Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2019 April 5: Difference between revisions

Browse history interactively

← Previous edit Next edit →

Content deleted Content added

VisualWikitext

Inline

Revision as of 04:58, 5 April 2019

Recent AfDs: Today Yesterday

Media Organisations Biography Society Web Games Science Arts Places Indiscern. Not-Sorted

< 4 April	6 April >

Guide to deletion

Purge server cache

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

The result was no consensus. This has been relisted twice and while, granted, there's more keep !votes than there are delete !votes, a consensus hasn't been established in my opinion ... There's a lot of protest over the sourcing (primarily an article) and whether they meet GNG. I appreciate everyone remaining civil and understandably this is a passionate subject. With this conversation being rather in depth, and contentious, there's no prejudice over a speedy renomination. (non-admin closure) Dusti ^{*Let's talk!*} 02:05, 20 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

St. Francis of Assisi Catholic Church (Jefferson, North Carolina)

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

Generic local congregation, no substantive third-party sources to assert notability. Reywas92^Talk 23:39, 29 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 23:42, 29 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of North Carolina-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 23:42, 29 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete -- an unremarkable local congregation by appearnces. Peterkingiron (talk) 16:48, 30 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails WP:GNG. Best, GPL93 (talk) 19:20, 1 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Meets WP:GEOFEAT guidelines. It seems to a be historical architecture and the fact that there is little references on it should not be reason for delete, as this place is built in 1899 so there won't be much recent news on it. ~Leny Tee55~ 07:07, 4 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
- Simply being old does not guarantee notability. Little reference is exactly why it should be deleted. Actual historical architecture, rather than any old building, would have independent sources on it.
Keep per above. While the Catholic congregation itself is not notable, the building is a historic one for the area. -- Willthacheerleader18 (talk) 18:07, 4 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
- Well are there any notable sources establishing notability for the building, like a listing on a historic register? Still fails GNG and WP:NCHURCH. Reywas92^Talk 18:41, 4 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Rule of thumb for editors considering nomination churches for deletion: American churches that are a century old or that are or were large can almost always be sourced. Let's test that assertion with this one.E.M.Gregory (talk) 19:34, 4 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
WP:HEY Keep Coverage is right where you would expect it to be, in reliable newspapers and in the guide to historic architecture in the region published by the state university press.E.M.Gregory (talk) 20:13, 4 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 04:58, 5 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per E.M.Gregory's statement above. The sources added indicate historical notability. I think it passes WP:GNG. Skirts⁸⁹ 09:34, 5 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete As far as I'm concerned, local historical significance doesn't automatically equate to GNG. Trillfendi (talk) 18:43, 5 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
delete People simply are not reading the article carefully. This is an article about a parish, not a building, which by the way the parish hasn't occupied in some years anyway. The narrative is routine: Catholic parish starts in the 1960s, taking over existing building which happens (possibly) to be historic; eventually it outgrows it (as is commonplace for Catholic parishes) and they build a new church. there is no real notability in any of this, and the sources about the parish reflect that. Mangoe (talk) 19:40, 5 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Please AGF, I see no reasons to conclude that editors are unaware that this congregation moved into an historic building.E.M.Gregory (talk) 15:11, 8 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - there is a book source, there are newspaper sources, there is the site of the congregation itself as source for statements about itself. Clearly meets GNG. XavierItzm (talk) 12:22, 6 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as per WP:HEY as extra content and references showing significant coverage in reliable sources have been added so there is no valid reason for deletion, thanks Atlantic306 (talk) 13:51, 6 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - added Navbox for Roman Catholic Diocese of Raleigh since St.Francis is a member parish; added See also section. Article improvements to better integrate into Wikipedia. JoeHebda (talk) 14:10, 6 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment changed to Roman Catholic Diocese of Charlotte, as St. Francis is in the Western diocese. -- Willthacheerleader18 (talk) 02:23, 8 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

RANT Could people please look at this a bit before commenting??? The book reference is not about the parish; it's about a building they no longer occupy and which was built for someone else. The coverage is routine for a local church. I actually bothered to look at both buildings, the old and the current: the former now houses some independent Baptists, and the latter is a typical small modern church. There is no notability here; it's just another minor Catholic parish. Mangoe (talk) 12:22, 7 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The book documents that this congregation purchased and occupied for over half a century a church building erected by a different denomination in 1899. Details about the congregation's history, including the buildings it has occupied, are reliably sourced. Notability by no means depends on the historic building, but it is part of the history of the congregation and contributes its mite to the notability of the parish.E.M.Gregory (talk) 17:46, 7 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

