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 band clearly fails WP:GNG, and the article not (yet) suitable for main article space. In lieu of deleting the history, though, I am fine with it going back to draft space for more incubation. —C.Fred (talk) 21:00, 21 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Antiworld[edit]

Antiworld (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 band that fails WP:MUSIC and WP:GNG. No third-party coverage, no work with any notable label nor any official releases. Promotional article created by single-purpose user with no other editing history. sixtynine ^{• whaddya want? •} 23:44, 14 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. 94rain ^Talk 01:19, 15 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Oregon-related deletion discussions. 94rain ^Talk 01:19, 15 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Fails WP:Music. BubbaJoe123456 (talk) 15:53, 15 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Fails WP:GNG and doesn't satisfy WP:BAND. Lapablo (talk) 09:46, 16 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Note to closer: article creator has moved the article back to draftspace, so this deletion discussion is now moot. Richard3120 (talk) 20:57, 21 May 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 keep. (non-admin closure) Smartyllama (talk) 20:48, 21 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Rich Carter[edit]

Rich Carter (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:PROF guidelines:
1. The person's research has had a significant impact in their scholarly discipline, broadly construed, as demonstrated by independent reliable sources.
In terms of citation counts, his most cited paper has 124 citations according to Google Scholar, his h-index is 33, these are good but not exceptional statistics. I can't see any sign that he has had an exceptional impact in the field of total synthesis. He doesn't pass the "Average Professor Test" on these grounds.

2. The person has received a highly prestigious academic award or honor at a national or international level.
The awards on his CV do not seem to fit this definition of highly prestigious - most were obtained as an undergraduate, graduate or postdoc, or are internal to OSU (e.g. Sugihara young faculty award)

3. The person is or has been an elected member of a highly selective and prestigious scholarly society or association (e.g., a National Academy of Sciences or the Royal Society) or a fellow of a major scholarly society which reserves fellow status as a highly selective honor (e.g., Fellow of the IEEE).
There is no evidence for this.

4. The person's academic work has made a significant impact in the area of higher education, affecting a substantial number of academic institutions.
Again, no sign of this.

5. The person holds or has held a named chair appointment or distinguished professor appointment at a major institution of higher education and research, or an equivalent position in countries where named chairs are uncommon.
Although he was the Chair of the Chemistry Department at OSU from 2012 to 2017, this is an administrative role and not an endowed Chair.

6. The person has held a highest-level elected or appointed administrative post at a major academic institution or major academic society.
No, unless Chair of the Chemistry Department counts - I think the bar is higher than that though.

7. The person has had a substantial impact outside academia in their academic capacity.
He has founded a company, but so have lots of other people. I found a few local news items about Valliscor on Google News, but nothing particularly noteworthy.

8. The person is or has been the head or chief editor of a major, well-established academic journal in their subject area.
No.

9. The person is in a field of literature (e.g., writer or poet) or the fine arts (e.g., musician, composer, artist), and meets the standards for notability in that art, such as WP:CREATIVE or WP:MUSIC.
No.

In summary, while he seems like a good scientist, there is no evidence that he meets the WP:PROF notability criteria. Polyharrisson (talk) 17:37, 7 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. IntoThinAir (talk) 17:50, 7 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. IntoThinAir (talk) 17:51, 7 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep Passes WP:GNG. For example, see Portland Business Journal. Andrew D. (talk) 18:39, 7 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak keep. Four papers with over 100 cites is borderline but above threshold to me. I thought this was going to be one of those rare cases where the only verifiable thing we could say about him was the existence of a few highly-cited publications, so that he would pass WP:PROF but fail WP:V, and I was prepared to head for a weak delete on that basis, but Andrew D.'s link has proved me wrong. It's too local to add much to notability, however. —David Eppstein (talk) 19:14, 7 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• comment Do these help? They're about impact of projects he's been involved in, and he is named as primary collaborator in one and "a national leader in this field and co-inventor of the new catalyst" in the other:

• University of Bristol, "The Early Bits of Life"
• Phys.org "New organic catalyst should enhance drug research and development" Schazjmd (talk) 00:13, 8 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

the first article is a different Rich Carter (mathematician based in Bristol, UK), the second is a press release from his employer (Oregon State University). Polyharrisson (talk) 07:09, 8 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Polyharrisson, you're right, I didn't read them closely enough. Schazjmd (talk) 13:23, 8 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep passes WP:GNG per Andrew D . Lubbad85 (☎) 17:55, 12 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep Portland Business Journa articlel meets WP:GNG and over 2.7K cited as per Google Scholar citation passes NACADEMIC #1. CASSIOPEIA^(talk) 06:46, 15 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment just to put the citations/h-index in a bit of context - there are nearly 3000 scientists with an h-index of >= 100 [1]. 547 living chemists have an h-index >= 55 [2]. I couldn't find numbers for h>30, but there must be thousands of chemists who would qualify. Polyharrisson (talk) 09:42, 16 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• keep per David Eppstein, and CASSIOPEIA. —usernamekiran(talk) 12:08, 20 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment The research description read like a copyvio, so I tried checking it out. Some of it appears lifted from his lab website, but weirdly, the sentence His work includes investigations on selective catalysis, including the design, discovery, and study of systems that mediate fundamentally interesting and useful organic reactions seems to be taken from a writeup about somebody else. XOR'easter (talk) 17:28, 20 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. T. Canens (talk) 03:33, 22 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Neil Seeman[edit]

Neil Seeman (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 am unconvinced that either WP:BIO, WP:PROF or WP:AUTHOR are met. On the BIO front, none of the sources currently used are independent, reliable and contain in depth coverage of the subject. This in National Post is the best source I could find but it's probably not enough. I don't see anything on the PROF front which would get him over the notability threshold either - this 2016 paper has 52 citations according to google scholar but judging by this search his h-index is < 10. Finally, on the author front, I can't find any substantial writing on his books. SmartSE (talk) 22:44, 14 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. SmartSE (talk) 22:44, 14 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. SmartSE (talk) 22:44, 14 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. SmartSE (talk) 22:44, 14 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per nom. Also WP:SOAP. This article was created by a confirmed undisclosed paid editor (The Mather Group LLC). Later significant edits were by SPAs and more recently another known undisclosed paid editor. --MarioGom (talk) 23:53, 14 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - Not a single independent, secondary, reliable source covering this person as main subject. Does not meet general notability criteria. Spyder212 (talk) 01:11, 15 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Doesn't meet GNG, PROF or AUTHOR. --Tataral (talk) 13:20, 15 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. T. Canens (talk) 03:33, 22 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The Dirty Disco[edit]

The Dirty Disco (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 seeing anything that satisfies WP:MUSICIAN. Clarityfiend (talk) 22:30, 14 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Clarityfiend (talk) 22:30, 14 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - Does not meet general notability criteria. Official website is a Myspace page... Spyder212 (talk) 01:14, 15 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. 94rain ^Talk 01:22, 15 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete: fails WP:GNG and WP:BAND. Simply a WP:YAMB who never made it – they were in existence for less than three years, and released just three singles, the first of which was on a non-notable record label, and the other two were self-released. Yes, they got played on a national radio station (albeit after midnight, when the show in question is broadcast), but this radio show only seeks out and plays unknown new acts, so by definition every band played on the show will be not notable at that stage in their career. Richard3120 (talk) 02:07, 15 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• I'll add that WP:BAND criteria regarding radio play specifies a band's work/song needs to be in rotation as opposed to random play(s) on a specific show. No evidence is provided that this band's work was in rotation. ShelbyMarion (talk) 11:05, 16 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, absolutely - the nature of the show in question is that bands only get played once on it, as their "big break", and then the presenter moves on to the hundreds of other acts waiting for their song to be played. It's very unlikely that they or any other act on the programme got more than a single spin. Richard3120 (talk) 21:38, 16 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect to Blockade of the Gaza Strip. T. Canens (talk) 03:37, 22 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Just Future For Palestine Flotilla[edit]

