:51, 9 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment You can't cast a second delete vote, your AfD nomination is considered a delete vote. Govvy (talk) 09:04, 9 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment The USL gets a reasonable amount of coverage? It's certainly not solely in existence as a "farm league". He played in a league that meets the NFOOTY guidlines, so not sure the team's attendance at the time comes in to it. UncleTupelo1 (talk) 23:53, 9 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Does the USL get coverage? If so, produce in depth sources on this player (who did not play all that much). NFOOTY merely states which leagues are likely to meet GNG. This guy is borderline for NFOOTY (did not play that much, borderline league). If there were SIGCOV - producing 3-4 high quality, independent, reliable sources would be easy.Icewhiz (talk) 04:36, 10 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. North America1000 05:45, 16 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

International Product Development[edit]

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

Non-notable local organization. Most of the references are to the company's own website or do not discuss the company directly. I have not found any sources that satisfy WP:ORGDEPTH. Lord Bolingbroke (talk) 23:36, 22 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 12:34, 23 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Oregon-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 12:34, 23 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@Girth Summit: The salient point here is that these sources are reviews of specific products, not the company that makes them. I don't think that qualifies as significant coverage for the company. The article from Automobile could be used to add some info on IPD's 2006 SEMA concept. But other than that, it doesn't seem like these sources could be used to expand our article or verify its existing content. Lord Bolingbroke (talk) 23:49, 3 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
After looking into this a bit further, it appears that the section on the IPD's 2006 SEMA concept was copy-pasted from Volvo C30#2006 SEMA concepts (2006). The Automobile source is more relevant there than it is in this article. The same thing applies to the Autoweek and Road & Track sources you linked—those can be incorporated into our article on the Volvo S40. Again, these sources don't seem to satisfy WP:ORGDEPTH. Lord Bolingbroke (talk) 01:07, 4 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ~SS49~ {talk} 00:20, 1 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Tymon.r Do you have any questions? 02:19, 9 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. Michig (talk) 07:08, 16 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Shayne Workman[edit]

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

Self published a couple of Kindle books, uncredited roles in some minor TV stuff. Doesn't meet the GNG. Original malformed AFD submission by an IP. QuiteUnusual (talk) 09:35, 22 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Bakazaka (talk) 16:45, 22 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. Bakazaka (talk) 16:45, 22 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Theatre-related deletion discussions. Bakazaka (talk) 16:45, 22 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Ohio-related deletion discussions. Bakazaka (talk) 16:45, 22 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of West Virginia-related deletion discussions. Bakazaka (talk) 16:45, 22 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ~SS49~ {talk} 00:12, 1 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Tymon.r Do you have any questions? 02:19, 9 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. ansh666 07:55, 9 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Ansar Channel[edit]

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

Doesn't meet WP:N/WP:ORG. Juggler Juggler (talk) 07:06, 15 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Malaysia-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 07:25, 15 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of News media-related deletion discussions. CASSIOPEIA(talk) 07:25, 15 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. CASSIOPEIA(talk) 07:25, 15 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, DannyS712 (talk) 07:18, 22 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ~SS49~ {talk} 00:12, 1 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Tymon.r Do you have any questions? 02:19, 9 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. No one asserted that the subject met WP:NCORP, so the real issue was whether the GNG was met. While there were a number of sources produced, the analysis provided by the editors favoring deletion find them unsuitable was not rebutted. Xymmax So let it be written So let it be done 19:09, 16 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Sexuality Policy Watch[edit]

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

Fails WP:NCORP which states:-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........The depth of coverage of the subject by the source must be considered. Trivial or incidental coverage of a subject is not sufficient to establish notability. Deep or significant coverage provides an overview, description, commentary, survey, study, discussion, analysis, or evaluation of the product, company, or organization. ....