No, it really doesn't. Catholic parishes started in the 1960s are a dime a gross, not merely a dozen. Starting out in someone else's old building is not especially odd, and it didn't achieve notice outside the locality. If the building is historic, then write an article on the building, but the parish is just another Catholic parish. Mangoe (talk) 12:04, 8 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Discussion in a university press book doesn't "contribute its mite to the notability of the parish"? - seriously?E.M.Gregory (talk) 15:06, 8 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

While I am unable to read the page in question without getting my hands on a physical copy, probing with GBooks seems to say that the parish isn't mentioned at all, and the building gets no more than a very brief listing and not a "discussion". From what I can see, the material in the guide is not enough to write an article on anything it lists, but again (and it is really beginning to irritate me the number of times I'm having to repeat this) this isn't an article about the building, and the parish hasn't occupied it for years, in any case. Notability is not inherited by formerly residing in a (minimally) historic building. Mangoe (talk) 16:18, 8 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Here: is the snippet from the book that I found online" "Across the street the former Jefferson Presbyterian Church (now St. Francis of Assisi Catholic Church) (ca. 1900; sw corner of Main and Ivey Sts.) is a shingled Gothic Revival church with corner bell- tower. Nearby the little William B. Austin ..." But the article hardly relies on that alone, there is a good deal of detail in the newspaper articles about the history of the church and its buildings.E.M.Gregory (talk) 19:31, 8 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Architecture-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 13:54, 7 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

they no longer occupy is a canard repeated above more than once. This is an unencyclopaedic argument. Entries do not get deleted from Wikipedia because they no longer are, or because they no longer are there, or because they moved. Albert Einstein is no longer; we still have an entry for him. Berlin's airport Johannisthal Air Field is no longer there at all, but we still have an entry for it. London's main airport moved from Hounslow Aerodrome to Croydon Aerodrome on 28 March 1920, but we still have an entry for Hounslow Aerodrome.

Policy requires the WP:GNG to be met, which it is here through material such as book citations, journal citations, etc.; arguments ad tempores which have no basis on Wikipedia policies have no place on Wikipedia. XavierItzm (talk) 06:52, 9 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Technically, it is not a canard that they no longer occupy the building, because it is true that they do not. I have repeated that point because, other than the kind of local media coverage that is typical of any congregation which erects a new building, this is the only claim to notability. But the fact that the parish vacated it and presumably passed it along to the Baptists who now use it emphasizes that the building and the parish are not the same thing, and that an article which isn't about the building is not justified by that former residence. Mangoe (talk) 17:05, 11 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

delete since there doesn't seem to be a good merger target. "St. Francis of Rome Catholic Church in Sparta, North Carolina is a mission of St. Francis of Assisi Church", per WP:BRANCH. If the building is notable, then the page should be made about the building, then the church, which moved into it in 1960 be added as a section. Notability does not transfer to the new owner or new tenant from simply becoming the new owner or an occupant of a presumably notable building per WP:INHERITORG. It's described as the only catholic church in that city. Given that it's a city with a 2010 population of 1,611, and declining, this doesn't add to notability. Graywalls (talk) 11:10, 13 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Spartaz ^Humbug! 14:11, 13 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The argument for keeping, however, does not depend on the historic buildign the church worshipped in for half a century. The argument is that while the article was at AfD, substantive coverage of the founding and history and activities of the congregation were found and added to the page.E.M.Gregory (talk) 19:25, 16 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was merge to Multiple deprivation index. Sandstein 07:01, 13 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Deprivation index

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

just an unreferenced list Rathfelder (talk) 23:40, 29 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Economics-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 23:43, 29 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Finance-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 23:43, 29 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 23:43, 29 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Appears to be a perfectly reasonable list/disambiguation article. --Michig (talk) 07:20, 30 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Merge with Multiple deprivation index. (I don't have strong feelings for which name to keep.) This is a legitimate area of study, see e.g. OECD, Journal of Social Science and Medicine, Journal of Health Affairs, Journal of Epidemiology and Community Health, Journal of Environment and Planning (again), etc. While the most prominent use is in the UK, many of these articles indicate more limited usage elsewhere, and the current MDI article's lede is probably incorrect - these two articles describe the same fundamental topic. MarginalCost (talk) 14:18, 30 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Social science-related deletion discussions. MarginalCost (talk) 14:20, 30 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 04:57, 5 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Merger seems sensible.Rathfelder (talk) 12:14, 5 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. No sources presented to establish notability. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 02:53, 21 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