Just Future For Palestine Flotilla (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, and probably not notable. Alex.osheter (talk) 21:16, 14 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep it is sourced with 27 refs and although a lot of them are self sourced there are some independent ones such as New Zealand Herald, Times of Israel and Reuters. I remember this event received a lot of coverage in the UK including the BBC, Channel 4 and broadsheets such as The Guardian and The Telegraph that had secondary coverage, thanks Atlantic306 (talk) 21:26, 14 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

37 refs of which 34 are primary sources, 1 is a blog, and the remaining 2 describe a single event on October 26 2018. This event is better suited for Blockade of the Gaza Strip. Alex.osheter (talk) 21:37, 14 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. The New Zealand Herald and The Times of Israel are reliable sources, and their coverage is enough to establish notability. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 23:07, 14 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete or Smerge The article has a couple of reliable sources, but they aren't about the flotilla itself, they're about an even that may or may not be notable. I personally don't think the event fits WP:EVENT. It did not have any lasting effects that I can find, the geographical scope is very small, it was only covered for a couple of days, and was not covered in much depth. There's an argument to be made about the notability of the event, but as far as the flotilla itself having its own Wikipedia page, it's not notable enough. Alex.osheter (talk) 23:25, 14 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. 94rain ^Talk 01:25, 15 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Israel-related deletion discussions. Icewhiz (talk) 12:18, 16 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Palestine-related deletion discussions. Icewhiz (talk) 12:18, 16 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Redirect or very selective merge to Blockade of the Gaza Strip (or is there a list article for such attempts? There are quite a few attempts). Fails WP:NEVENT due to lack of WP:SUSTAINED coverage. While the article has been WP:REFBOMBed - the vast majority are page from the jfp.freedomflotilla.org website and a few other unreliable sources (e.g. wordpress blog). Other than that - there is a smattering of rather minute NEWSORG coverage from July-August 2018. Icewhiz (talk) 12:23, 16 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect or Delete Falls WP:GNG.The only that maybe notable is boarding event but this fails WP:NOTNEWS and doesn't meet any criteria of WP:EVENTCRIT all other source are primary sources that cannot satisfy WP:GNG.--Shrike (talk) 19:44, 16 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete or redirect... perhaps we could have an article entitled, Post 2010 flotillas to Gaza, or similar. There is a brief account of a 2011 flotilla inappropriately in Blockade of the Gaza Strip#Blockade timeline 2007-2010 that could be added to such a page. Point is that Blockade of the Gaza Strip#June 2010 easing of the blockade happened. so 2010 makes a logical date for these 3 later, less publicized flotillas, including the 2016 Women's Boat to Gaza. Sourcing available to keep this as a stand-along page is not sufficient. And the page reads as a sort of promotion for long lists of non-notable individual participants. We have larger political demonstrations every day in many cities, but we do not create articles on brief, ROUTINE coverage that of small, WP:MILL demonstrations like this one. E.M.Gregory (talk) 19:46, 16 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• sources: New Zealand Herald: Unite Union leader Mike Treen reportedly tasered repeatedly by Israeli military the article takes a skeptical tone from the headline on, "union leader was reportedly tasered ," and is not SIGCOV of the incident. the times of Israel article [3] is SIGCOV, but, is this all there is? Everything else on the page is PRIMARY. We need more sources to establish notability.E.M.Gregory (talk) 20:02, 16 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

  And per WP:NEVENT - WP:SUSTAINED coverage to show this event had any sort of WP:LASTING effect. All we have is from around the event itself.Icewhiz (talk) 20:10, 16 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete It has plenty of 'sources' but if you examine them, they are primary or are insufficient to assert notability. Enigma^msg 15:00, 17 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - not notable, as most sources by far are primary. Does not meet WP:GNG. XavierItzm (talk) 15:56, 21 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep subject easily meets WP:GNG with substantial mainstream news coverage. The New Zealand Herald, The Times of Israel and I just added The GuardianG are reliable sources, and their coverage is enough to establish notability. Lubbad85 (☎) 19:03, 21 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect or Merge; to Blockade of the Gaza Strip or Blockade of the Gaza Strip#Blockade timeline 2007-2010 Enough there to keep, but it is basically a single event by an organized coalition. 7&6=thirteen (☎) 21:19, 21 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note that 7&6=thirteen appears not to have looked at the page before offering an opinion, because this protest happened in 2018, making it ineligible for merging into a section on events between 2007 - 2010. Political developments that occurred in 2010 make it inappropriate to extent that section to 2018.E.M.Gregory (talk) 02:12, 22 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per Icewhiz and Enigma. I personally don't think there's enough to merge. - GretLomborg (talk) 21:38, 21 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect to JG Thirlwell. Material can be copied over from the page history as desired and per WP:CWW Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 21:28, 21 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Manorexia[edit]

Manorexia (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

There is no evidence of notability for this “band”. Trillfendi (talk) 21:12, 14 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Ceethekreator (talk) 21:27, 14 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. Ceethekreator (talk) 21:27, 14 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Redirect to JG Thirlwell per WP:NOPAGE, as the subject may be notable but is best covered in context within a broader article. I also note that there have been no substantive edits for five years, yet there was no attempt at PROD and not even an attempt to redirect before bringing it here. I encourage the nominator to reread WP:DELETE, especially all the parts before "Deletion discussion". Bakazaka (talk) 21:31, 14 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge and redirect to JG Thirlwell who is clearly notable, so do not delete before redirect to enable a merge, not sufficiently independently notable for a seperate article, thanks Atlantic306 (talk) 21:32, 16 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 21:26, 21 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Laura Frey[edit]

Laura Frey (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 presenter. Article is more like a CV. - Funky Snack (Talk) 20:44, 14 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete WP:NOTRESUME and 0 sources. Trillfendi (talk) 21:15, 14 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. Ceethekreator (talk) 21:30, 14 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. Ceethekreator (talk) 21:30, 14 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - Does not meet general notability criteria. As already stated above, WP:NOTRESUME... Spyder212 (talk) 01:15, 15 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - Found really nothing in searches when I tried to strengthen it. From bio, one might wonder if she is notable. But no sources at all to verify that.

Exploreandwrite (talk) 08:13, 21 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 06:15, 21 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Three Quarter Ale[edit]

Three Quarter Ale (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 notability per WP:NBAND. Google search only brings up Social Media profiles, which do not contribute to WP:GNG. Bkissin (talk) 16:06, 7 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 17:49, 7 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Georgia (U.S. state)-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 17:50, 7 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 17:50, 7 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - does not meet WP:BAND or WP:GNG - I could find no coverage to meet the requirement that the band, "has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject" - therefore, delete - Epinoia (talk) 20:38, 12 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - Did not find any secondary reliable sources. Does not meet general notability criteria. Spyder212 (talk) 01:16, 15 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nominator....William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 11:15, 15 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 06:36, 21 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Known World Players[edit]

Known World Players (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)

Hasn't met WP:GNG since 2015. No sources cited. Google search brings up soccer players and sources linked to Society for Creative Anachronism who merely list the group, not WP:SIGCOV. Bkissin (talk) 15:57, 7 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Tennessee-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 17:51, 7 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Science fiction-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 17:51, 7 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - does not meet WP:GNG, has not "received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject" - I couldn't find any write ups anywhere, so delete - Epinoia (talk) 20:28, 12 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - Does not meet general notability criteria. Spyder212 (talk) 01:19, 15 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Malcolmxl5 (talk) 22:12, 21 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The Jolly Rogers[edit]

The Jolly Rogers (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 notable per WP:NMUSIC. Only source cited is their website, google search brings up social media and passing mentions on Ren Faire websites that would not constitute WP:SIGCOV or meet WP:GNG in my eyes Bkissin (talk) 15:35, 7 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2019 May 7. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 15:51, 7 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 17:52, 7 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 17:52, 7 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - while it could be argued that the band "Has become one of the most prominent representatives of a notable style," it still has to meet WP:BAND and WP:GNG and I could find no coverage at all to meet the requirement that the band, "has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject" - therefore, delete - Epinoia (talk) 20:13, 12 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per nom. Article is entirely sourced to WP:SELFPUBLISHED WP:PRIMARY sources, and it doesn't look like there's anything better out there. - GretLomborg (talk) 21:41, 21 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. As pointed out, all relevant info already in the parent article. Tone 18:31, 21 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Richat Structure (Atlantis fringe theory)[edit]