Let's analyse the current sourcing:-

(1, 3 and 5)--.A BBC news piece, an IPS one and another one from Guardian inwhere two-line bytes from people belonging to SPW have been featured. None devotes any minimal coverage to the subject of the article. ☒N

Ref 2 and 6--. Both are the About us page on their own website. ☒N

Ref 4--> Genderit.org shows page missing. ☒N


I performed a thorough search to the best of my abilities but did not locate any significant coverage that satisfied NCORP. ∯WBGconverse 12:53, 14 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. ~Ruyaba~ {talk} 13:01, 14 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. ~Ruyaba~ {talk} 13:01, 14 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sexuality and gender-related deletion discussions. ~Ruyaba~ {talk} 13:01, 14 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • I quite concur with your observations but wikipedian writers don't have any huge part in the battle to counter it. If I see at-least 2 sources of enough reliability that significantly covers the organization, I can understand but as things stand, we have nothing.
  • On a sidenote, AfDs don't discriminate between English and non English sources, so if you see a reliable source in some other language covering it significantly, by all means mention them.
  • As to working to correcting the bias, the best way is to do the groundwork so that these organizations do get mentioned across RD and we will reciprocate over here. ∯WBGconverse 09:58, 15 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Please note that claims of notability are insufficient to establish notability; claims that an organization meets NCORP need to be backed up by substantive coverage in independent, reliable sources.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Vanamonde (Talk) 05:32, 22 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ~SS49~ {talk} 00:10, 1 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Ritchie333, after all the bytes spent on this page, you can be assured that I know of exploiting a news-search. From when did notability boil down to having Ghits in News? Where do you see significant coverage? ∯WBGconverse 18:59, 8 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
The trouble is, some of the useful sources are in Portuguese. However, this one, showing the group's opinion about the press commenting on Marcela Temer, could also be used to expand the article. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 19:03, 8 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Please read the stuff that has been already discussed above. It's the same old story about Sonia Correa (who is damn notable) saying something or an interview of her or a profile or her and SPW is thrown in as a qualifier. FWIW; Sonia Correa, who coordinates the local website Sexuality Policy Watch, says XYZ does not mean SPW says XYZ. It's a typical habit of media units to describe the relevant activities of a person, in a phrase or so, when quoting them. Notability is not inherited.
I again ask for 2 sources of enough reliability that significantly covers the organization. ∯WBGconverse 19:10, 8 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Especially in view of yesterday's comments more consensus need to be established.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Tymon.r Do you have any questions? 02:19, 9 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for evaluating my two sources. I skimmed several others, but the Manderson book looked by far the best for conferring notability, and as you weren't impressed with that it seems pointless to submit the others. Hopefully someone else will find a better source. Per SPW's work in a good cause, it seems a shame for this article to be destroyed. FeydHuxtable (talk) 20:29, 10 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 Star Awards. There doesn't seem to be any sourced material to merge, but the suggestion would otherwise be appropriate. ansh666 07:57, 9 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Star Awards for Young Talent[edit]

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

Unsourced article on non-notable award - we have an article on the parent awards ceremony which barely establishes significance, the individual awards appear to have received next to no independent discussion and only two of the awardees in this list have articles. Guy (Help!) 12:16, 14 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. Bakazaka (talk) 14:32, 14 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. Bakazaka (talk) 14:32, 14 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Singapore-related deletion discussions. Bakazaka (talk) 14:32, 14 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ad Orientem (talk) 03:05, 22 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ~SS49~ {talk} 00:09, 1 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Tymon.r Do you have any questions? 02:18, 9 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 09:24, 16 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Kid Buu (rapper)[edit]

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

Prod that was removed, rapper with questionable notability. Wgolf (talk) 02:14, 9 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 00:22, 10 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Chile-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 00:22, 10 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Article is a one-sentence stub with only one source.TH1980 (talk) 03:33, 10 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Fails WP:NMUSICElekiq (talk) 17:17, 10 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. Michig (talk) 07:04, 16 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Turf War (Banksy)[edit]

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

The graffitist Banksy is notable and perhaps some of his shows are particularly notable. This article, along with Barely_Legal_(Banksy), The Village Pet Store and Charcoal Grill are articles for his shows. I am new here but from what I am reading, I can't see how there should be an article for each one of his art shows. Graywalls (talk) 02:11, 9 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 23:59, 9 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 23:59, 9 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 23:59, 9 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