Richat Structure (Atlantis fringe theory) (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)

Thus is a copy and paste for here [[4]] with a couple of lines added. Not sure if I should regard it as a fork, as it really is the same material.Slatersteven (talk) 15:49, 7 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The idea is that the section in Location hypotheses of Atlantis is too long, it needs to mention the two waves that this fringe theory has undergone and the different "reasons" underpinning them. It doesn't really need an extensive discussion about the more detailed aspects of how the theory underwent fame as a viral event (Viral video, tabloids, and mainstream press) which logically could find a home here in a more detailed article. Keizers (talk) 17:44, 7 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Mythology-related deletion discussions. MrClog (talk) 16:17, 7 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Mauritius-related deletion discussions. MrClog (talk) 16:17, 7 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Ahh, I see. Then it might have been a goods idea to have done that first, or even at any point after this AFD was launched. At this time it is a duplication, for which there is no justification.Slatersteven (talk) 17:46, 7 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

OK, Slatersteven, I did that here. Can we keep this article now? Keizers (talk) 22:34, 14 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. Please. Mlewan (talk) 06:09, 15 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. The parent article covers it already. Clarityfiend (talk) 23:49, 15 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Not anymore, it was too much information for the parent article and I've edited it down to an appropriate amount.Keizers (talk) 01:17, 20 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. T. Canens (talk) 03:39, 22 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Shuchir Suri[edit]

Shuchir Suri (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 appear to meet WP:GNG. Presented sources are either interview or do not cover the subject in-depth. Hitro talk 10:05, 30 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Food and drink-related deletion discussions. CASSIOPEIA^(talk) 10:06, 30 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. CASSIOPEIA^(talk) 10:06, 30 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

It seems that the Article is based on Good Sources with the same information shown in the article Shuchir Suri. Radadiyageet (talk) 07:53, 1 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - seems entirely promotional - doesn't meet WP:ANYBIO - Epinoia (talk) 02:30, 6 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Don't delete* Criticism and sources added. Now the Article Shuchir Suri seems complete with sources and facts. ShaymAnu (talk) 06:12, 6 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Don't delete as the Article is improved now. Promotional Words deleted and Criticism added by contributors. Radadiyageet (talk) 06:36, 6 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment Something seems fishy here. Radadiyageet was the one who created the article in the first place. In addition, ShaymAnu had very few edits, but mostly editing that article.CobaltBlue101 (talk) 18:10, 7 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

- additional Comment - I agree, there seems to be an element of promotion here, WP:SPIP, WP:NOTPROMOTION - Epinoia (talk) 18:15, 7 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Fails WP:NBIO. Non-notable individual. --Rsrikanth05 (talk) 19:45, 7 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

  Also, @ShaymAnu and Radadiyageet: if you don't want to confuse the closing admin, please say Keep and not Don't delete. --Rsrikanth05 (talk) 19:46, 7 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep - CobaltBlue101,Epinoia and Rsrikanth05, I agree that I am editing this article mostly, But i suggest to check the quality of an Article also. The Article is neutral and completely based on the reliable sources now which are fair enough as per Wikipedia Policy. There is no promotional word in Article and also a Criticism Section added now so If you still find it as promotional Article, You can improve the Article instead of deleting it because we all are here for Contribution. Thank You. Radadiyageet (talk) 07:26, 8 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

- see WP:PLEASEDONT - looking more and more like promotion and advertising - WP:NOTADVERTISING - and I couldn't locate the guideline, but I believe that each editor gets one !vote, not multiple !votes - Epinoia (talk) 20:20, 8 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete After looking at the sources and the article itself, I agree with Hitro. CobaltBlue101 (talk) 17:59, 8 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep - I also agree with Hitro but I would say there are also many other sources cited in Article which we can not ignore. I also agree with Radadiyageet that the Article should be improved instead of deleting it if needed. ShaymAnu (talk) 09:10, 11 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per WP:TOO SOON. शिव साहिल/Shiv Sahil (talk) 16:17, 15 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Seems notable for sure, with enough sources to prove that. Exploreandwrite (talk) 08:37, 21 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per WP:NOTPROMOTION - GretLomborg (talk) 21:51, 21 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 21:22, 21 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Sonia Mackwani[edit]

Sonia Mackwani (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)

Promotional article. Not seeing enough here or online to pass WP:GNG. Edwardx (talk) 19:10, 14 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Ceethekreator (talk) 19:13, 14 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. Ceethekreator (talk) 19:13, 14 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Ceethekreator (talk) 19:13, 14 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Ceethekreator (talk) 19:13, 14 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Speedy delete: WP:G4, highly doubt there were any improvements made since the previous nomination. Article still lacks sufficient coverage in RS. Subject is not notable fails WP:BIO Ceethekreator (talk) 19:21, 14 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment I searched for the author, She does have a knowledge panel on google, maybe that's because of Google Books, but after reading her article she seems to be notable enough to have an article, though the information written in the article is not well sourced, I think the article can be established later in time, as of now unsourced information needs to be removed and only what work she has done could be remained. WikiLover97 (talk) 19:30, 14 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Speedy delete: WP:G4 and SALT. She hasn't won the Nobel Prize in the 2 months days since the last AfD closed as DELETE, or anything else that would justify this speedy recreation.E.M.Gregory (talk) 12:20, 15 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Speedy keep as the nominator has stated it has good sources and may be notable. (non-admin closure) Atlantic306 (talk) 19:35, 14 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Shruti Naidu[edit]

Shruti Naidu (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 person maybe notable as I dont know about Kannada Cinema, but I googled her there was nothing much, I think it does not passes WP:GNG though it does have good sources but I read at Ananya Panday's article discussion actor needs two films released. thats why I'm submitting for AFD WikiLover97 (talk) 19:02, 14 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. WikiLover97 (talk) 19:02, 14 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. IntoThinAir (talk) 19:07, 14 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Tone 18:27, 21 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Ankit Singh (writer)[edit]

Ankit Singh (writer) (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 author/blogger. Has not received any press and the only notable reference is the one from Rajasthan Patrika, which happens to be a screengrab of a poem submitted by the said person. Fails WP:GNG Jupitus Smart 18:23, 14 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. Jupitus Smart 18:23, 14 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Jupitus Smart 18:23, 14 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Notability of an article's subject is usually determined by verifiable evidence of notability. How can one determine which sources to consider when determining the notability of a subject? We search for the subject on a search engine and then we get links to them. Some is by local level media and some by other independent sources. Then what should we do? I personally know people who are notable at local level but lack so called verifiable evidence and don't have Wikipedia articles on that subject. And, also I have encountered various articles on Wikipedia itself where a single reference determines their notability. Please clarify on the above point. Regarding the article, it is upto you and the other users/editors to determine if it meets criteria or not. I am NO ONE to suggest to keep it or delete. Thanks Sentiments777 (talk) 20:44, 14 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• delete after spending a few minutes, it is evident that the subject fails WP:AUTHOR, and WP:GNG as well. —usernamekiran(talk)

  @Sentiments777: the answers to your queries can be found at WP:reliable sources. There are also certain cases where the subject is de-facto notable, like a census town (doesnt matter what the population is, if it exists, and can be verified then it should have an article). Certain elected persons are de-facto notable as well. In Indian terminology, all MPs, and MLA's are notable. Only one reliable source stating that they are/were elected is more than sufficient for having an article. If you have further questions, please feel free to ask me on my talkpage. Regards, —usernamekiran(talk) 05:17, 15 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete fails WP:GNG, fails WP:AUTHOR.E.M.Gregory (talk) 12:15, 15 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as per above. HighKing⁺⁺ 19:25, 19 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Randykitty (talk) 17:32, 21 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Amit Bagaria[edit]

Amit Bagaria (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 fail WP:N and is mostly written as a promotional piece. 40% of the sources are primary. --Chris (talk) 17:34, 14 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. --Chris (talk) 17:34, 14 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. --Chris (talk) 17:34, 14 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 19:25, 14 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• DELETE IT SHOULD BE CLEARLY DELETED BECAUSE IT IS PROBABLY A PROMOTIONAL PIECE AND NO RELIABLE NEWS SOURCES CITED. I WOULD SUGGEST DELETION AS SOON AS POSSIBLE. Stud0708 (talk) 20:17, 16 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • "As soon as possible" is a little alarmist. There is no rush. AfD discussions are typically kept open for a week. --Chris (talk) 21:09, 16 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete another of way too many articles on non-notable businessmen. Wikipedia is being abused as a form of LinkedIn, this has to stop.John Pack Lambert (talk) 21:33, 19 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Randykitty (talk) 17:28, 21 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hronovka and Regnerka[edit]

Hronovka and Regnerka (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. [Couldn't find additional] no third party sources [needed to pass GNG]. Tyw7 (🗣️ Talk) — If (reply) then (ping me) 17:14, 14 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Food and drink-related deletion discussions. Tyw7 (🗣️ Talk) — If (reply) then (ping me) 17:14, 14 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Czech Republic-related deletion discussions. Tyw7 (🗣️ Talk) — If (reply) then (ping me) 17:14, 14 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Miserably fails GNG, no SIGCOV. --qedk (t 桜 c) 05:55, 15 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

  Withdraw vote citing improvements in sourcing, thanks to Phil Bridger et al. --qedk (t 桜 c) 17:41, 20 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• How are IDNES and Český rozhlas not third-party sources? Phil Bridger (talk) 09:41, 15 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• What Phil Bridger said. The article may be a paltry stub, but it is sourced. Jdcooper (talk) 20:11, 15 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

  Jdcooper, the article seems to be lacking references. I think it might just about scrapes WP:GNG as it currently stands. Also, the medical claims are probably a bit dubious since it is not from a medical journal. The claims fall in the realms of homeopathy. --Tyw7 (🗣️ Talk) — If (reply) then (ping me) 02:06, 17 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

  • I agree, but there are ways of wording that. That is why they are famous, even if it's not backed up by medical research. And it's certainly not a reason to delete the article. Jdcooper (talk) 10:31, 17 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - I have expanded the article a bit from the sources listed and one of the external links. Jdcooper (talk) 21:20, 15 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 12:10, 17 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Health and fitness-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 12:10, 17 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep Notable geographic feature per WP:GEOFEAT WP:GEOLAND, also appears to pass WP:GNG from Czech sources. SportingFlyer T·C 12:30, 17 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

  WP:GEOFEAT only applies to artificial structures. The Czech sources (which are in Czech) are barely reliable. --qedk (t 桜 c) 10:54, 19 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

  What makes them any less reliable than, say, one of the top British national newspapers and BBC Radio? And what has being in Czech got to do with anything? Phil Bridger (talk) 10:59, 19 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

  Turistika is a tourist directory sort of website (fails SIGCOV), and both of the more reliable sources are updates on repairing the springs, and not any sort of significant coverage on the natural springs itself (fails SIGCOV) accompanied with photogalleries. And the quite obvious problem with sources in Czech is that it's infinitely more difficult to ascertain source content and reliability. --qedk (t 桜 c) 11:12, 19 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

  I can hear the noise of goalposts being moved. I was writing about your comment that the sources (and I mean the ones from iDNES and Český rozhlas that were in the article before it was nominated) are barely reliable, but then you went on to answer about significant coverage rather than reliablity. Get such concepts clear in your own mind before writing. As regards significant coverage, then how are articles about the restoration of the springs not significant coverage of the springs? And it is blindingly obvious to anyone with a half-way open mind that the sources not being in English has no bearing whatsoever on their contribution towards notability. The English Wikipedia is not just a mirror of what is available in English for free at the click of a mouse. Phil Bridger (talk) 12:52, 19 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

  Why? Opinions can't change? Upon further consideration I elected to think that the sources were atleast more reliable that I said they were and I changed my opinion, if you want me (and every person) to mark in big, red letters everytime thay have changed their mind in order to make you aware that the the goalposts have moved, tell me and I'll let everyone know they have to, too. And fwiw, I do not possess magical lingual abilities that can parse any language with a 100% accuracy, maybe you do but there's a reason editors knowing English edit the English Wikipedia while editors knowing Czech edit the Czech. --qedk (t 桜 c) 13:29, 19 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

  Of course if your opinion that these sources are "barely reliable" has changed you should say so. How else can the closer of this discussion know that? And I'm afraid I find it just too tiresome to explain to people why sources not in English, just the same as sources that need access to an academic library to read or need other, non-linguistic, specialised knowledge to understand properly, are just as valid as those that you can find for free online in English. If you don't understand that simple point then you just don't get the idea of an encyclopedia that should give people more information than a Google search. You made a simple mistake in your first assessment of this article, and rather than change your opinion you are using confirmation bias to make more and more outlandish claims as to why this should be deleted in accordance with your knee-jerk reaction. Just stop digging. Phil Bridger (talk) 19:04, 19 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

  Oh, I am not worried about the law of holes. You keep arguing ad hominem instead of talking about the point I am making. In fact, if you even understood confirmation bias you would not used it in this particular methaphor, I changed my argument instead of arguing they were reliable over and over with a set outcome in mind, that's the literal opposite of confirmation bias. It still stands that GEOFEAT does not apply but you will ignore that to argue ad hominem about why I'm saying, instead of arguing on the facts I am trying to present, even as I gave you an assessment of the sources and why they fail SIGCOV, your point is more about how I argued and the fact that I said Czech sources are more difficult to understand (for obvious reasons) than English ones, which literally any other editor can attest in reality to, unless they are Czech, which maybe you are, but I am not. G'day, I'm out. --qedk (t 桜 c) 20:11, 19 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

  Updated to WP:GEOLAND. Mis-typed the nomination. Furthermore the WP:GNG argument I made discusses articles not currently cited such as [5]ecky-ministerstvo.A190204_455330_hradec-zpravy_tuu] and [https://nachodsky.denik.cz/zpravy_region/oblibena-prdlavka-vytryskne-z-uplne-noveho-prameniku-20130830.html (I did a Czech-region search). SportingFlyer T·C 12:56, 20 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep Meets WP:GNG. I do not understand the nomination - there were two perfectly good independent, reliable sources with significant coverage in the article at the time it was brought to AfD. The article has now been expanded and other sources added, which is a bonus, but there does not appear to have been a genuine rationale for bringing it to AfD. RebeccaGreen (talk) 12:04, 20 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

  RebeccaGreen, I checked via Google and Google news and can't find any more sources. These two sources seem to only report 1 event. --Tyw7 (🗣️ Talk) — If (reply) then (ping me) 12:38, 20 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

  Before you wrote that I had cited some more sources in the article, including a book published many years before the recent restoration of these springs. And your nomination said "no third party sources" even when there were two third-party sources staring you in the face. You can't be surprised when people express incredulity at such a nomination. Phil Bridger (talk) 12:46, 20 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

  Phil Bridger, well this was the version at nomination https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Hronovka_and_Regnerka&direction=next&oldid=833797269

  Both articles cover the same event. And I can't find any other sources talking about the the subject. --Tyw7 (🗣️ Talk) — If (reply) then (ping me) 13:04, 20 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

  Oh, for crying out loud, why can't anyone supporting deletion in this discussion stick to the point. The matter is simple. The version that you nominated and just linked had two third-party sources. You said it had none. That means that you either didn't look at the article before nomination or that you were lying. And how can you still not find any more sources when there are (and were before you made that statement) more cited in the article and in this discussion? Phil Bridger (talk) 13:29, 20 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

  Phil Bridger, as q said above, I think there needs to be more third party sources than what's in the article. I can't find any using Google or Google News beyond the 3 articles which all cover a single event. There edited to clarify my statement. --Tyw7 (🗣️ Talk) — If (reply) then (ping me) 14:49, 20 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

  The book source that I cited was published in 1998, so obviously is not about an event that happened in 2013. Phil Bridger (talk) 15:33, 20 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. I've cited some more sources that were published before the single event that the goalposts have now shifted to after the first four reasons offered for deletion were debunked. Phil Bridger (talk) 16:52, 20 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was soft delete. WP:REFUND applies. Randykitty (talk) 17:27, 21 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Brecon Carreg[edit]