*Redirect to Banksy. In fact, Redirect the other two mentioned by Nom to Banksy as well. there is just not enough material to warrant separate articles.E.M.Gregory (talk) 18:28, 11 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

:::That is a list of works that independently pass WP:GNG. The article under discussion here, and the two mentioned above are lightly sourced stubs.E.M.Gregory (talk) 18:42, 11 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

  • Actually, it is an excellent suggestion. The most constructive thing you can do in teh case of a page that you think should be kept is simply to source and improve the page.E.M.Gregory (talk) 19:29, 11 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Sure, in general the sentiment is helpful, but I just meant more insight into why Deb voted they way they did without specifically referring to secondary coverage would also be helpful. ---Another Believer (Talk) 19:34, 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 09:23, 16 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Adobe TrapWise[edit]

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

Fails WP:GNG and WP:NPRODUCT. PROD removed by creator in 2017. No sources beyond passing mentions, usually in the context of a list of trapping software examples. The most substantial source I could find was an Infoworld article which briefly mentioned the software in the context of a company merger. – Teratix ₵ 13:42, 22 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. – Teratix ₵ 13:54, 22 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ~SS49~ {talk} 00:15, 1 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete , per nom. Legion X (talk) 19:00, 1 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Tymon.r Do you have any questions? 02:02, 9 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. North America1000 05:49, 16 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

RockAbilly.US[edit]

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

Fails the notability guideline for musicians and bands and the general notability guideline due to a lack of significant coverage in independent, reliable sources. SITH (talk) 13:00, 22 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. ___CAPTAIN MEDUSAtalk 13:07, 22 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. ___CAPTAIN MEDUSAtalk 13:07, 22 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Florida-related deletion discussions. ___CAPTAIN MEDUSAtalk 13:07, 22 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ~SS49~ {talk} 00:15, 1 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Tymon.r Do you have any questions? 02:02, 9 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. Michig (talk) 07:00, 16 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Robert Dunn (screenwriter)[edit]

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

Screenwriter who may or may not be notable. Out of his 3 films, only one of them has any notability at all. Which he could be a redirect to Heartbreakers. Though I am kind of iffy on this, I'm leaning towards redirect or delete. Wgolf (talk) 02:02, 9 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 23:41, 9 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 23:41, 9 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. ansh666 07:57, 9 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Brighter AI[edit]

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

I do not believe this company meets WP:CORPDEPTH as I can find no substantial coverage in reliable independent sources. The article has been created by a single-purpose account with a likely conflict of interest and is just a free advertisement for the startup company. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 13:51, 15 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. ~Ruyaba~ {talk} 13:55, 15 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. ~Ruyaba~ {talk} 13:55, 15 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. ~Ruyaba~ {talk} 13:55, 15 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. ~Ruyaba~ {talk} 13:55, 15 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. ~Ruyaba~ {talk} 13:55, 15 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Germany-related deletion discussions. ~Ruyaba~ {talk} 13:55, 15 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  1. ^ Kugoth, Jana (2018-10-17). "Das Geschäft mit dem Datenschutz". Die Welt Kompakt (in German). Axel Springer SE. Retrieved 2019-02-19.
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Jovanmilic97 (talk) 14:26, 22 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ~SS49~ {talk} 00:17, 1 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Tymon.r Do you have any questions? 02:00, 9 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. The charts mentioned don't seem to be suitable per WP:CHART. ansh666 08:09, 9 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Jack Be[edit]

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

Not really my area, but I cannot see how this passes Wikipedia:Notability (music). Edwardx (talk) 08:05, 15 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Bakazaka (talk) 08:13, 15 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. Bakazaka (talk) 08:13, 15 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Jovanmilic97 (talk) 14:25, 22 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ~SS49~ {talk} 00:16, 1 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hi! New here, but it appears his album debuted on the Billboard charts, which is a nationally recognized music chart. According to those rules, this article should stand then, right? Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Bebnor (talk) 04:31, 1 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment That applies to entries on the main Billboard chart. His album "appeared in the Billboard Independent Albums and Top Heatseekers at numbers 41 and 10 respectively". Edwardx (talk) 10:26, 1 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Tymon.r Do you have any questions? 01:55, 9 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. After the discussion, I withdraw the nomination. (procedural close) (non-admin closure) Tymon.r Do you have any questions? 14:03, 10 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Habiba Djilani[edit]