Brecon Carreg (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. Have been tagged with ((notability|companies)) since April 2012. Tyw7 (🗣️ Talk) — If (reply) then (ping me) 17:12, 14 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Food and drink-related deletion discussions. Tyw7 (🗣️ Talk) — If (reply) then (ping me) 17:12, 14 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. Tyw7 (🗣️ Talk) — If (reply) then (ping me) 17:12, 14 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Tyw7 (🗣️ Talk) — If (reply) then (ping me) 17:12, 14 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Wales-related deletion discussions. Tyw7 (🗣️ Talk) — If (reply) then (ping me) 17:12, 14 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Randykitty (talk) 17:25, 21 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Back Yard Recordings[edit]

Back Yard Recordings (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)

NCORP fail. Unsourced since 2008. Article created by account Backyardrecordings . This is the second AfD; the first garnered no discussion. ThatMontrealIP (talk) 16:58, 14 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. CASSIOPEIA^(talk) 17:10, 14 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. CASSIOPEIA^(talk) 17:10, 14 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. CASSIOPEIA^(talk) 17:10, 14 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete or Rewrite. Has significant former clients, but not in itself WP:Notable. Possible conflict of interest also makes it lean more towards deletion. PoliceSheep99 (talk) 17:15, 14 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete: fails WP:NCORP. It's true that the Gossip gave the label some commercial success in 2006 with "Standing in the Way of Control" and a few other singles, but that seems to have been the label's moment in the sun, and the only other chart hit I can find is one song by Seelenluft which reached number 70 in the UK – most of the other acts are notable, but they had their chart successes with other labels, not with Back Yard. There doesn't seem to be any in-depth coverage about the label itself, and I strongly suspect that it ceased trading in 2012, as I can't find any releases or social media posts/tweets from the label after this date. Richard3120 (talk) 22:13, 14 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - although the label lists a number of notable artists, I believe the label fails NMUSIC#5 because:

• The Similou doesn't mention the label at all in the article, and is of dubious notability itself
• Dega Breaks is of highly dubious notability, in fact it seems the biggest claim to notability is that is signed to Back Yard
• Although Chromeo lists Back Yard as one of their labels, the label does not appear in their discography.
• Ali Love is unsourced, but since it charted it is likely a notable band. So this kinda-sorta-maybe might help towards NMUSIC#5
• Wiley (musician) does not even mention the label
• Tyson is non-notable, it just links to the disambiguation page
• Gossip (band) is notable, but only appears on Back Yard as a remix.

Therefore this label does not have a "roster of performers, many of whome are independently notable" and is not one of the "more important independent labels." My search for sources via Google, Google News, and newspapers.com turned up nothing, appears to fail GNG. 78.26 _{(spin me / revolutions)} 14:23, 20 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

78.26: this is exactly the issue... Wiley, Chromeo and Ali Love are all notable artists, but none of them were signed to Back Yard when they attained their notability and chart success. The only band who was is Gossip. Richard3120 (talk) 21:45, 20 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment Is it genrally accepted here in the music discussions that if a label signs a notable artist, the label is notable? Because that goes against WP:NOTINHERITED. WP:NMUSIC #5 is also referenced above in terms of contribution to the label's notability, but it is a actually a notability guideline for the song, not the label.ThatMontrealIP (talk) 21:53, 20 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Randykitty (talk) 17:23, 21 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Babel Label[edit]

Babel Label (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)

NCORP fail. ThatMontrealIP (talk) 16:56, 14 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. CASSIOPEIA^(talk) 17:11, 14 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. CASSIOPEIA^(talk) 17:11, 14 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. CASSIOPEIA^(talk) 17:11, 14 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. I've added info from another source. All three sources used are "significant coverage in [...] reliable secondary sources that are independent of the subject", thus meeting WP:ORGCRITE. Babel is an independent jazz record label: a niche area, so lots of coverage is not to be expected. Coverage of the organisation in jazz publications is about all we can expect to find, and is what all of the sources provide (not just passing mentions / album reviews / press releases / etc.). EddieHugh (talk) 12:20, 15 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. Article has sources.
  Vmavanti (talk) 15:42, 17 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - article rescued by EddieHugh, GNG shown to be met. 78.26 _{(spin me / revolutions)} 13:24, 20 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Randykitty (talk) 17:23, 21 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Auralux Recordings[edit]

Auralux Recordings (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)

Inadequate sourcing to support NCORP. ThatMontrealIP (talk) 16:52, 14 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. CASSIOPEIA^(talk) 17:12, 14 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. CASSIOPEIA^(talk) 17:12, 14 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. CASSIOPEIA^(talk) 17:12, 14 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - not notable as a record label - reissues only, so roster of notable artists is irrelevant. Fails WP:NMUSIC#5. The label itself has not gained any attention of substance, and therefore not notable per NCORP and GNG. 78.26 _{(spin me / revolutions)} 14:03, 20 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete: fails WP:NCORP. As 78.26 notes above, all releases on this label are reissues of records that were previously on other labels, or compilations. None of these releases were hits, and the label has not received coverage in significant sources. Richard3120 (talk) 21:48, 20 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was soft delete. WP:REFUND applies. Randykitty (talk) 17:22, 21 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Kristina’s Broadway Connection[edit]

Kristina’s Broadway Connection (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 tag removed without comment. Subject fails notability guidelines at WP:COMPANY, also fails WP:GNG Ifnord (talk) 16:36, 14 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Dance-related deletion discussions. CASSIOPEIA^(talk) 17:13, 14 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. CASSIOPEIA^(talk) 17:13, 14 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Austria-related deletion discussions. CASSIOPEIA^(talk) 17:13, 14 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Withdrawn by the nominator. (non-admin closure) Mhhossein ^talk 12:53, 21 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Health Action International[edit]

Health Action International (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)

promotional article for organization without demonstrable notability . inadequately referenced organization. Most of the references are about the problems they try to solve. Some are press releases extensively quoting the organization. Some are mentions . Not one is a third party source substantially about the organization. Specifically: 1. is by the organization 2. is an inclusion on a listing. 3,4,5,6, 7, 8, 9, 10 are about snakebite. Some mention the organization, or are apparently press releases by its staff. 11,12,13,14,15 are about insulin shortages.Some mention the organization, or are apparently press releases by its staff, or information derived from the organization 17,18,19, similarly. DGG ( talk ) 16:13, 14 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Health and fitness-related deletion discussions. CASSIOPEIA^(talk) 17:19, 14 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. CASSIOPEIA^(talk) 17:19, 14 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Netherlands-related deletion discussions. CASSIOPEIA^(talk) 17:19, 14 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for helping to improve the article. With regards to the references I have rewritten the article so the numbering of the references might not correspond anymore to the above numbering system. The following are third party newspapers that ask for HAI's opinions on the subject and should show that they are an expert on the problem that the organization is working on. They are all third party references.

^{[1] [2] [3] [4] [5] [6] [7] [8] [9] [10]}

Refs added later: ^{[11] [12] [13] [14] [15] [16]}

^[17]

2. This is a posting by the WHO that HAI is a certified WHO actor so that should show that they are notable.^[11] 3. Should I remove all references that point to the org's own web page? I don't see that as necessarily bad and requiring deletion of the page but if they have to go they can.^[12] 4. I deleted a reference about snakebite that does not specifically ref HAI. 5. The Lancet article is RS and specifically references HAI's study so that is both notable and third party and not primary research. ^[14] 6. BMJ is a RS and references HAI specifically. ^[13] 7. I don't see this as a press release as Nessa Childers, Member of the European Parliament is talking about the issue and mentions a press release by HAI. ^[15] I don't see any particular press releases in the references. And none of the authors seem to work for HAI. Did I miss one?

This might be special pleading but this about a non-profit working to bring good scientifically approved medicines to Africa and prevent deaths. What is wrong about that?--Akrasia25 (talk) 18:00, 14 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• • Being a "certified actor" doesn't imply notability its a list of everyone they work with that isn't a government DGG ( talk ) 18:13, 19 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• • The BMJ article is about a study where the organization was one of the three sponsors. It is not about the organization. Diito about the one in the Lancet. DGG ( talk ) 01:42, 15 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• I added a history section based on three books I found.^[1][2][3] I have ordered another book on Amazon by expedited shipping and hope it will arrive in time as it is a second hand book here in the US.^[4]--Akrasia25 (talk) 11:07, 16 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • All 3 indicate very short discussions--one is a single page. DGG ( talk ) 18:13, 19 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. There appear to be multiple references from very reputable sources.Rathfelder (talk) 15:18, 17 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep In fairness, I did help contribute toward the page. The page has been mostly rewritten since it was tagged as an Articles for deletion. The article was improved by addition of many new references and removal of some that were too closely associated with HAI. DGG brought up some valid concerns, which I think have been addressed and the article has been much improved by this process. Waughd (talk) 15:02, 19 May 2019 (UTC)dwaugh[reply]

• AfD withdrawn, Keep'' It's improved enough. It's no longer very promotional, and notability is at least borderline. I usually suggest deleting the combination of borderline notability AND strong promotionalism, butthis is no longer in that category. DGG ( talk ) 18:16, 19 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you @DGG: for the comments and for removing the AfD on the article. I learned a lot and will be more careful in article creation in future.--Akrasia25 (talk) 03:13, 20 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Randykitty (talk) 17:21, 21 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Dr. Franklin Perkins School[edit]

If you came here because someone asked you to, or you read a message on another website, please note that this is not a majority vote, but instead a discussion among Wikipedia contributors. Wikipedia has policies and guidelines regarding the encyclopedia's content, and consensus (agreement) is gauged based on the merits of the arguments, not by counting votes. However, you are invited to participate and your opinion is welcome. Remember to assume good faith on the part of others and to sign your posts on this page by adding ~~~~ at the end. Note: Comments may be tagged as follows. Suspected single-purpose accounts: ((subst:spa|username)), suspected canvassed users: ((subst:canvassed|username)), accounts blocked for sockpuppetry: ((subst:csm|username)) or ((subst:csp|username))

Dr. Franklin Perkins 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)

Just because they call this a school doesn't make it a school. An institution of this kind lacks the societal position a school for the general population occupies. As such, it shouldn't be measured for notability as a general school is. Fails WP:NORG John from Idegon (talk) 16:12, 14 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. John from Idegon (talk) 16:12, 14 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. CASSIOPEIA^(talk) 17:20, 14 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. CASSIOPEIA^(talk) 17:20, 14 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Massachusetts-related deletion discussions. CASSIOPEIA^(talk) 17:20, 14 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete I know we're pretty loose with schools and notability here but this, while possibly being a "good cause" falls under WP:NORG as it's an organization and not a school in terms of Wikipedia's definition. I can find virtually nothing about this school that would satisfy WP:N.Praxidicae (talk) 16:14, 14 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Aside from routine personnel announcements, there was this Boston Globe piece, but it was mostly about Conroy rather than the organization: [6]. But even the passing mentions make it clear that this is not a school in Wikipedia terms. Search does not find the level of coverage necessary to pass WP:ORGCRIT. Bakazaka (talk) 21:38, 14 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - Not a school. Does not meet general notability criteria. Spyder212 (talk) 02:01, 15 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak keep - I'm not an expert on schools, but I have some familiarity with special education, and this organization appears to include a private K-12 special education school with some accreditations. At the risk of making an WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS argument, I'll note that we have a number of articles on other special education establishments; see Category:Special_schools_in_the_United_States. OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 13:59, 15 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Well, you just made an WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS argument. -The Gnome (talk) 09:54, 18 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete: A lot of concerns! (Please note User:40.131.26.178 has now been blocked.) - Ret.Prof (talk) 13:08, 17 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. Thanks to Bakazaka, I was able to use that Globe piece to reference one detail that was already in the article and add some information: the number of students, the fact it's no longer primarily residential, and the change in the population served. (I also added the background of the house.) It's a school that educates up to 12th grade and beyond, and has been written about. Yngvadottir (talk) 18:12, 17 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nomination. Subject fails WP:ORGCRITE. A gallant effort by our inclusionist colleague Yngvadottir but one article in a newspaper about the subject's chief administrator does not for Wikinotability make. As to the arguments about its "number of students" and the "population served," they're equally weak. The text was created and then curated by half a dozen kamikaze accounts, one of whom dares us by signing as "Clearly not here to contribute to an encyclopedia". They all might be one single person, though (hopefully). -The Gnome (talk) 09:54, 18 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete very much per The Gnome; pace the work that's been done, but it's not WP:HEY time (which not the Y's fault, but if the sources are absent, they're absent). ——SerialNumber54129 10:01, 18 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete but not per nom. I strongly object to the ableism in the idea that it is not a "proper" school just because the students have disabilities. It is by definition a school (amongst other things) because it presents a K-12 education curriculum, period. However, it is not a notable school, thus delete. Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 15:01, 18 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Disability-related deletion discussions. Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 15:15, 18 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment. Since my !vote above I've found and added a couple more sources, but I mainly came back to say substantially what Dodger67 says above regarding the "not a school" argument; specialty schools are schools, too, and I'd hate to think this one is counted less of a school because it now aims to return its students to conventional schools whenever possible. Yngvadottir (talk) 17:21, 18 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

For what it's worth, I fully agree with Yngvadottir and Roger (Dodger67) as above. Beyond any -ism, such as ageism, this is a matter of elemementary human decency. -The Gnome (talk) 08:13, 19 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Y'all are pretty damn good at putting words into my mouth. Perhaps you should read it again. John from Idegon (talk) 17:27, 19 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete The claim that the nomination engages in "ableism" misunderstands what is going on. We have carved out an unjustified exemption to the general notability guidelines for secondary schools. This is based on the assumption that due to a variety of factors if one searches hard enough they will find sourcing. This is more questionable than is claimed, but does not apply at all to schools that are not broad community institutions.John Pack Lambert (talk) 19:45, 19 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Randykitty (talk) 15:47, 21 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Conrad Hyers[edit]

Conrad Hyers (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 significant enough to merit inclusion on Wikipedia MisterNoOne (talk) 15:52, 14 May 2019 (UTC) Creating deletion discussion for Conrad Hyers[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 16:02, 14 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 16:02, 14 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Pennsylvania-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 16:02, 14 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 16:03, 14 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep as already has coverage in multiple reliable sources in the article such as St Peters Herald, Kirkus Reviews, multiple academic journals. Also worldcat shows he has 3300 library holdings which is a strong sign of notability Atlantic306 (talk) 16:42, 14 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. I added a dozen or so published book reviews on multiple books, easily enough for WP:AUTHOR. —David Eppstein (talk) 17:41, 14 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• WP:SNOW Keep, sails past WP:AUTHOR because multiple book reviews of multiple books.E.M.Gregory (talk) 17:44, 14 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep as obvious pass of WP:AUTHOR#3. Thanks to David Eppstein for putting in the work. Bakazaka (talk) 21:50, 14 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Clearly meets WP:NAUTHOR. Papaursa (talk) 23:16, 14 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - Meets WP:NAUTHOR. Spyder212 (talk) 02:02, 15 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - As per above and WP:SNOWVizjim (talk) 07:00, 15 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep per Eppstein. --Tataral (talk) 13:22, 15 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• The consensus seems clear, but I do want to ask -- is an obituary from a small-town newspaper and a handful of book reviews from academic journals enough to establish the subject is "regarded as an important figure or is widely cited by peers or successors"? MrNoOne

  See WP:AUTHOR#3, which is the most relevant guideline here. Bakazaka (talk) 20:28, 15 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect to The Ohio State University Libraries. Seems like consensus here is that the topic does not meet Wikipedia's particular definition of notability. Since a redirect target has been offered and the possibility stated to copy some material over, with no disagreement, redirect it is per WP:ATD. If someone wants to retarget the redirect or get rid of it anyway, WP:RFD is thereaway. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 21:26, 21 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Empirical Musicology Review[edit]