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

Notability not established, per WP:ANYBIO. Tymon.r Do you have any questions? 01:37, 9 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 23:31, 9 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Africa-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 23:31, 9 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 23:31, 9 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. Michig (talk) 06:58, 16 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Brenda Dyer Szabo[edit]

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

Notability not established, per WP:AUTHOR. Tymon.r Do you have any questions? 01:34, 9 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 22:41, 9 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 22:41, 9 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Architecture-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 22:41, 9 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Afghanistan-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 22:41, 9 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. Whilst the keep votes are technically correct that the player passes NFOOTY, the stronger arguments presented here are that the presumption of GNG that this provides is incorrect in this case. No sources indicating sufficient coverage to satisfy GNG have been presented. Given the player is now retired it seems unlikely this situation will change in the future. There is consensus through AfD that where players only barely pass NFOOTY and have retired that they need to clearly show GNG. This is not the case here. Fenix down (talk) 08:50, 16 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Karo Okiomah[edit]

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

29-year-old player had 3 pro appearances for 2nd-tier team back in 2012 (SW); barely meets NFOOTY. He was named Big South Conference Player of the Year and third-team All-American; not sure if that's enough for ANYBIO #1. There is no independent SIGCOV that I can find. From his college days, his university website has routine write-ups about his draft and signing, a bio on the college website, and he's mentioned in the head coach's bio. Brief mention in this game report. Doesn't appear to meet GNG, barely meets NFOOTY, I'd argue doesn't meet ANYBIO #1. Should be deleted. Leviv ich 01:07, 9 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Leviv ich 01:08, 9 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. Leviv ich 01:08, 9 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Leviv ich 01:08, 9 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. Leviv ich 01:08, 9 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of North Carolina-related deletion discussions. Leviv ich 01:08, 9 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Leviv ich 01:12, 9 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Are we able to establish the arbitrary number of games required to have played in the 2nd division of professional soccer in the United States & Canada that allows you to meet NFOOTY requirements? One, Ten, Twenty Five? I'd also take issue that the league is solely a farm league. UncleTupelo1 (talk) 23:52, 9 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    • This guy was drafted by a MLS team in 2012. He was placed in an associated minor league team where he made a total of 2 appearances (for 122 minutes).[54] Hasn't been heard from since. Unlike other countries, the US minor league system is almost solely for farming purposes - as other sports in North American - Major League Soccer has no Promotion and relegation. The minor league teams bounce between minor leagues and the minor leagues themselves change according to farming requirements. In other American sports - e.g. the much more popular WP:BASEBALL/N (with an extensive minor league system) and WP:NHOCKEY (also has an elaborate minor league system) accord no notability at all to minor leagues (but do for college play in some cases). Can we set a numeric bar? I'm not sure. What I am fairly certain is that this particular individual simply doesn't have substantial coverage sufficient for GNG - nor is he likely to have such coverage - AFAICT he hasn't done any football since 2013. Icewhiz (talk) 08:25, 10 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 09:15, 16 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Salahuddin Choudhudy[edit]

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

This guy could be notable, he sounds like it at least, but I can't find ANY info to back up this claim at all, other then wiki mirrors. (Page has been around since 2006 with very little to add) If these claims can't be found I say either delete or redirect to Hindustan Contessa. Wgolf (talk) 00:49, 9 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Definitely a delete as not a very notable person as per WP:GNG AmericanAgent (talk) 18:47, 9 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 21:59, 9 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 09:14, 16 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Distant Shores (Canadian TV series)[edit]