Empirical Musicology Review (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 PRODded with reason "Non-notable journal. Not indexed in any selective databases, no independent sources. Does not meet WP:NJournals or WP:GNG." Article dePRODded with reason "The page should not be deleted as the journal is impactful for the field of Computational Musicology and is hosted by an R1 research institution in the USA." There is no evidence of impact and being hosted by an institution, no matter how reputed, is no grounds for notability. PROD reason still stands, hence: delete. Randykitty (talk) 15:35, 14 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academic journals-related deletion discussions. Randykitty (talk) 15:35, 14 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 16:04, 14 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment I turned up a few mentions of the journal: [7][8][9][10]. No judgment as yet. XOR'easter (talk) 17:02, 14 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment I saw these, but none of it goes beyond an in-passing mention. --Randykitty (talk) 17:13, 14 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Yes, nothing I've found goes into depth or substance. I'd suggest redirecting to the publisher, but we don't seem to have an article on them. XOR'easter (talk) 19:13, 14 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep – I noticed that about a dozen WP articles cite it. Having an article about the journal will allow readers to assess its value. -- Michael Bednarek (talk) 03:46, 15 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment Since when are citations in WP a criterium for notability? I could start publishing a journal, insert citations in some articles, and presto, my journal is notable?? Please provide a policy-based argument. Thanks. --Randykitty (talk) 05:31, 15 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Randykitty: You could start publishing a journal, insert citations in some articles, and without an article on the journal, readers would have no way of assessing the quality of that journal. -- Michael Bednarek (talk) 02:57, 17 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

And without any reliable sources or indexing in any selective database, all you would have to write an article about this hypothetical journal would be the information that the publisher puts online (unless you'd engage in some serious OR, of course). You seem to be arguing that any academic journal should be regarded as notable, a notion that has been rejected in AfD upon AfD. --Randykitty (talk) 09:56, 17 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete fails WP:NJOURNALS. Creating The Ohio State University Libraries and merging there would be ideal, however. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 14:25, 15 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Huh. We have an article for the Billy Ireland Cartoon Library & Museum, which is affiliated with the OSU library system, but not the OSU library system itself. There are oodles of other articles about OSU (see ((Ohio State University))), so there may be another redirect/merge target already about. XOR'easter (talk) 16:02, 15 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect to somewhere in the voluminous Category:Ohio State University or Category:Musicology, if a reasonable target can be found, and include a sentence or two there. Having a brief description of a journal that Wikipedia articles use as a reference would be helpful for readers, but that description doesn't have to be a stand-alone article. I think the mentions tallied above are substantial enough to warrant a, well, mention, but not enough for an entire article. XOR'easter (talk) 16:02, 15 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • I see that The Ohio State University Libraries exists now (thanks @Headbomb!). That would be a fine redirect target. XOR'easter (talk) 17:35, 16 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy keep. The subject is legally recognised town, which can be verified through reliable sources. Hence WP:GEOLAND applies. (non-admin closure) —usernamekiran(talk) 18:51, 17 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Maharajapuram[edit]

Maharajapuram (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 am still not convinced that it's notable. No indication of notability. Fails WP:GNG. Sincerely, Masum Reza^☎ 15:20, 14 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Sincerely, Masum Reza^☎ 15:20, 14 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 15:27, 14 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Speedy Keep -- WP:GEOLAND which is an English Wikipedia notability guideline states that populated, legally recognized places are typically presumed to be notable, even if their population is very low. Thousands of AfDs have been decided on the basis of this guideline and I am yet to come across a legally recognized place, that was deleted in contravention of this guideline. The nominator ought to put their efforts into something else, where they might be more productive. ∯WBG^converse 07:19, 15 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

  English Press trivially mentions the village over here, here, here....... ∯WBG^converse 07:30, 15 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Speedy Keep -- WP:GEOLAND as noted by Winged Blades of Godric. There are plenty of places wayyyy smaller than this on the wiki. Cabayi (talk) 12:22, 15 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Speedy Keep Satisfies WP:GEOLAND. Smartyllama (talk) 17:40, 16 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Randykitty (talk) 15:43, 21 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Pamela Wilson[edit]

Pamela Wilson (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 appears to be an attempted promotion of her business, radio show, and book. Most of the article's sources are about her general line of work, and not her own accomplishments. No reliable media coverage can be found for her radio show; her book and private practice have some notice in professional newsletters (e.g. [11]). All other sources found are routine business listings. ---DOOMSDAYER520 (Talk|Contribs) 14:33, 14 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. ---DOOMSDAYER520 (Talk|Contribs) 14:33, 14 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Health and fitness-related deletion discussions. ---DOOMSDAYER520 (Talk|Contribs) 14:33, 14 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete this "Expert, Advocate and Speaker" as mere PROMO for a self-promoting owner of a home care agency. she wrote a How-to book about homecare, which sank with hardly a ripple. Fails WP:SIGCOV.E.M.Gregory (talk) 17:42, 14 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - WP:PROMOTION, WP:ORGIND Book looks like a vanity press publication. The referenced blog posts are generally fawning and promotional, e.g. including subject in a list with Oprah Winfrey and Katherine Graham. ogenstein (talk) 18:14, 14 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Speedy delete UNAMBIGUOUS advertisement. Trillfendi (talk) 17:44, 16 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as not WP:GNG and WP:PROMOTION Lubbad85 (☎) 23:28, 16 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Does not meet GNG or any SNG (handwaves towards a couple) and has promotional aspects which are unencylopedic. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 01:59, 17 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Randykitty (talk) 15:35, 21 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Radio Woking[edit]

Radio Woking (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 community radio station. The article sounds like a promotion for the station. Quite a few refs relating to the station nowbeing on DAB, but not sure this is enough. I could be wrong. I'm happy to be corrected. - Funky Snack (Talk) 08:26, 7 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2019 May 7. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 08:45, 7 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Radio-related deletion discussions. CASSIOPEIA^(talk) 09:02, 7 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. CASSIOPEIA^(talk) 09:03, 7 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Weak keep The lack of notability for the article can be argued but I vote for borderline articles such as this to be kept to allow for further improvement, especially given that it contains several independent references. Rillington (talk) 11:36, 7 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - three refs to the station's own website, one to a blog, one not working and one with a passing mention in a list - hardly the "significant coverage in reliable, independent secondary sources" required by WP:ORG - therefore, delete - Epinoia (talk) 01:38, 20 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Randykitty (talk) 15:28, 21 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Rhosddu United Y.F.C.[edit]

Rhosddu United Y.F.C. (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)

Been uncited for years, but this is simply a non-notable youth club from Wales. Fails WP:GNG and WP:FOOTYN. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 12:14, 14 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 12:14, 14 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Wales-related deletion discussions. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 12:14, 14 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Not a notable youth football club, doesn't appear to have produced any superstars or had anything of note happen to the club. Seasider91 (talk) 17:30, 14 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. ChrisTheDude (talk) 07:30, 15 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - it takes something special for a youth club to be notable and there's no evidence of it here -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 07:30, 15 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - Looking through the news articles, the only one that has popped up is this one in 2018. Other than that, sources for this youth club is rare. Fails WP:N Matt294069 (talk) 05:57, 17 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - no evidence of notability. GiantSnowman 11:29, 20 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect to List of Gilligan's Island characters. Anything worth merging is available from the article history. Randykitty (talk) 15:28, 21 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Gilligan's Island Cast[edit]

Gilligan's Island Cast (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

There already exists List of Gilligan's Island characters where all the cast information is provided. The subject of that list is character instead of cast, though. If some information in this article is not given in that list, content can be merged. A redirect can be considered but I am not sure if it is suitable. Prod was declined by author. But I would sincerely suggest the author choose to work on and improve that list. 94rain ^Talk 10:45, 14 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. 94rain ^Talk 10:45, 14 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. 94rain ^Talk 10:45, 14 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Merge as suggested. Mccapra (talk) 13:29, 14 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge into either the suggested article or the main Gilligan's Island article. Bensci54 (talk) 16:46, 14 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect to List of Gilligan's Island characters, there is nothing in this article that is worth merging. Ajf773 (talk) 21:03, 14 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect to List of Gilligan's Island characters. This article is redundant to an already existing one. Doc Strange^MailboxLogbook 16:42, 16 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect as information is already there. Could merge if there is anything new to merge, but at the moment there isn't. Probably could also just be speedy'd via A10? WikiVirusC^(talk) 17:03, 16 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • I think the title may be used for a redirect but I just doubt whether it could be a suitable one. But I think for now there is consensus to redirect? --94rain ^Talk 12:01, 17 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect given lack of things that could be merged. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 01:30, 17 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as article has no information that is not on existing cast list. A redirect would be my second choice.DiamondRemley39 (talk) 04:47, 19 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect to Gilligan's Island as this same cast list appears in the Gilligan's Island article - unnecessary duplicate content fork - I actually think a Delete is a better idea - Epinoia (talk) 01:19, 20 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Randykitty (talk) 15:26, 21 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Anand Chandrasekaran[edit]

Anand Chandrasekaran (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

Delete Fails the criteria for notability. A technology executive hoping to up their profile. References are primarily announcements and are not considered for establishing notability. Fails WP:BLP. HighKing⁺⁺ 10:38, 14 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. HighKing⁺⁺ 10:38, 14 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. HighKing⁺⁺ 10:38, 14 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 10:40, 14 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep Passes the criteria for notability. Wall Street Journal and The Economic Times articles, which are GREAT verifiable sources have articles with his name in the title. He is an experienced and well known executive. Having not contributed to the article at all, still I can see from the first glance of the article that the references that the articles has are in accordance with the criteria of notability. Rest is the decision of the well experienced editors. Sentiments777 (talk) 20:52, 14 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Sock !vote deleted. Editor blocked by Berean Hunter. See block log here. HighKing⁺⁺ 19:24, 19 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete a non-notable facebook employee. Facebook engages in horrible lack of review of duplicate accounts to inflate their number of users and make them seem a bigger factor than they are.John Pack Lambert (talk) 21:34, 19 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect to Chumbawamba. Randykitty (talk) 15:21, 21 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Agit-Prop Records[edit]

Agit-Prop Records (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

Unsourced NCORP fail. Cannot find anything more in sourcing. Not to be confused wit the similarly named Agitprop! Records ThatMontrealIP (talk) 04:25, 7 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 05:06, 7 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 05:06, 7 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Merge to Chumbawamba. Seems like a proper merge target, easy enough. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 06:09, 7 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Redirect to Chumbawamba - not notable enough for a stand-alone article - does not meet WP:ORGSIG - therefore, Redirect - Epinoia (talk) 00:34, 20 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Sandstein 10:27, 14 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Acme Records[edit]

Acme Records (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

NCORP fail. Not to be confused with numerous Acme Records stores and other similarly named record labels. ThatMontrealIP (talk) 04:20, 7 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 05:09, 7 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 05:09, 7 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete this non-notable record label. Trillfendi (talk) 17:25, 7 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Randykitty (talk) 15:19, 21 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

100% Records[edit]

100% Records (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

NCORP fail. Tagged for sourcing since 2015. Cannot find adequate RS in a search. ThatMontrealIP (talk) 04:17, 7 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 05:09, 7 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 05:10, 7 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete I am unable to locate any references that meet the criteria for establishing the notability of the company. Topic fails GNG and WP:NCORP. HighKing⁺⁺ 10:41, 14 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. Fails WP:GNG. - Funky Snack (Talk) 20:22, 14 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Randykitty (talk) 15:12, 21 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Valea Făgetului River (Misir)[edit]

Valea Făgetului River (Misir) (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 article is probably a hoax. The river does not exist on maps or in its vicinity. Apart from that, it has no information other than it exists. Oshawott 12 ==()== Talk to me! 04:04, 7 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete I have spent a long time looking into this river and see no existence of it being real. I a valley with this name but the two closest rivers were named Raul Aries and Mures who share a Romanian Wikipedia article [12] and don't seem to mention this place. Following up the chain of articles starting with the article proper leads me to the Crișul Repede which looks to be in a whole different part of the country than the valley. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 04:19, 7 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

  It is a very small river indeed. I have found it on one map: https://bihor-county.map2web.eu/. It is about 4 km south of the village Șuncuiuș and 2-3 km northeast of Zece Hotare, around 46°54′40″N 22°31′01″E / 46.911°N 22.517°E / 46.911; 22.517. From what I see there it may be 3 km long. I don't think it's notable, that's why I redirected it to the river it flows into, Misir (which was reverted by an anonymus). Markussep ^Talk 07:31, 7 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Well that's something - thanks! I couldn't verify whether it even existed either. --Elmidae (talk · contribs) 01:50, 12 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I agree. I'm not sure this is a useful redirect but redirects are cheap so no big deal. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 02:23, 12 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Romania-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 05:21, 7 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Probably not a hoax per User:Markussep, but redirect to Misir anyway, ditto. – John M Wolfson (talk | contribs) 21:37, 7 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep ... every river on earth is notable. 77.13.19.9 (talk) 02:05, 8 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

  Not necessarily. From WP:GEOLAND, Named natural features are often notable, provided information beyond statistics and coordinates is known to exist. This includes mountains, lakes, streams, islands, etc. The number of known sources should be considered to ensure there is enough verifiable content for an encyclopedic article. If a Wikipedia article cannot be developed using known sources, information on the feature can instead be included in a more general article on local geography. For example, a river island with no information available except name and location should probably be described in an article on the river. (Emphasis mine.) As such, we should describe this in the article of the Misir since it doesn't have enough information for its own article. – John M Wolfson (talk | contribs) 02:11, 8 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

  "We" should stop using "we" in discussions, when posting opinions. 77.13.19.9 (talk) 02:17, 8 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

  It's an accepted guideline, not an opinion. Markussep ^Talk 08:15, 8 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

  He was referring to the statement by John M Wolfson, not to the guideline. Mosaicberry (talk • contribs) 20:01, 14 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

  It was still a bit insolent and wiseacre-y, IMO. In any event I still think we should redirect per my earlier statement. – John M Wolfson (talk • contribs) 20:13, 14 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 14:08, 9 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Redirect to Misir, for reasons above (i note that the Romanian WP has an article on Valea Făgetului, Alba only, and its around 80miles away from this location). Coolabahapple (talk) 14:23, 9 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - I would say Redirect, but the Misir article does not mention Valea Făgetului River - does not meet WP:GEOLAND guideline "Named natural features" which requires verifiable sources - the article doesn't even give geographical coordinates - One sentence does not an article make - therefore, delete - Epinoia (talk) 00:25, 20 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

  It does mention Valea Făgetului, in the infobox. That's not much, I know. BTW WP:1S is an essay (which I don't quite agree with), not a guideline. Markussep ^Talk 07:20, 20 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect to Aztlán. Any mergeable content is available from the article history. Randykitty (talk) 15:08, 21 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Flag of Aztlán[edit]

Flag of Aztlán (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 seems to lack notability and is poorly sourced. Potentially merge information with the larger topic of Aztlán Garuda28 (talk) 20:45, 29 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I have, because I haven't done the work yet and may not get round to it before this discussion is closed, no comment about whether this should be kept as a separate article, but if it is merged then I would suggest that Chicano Movement might be a better target. Phil Bridger (talk) 20:55, 29 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Mexico-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 21:03, 29 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Ethnic groups-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 21:03, 29 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Merge with Aztlán per nom. Rubbish computer (Talk: Contribs) 09:10, 2 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Merge the sourced content to Chicano Movement, as this flag is a relatively recent invention stemming from that movement and should properly be merged to that main article, rather than to a subsection like Aztlán#Use by the Chicano movement that has a note to see the main article anyway. Bakazaka (talk) 20:21, 7 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Randykitty (talk) 15:06, 21 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Dave Hamilton (author)[edit]

Dave Hamilton (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)

Author, heavily promotional article with a list of their book titles but a distinct lack of secondary sourcing to indicate WP:BLPN. Created years back by a WP:SPA, possibly WP:COI too.

Today it appeared (and why I was influenced to AfD it) as a link from Frome, where it's dubious per WP:UNDUE, see [13] Andy Dingley (talk) 15:40, 29 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 15:52, 29 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 15:53, 29 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Journalism-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 15:53, 29 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]