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

Article about a television show, not reliably sourced as notable per WP:TVSHOW. This is referenced entirely to its own primary source content about itself, not to any evidence of media coverage -- even the one citation that is to a media outlet is still to an article that had this show's hosts as its bylined authors, not coverage that has the show as its subject. As always, however, the notability test for TV shows is not simply that its own self-published web presence metaverifies its existence -- the notability test requires independent coverage about it, such as in media outlets or books, but I can't find any of that anywhere else either. Bearcat (talk) 00:21, 9 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 21:43, 9 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 21:43, 9 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. Whilst the keep votes are technically correct that the player passes NFOOTY, the stronger arguments presented here are that the presumption of GNG that this provides is incorrect in this case. No sources indicating sufficient coverage to satisfy GNG have been presented. Given the player is now retired it seems unlikely this situation will change in the future. There is consensus through AfD that where players only barely pass NFOOTY and have retired that they need to clearly show GNG. This is not the case here. Fenix down (talk) 08:47, 16 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Charles Rodriguez[edit]

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

Fails Barely passes NFOOTY and fails GNG. Retired soccer player never played seven games for a third-tier professional team; currently an assistant NCAA coach. Best THREE sources of SIGCOV are this decent write up... and that's really about it. This three-paragraph routine signing report, this one-paragraph mention, this one-sentence mention, and this one-sentence mention don't count as SIGCOV. Although he made the All-American team in 2011, not sure if that counts for WP:ANYBIO #1 (look how many redlinks are on the list), ANYBIO says meeting one or more does not guarantee that a subject should be included. With only one SIGCOV, no barely any NFOOTY, and a maybe ANYBIO, this article should be deleted. Leviv ich 00:11, 9 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Leviv ich 00:12, 9 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. Leviv ich 00:12, 9 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. Leviv ich 00:12, 9 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Leviv ich 00:12, 9 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. Leviv ich 00:12, 9 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of North Carolina-related deletion discussions. Leviv ich 00:12, 9 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Tennessee-related deletion discussions. Leviv ich 00:12, 9 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Leviv ich 00:15, 9 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as nom. (removing nom vote – sorry) Note: after I made my nomination, it was pointed out that at the time Rodriguez played for the Wilmington Hammerheads, they played in a professional league (although they don't anymore). I updated my nom accordingly, taking this from a "no GNG/no NFOOTY" nom to a "no GNG/barely NFOOTY" nom. Leviv ich 00:33, 9 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. But can be restored if desired for merging into a broader-scoped article. Sandstein 09:13, 16 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

16 Puppies Killing Case[edit]

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

Criminal event without lasting relevance or coverage. Does not meet the WP:CONTINUEDCOVERAGE or WP:LASTING criteria of WP:NEVENT. All coverage appears to be from within a week of the event itself. signed, Rosguill talk 00:04, 9 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Can you provide any sources of coverage in reliable sources from more than a week after the event? When I looked online, I saw a big flurry of press for the day this hit the news and a day or two after, then nothing. This is pretty common for sensationalist crime stories, which generally are not found to be notable. signed, Rosguill talk 19:33, 9 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I don't see any sources from February onward. Contrasts this with Zama Suicide Pact Slayings (in Nov 2017) - where one finds English sources easily from October 2018, and January 2019. Absent continuing coverage, this article is a clear delete. Icewhiz (talk) 08:01, 10 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 19:57, 9 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Animal-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 19:57, 9 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Crime-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:41, 9 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:41, 9 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I think a broader article (such as Street dogs in India, Animal cruelty in India, or even Street dog killings in India) would be more appropriate. Surachit (talk) 18:09, 10 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support I can get behind that as a concept. Markvs88 (talk) 18:13, 10 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 Baseball at the 2019 Pan American Games. Michig (talk) 06:51, 16 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Baseball at the 2019 Pan American Games – Qualification[edit]

Baseball at the 2019 Pan American Games – Qualification (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Unnecessary article. The information is already available on the main article:Baseball at the 2019 Pan American Games. Sportsfan 1234 (talk) 23:59, 8 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. Sheldybett (talk) 07:35, 9 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Baseball-related deletion discussions. Sheldybett (talk) 07:35, 9 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. Sheldybett (talk) 07:35, 9 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
More