St. Katherine Greek Orthodox Church (Burlington, North Carolina)

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

Generic local congregation, no substantive third-party sources to establish notability Reywas92^Talk 23:43, 29 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. Ceethekreator (talk) 00:05, 30 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of North Carolina-related deletion discussions. Ceethekreator (talk) 00:05, 30 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete -- quite apart from copy-vio issues, this appears to be an unremarkable local church. Peterkingiron (talk) 16:49, 30 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Halt/Wait - Someone needs to find more sources within a month or two of about this one of two only Eastern Orthodox Parish, as well need to be noble Primary or Secondary based I guess, before if they wanted to delete the page, with my approval. Chad The Goatman (talk) 19:33, 2 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

User:Chad The Goatman Just so. Will you have a chance to look for some?E.M.Gregory (talk) 22:12, 4 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Oh course, not right now as I mentioned with also given the reason of extending it until there no new sources. Chad The Goatman (talk) 21:03, 4 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Keep. I wrote this article a few years back and, admitting, did not do a great job. That being said, it is unique for a Greek Orthodox parish to exist in rural North Carolina and I feel that, with some help or time, I may be able to find more written sources to back a claim of significance. -- Willthacheerleader18 (talk) 18:11, 4 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

User:Willthacheerleader18, I've added two sources.E.M.Gregory (talk) 21:54, 4 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Well, my current location in its state standards, Is prefer as semi-urban and small city since its have current 52,000 to 54,000+ people living there. Chad The Goatman (talk) 21:03, 4 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 04:52, 5 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep as reliable sources references are being added and commitments have been made for article improvement so deletion is unwarranted at this stage Atlantic306 (talk) 13:55, 6 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Architecture-related deletion discussions. Necrothesp (talk) 12:32, 10 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 07:01, 13 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, without prejudice to speedy recreation if additional sources are found which show independent, in-depth coverage in reliable sources, but I'm not seeing any here and don't see any when I look myself. It may be unusual for the area, but the fact of that doesn't manifest sources for us to use. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 14:06, 13 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. — JJMC89 (T·C) 23:27, 12 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Alex Breingan

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

GNG fail. All sources that I can find are simply trivial mentions to the effect of "Alex Breingan, executive producer at Toe Rag Productions which produces The Cafe".. and so on. ThatMontrealIP (talk) 04:09, 5 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 04:53, 5 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 04:53, 5 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of New Zealand-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 04:53, 5 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 04:53, 5 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete He owns the production company that produces the show in which he features... seems more than a little bit "write the theme tune, sing the theme tune" (1). Cabayi (talk) 14:06, 5 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Cabayi, who said it better and nicer than I could have. Praxidicae (talk) 16:44, 5 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I tagged the article for UPE due to recent SPI (see MediaCheckNZ contribs in edit history). The socks were all interested in the articles related to this article subject's business interests, which are related to the article subject.ThatMontrealIP (talk) 18:45, 5 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. He has done well for himself. But, is not notable, as above. (Dushan Jugum (talk) 20:36, 10 April 2019 (UTC)).[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. — JJMC89 (T·C) 23:26, 12 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Bernadette P. McPherson

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

Believe this should have been speedy deleted since a large portion of the article was copied from [1], but was declined. However, the article still does not meet notability standards of WP:POLITICIAN, simply being a small town mayor or county freeholder does not get you past notability requirements. Rusf10 (talk) 03:09, 5 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 04:54, 5 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of New Jersey-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 04:54, 5 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 13:37, 7 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Clearly fails WP:NPOL. Best, GPL93 (talk) 12:34, 8 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. The county level of political office does not confer an automatic free pass over WP:NPOL — a county freeholder might clear NPOL #2 if they can be referenced to enough reliable source coverage to make them a special case of significantly greater notability than most other county councillors, but a county councillor does not get an automatic inclusion freebie just because her existence is technically verified by a "staff" profile on the council's own self-published website about itself. This is referenced entirely to primary sources, not to any evidence of notability-supporting media coverage, and is at least partially a direct cut-paste copyvio of one of those primary sources anyway — all of which means that nothing here is evidence of notability at all. Bearcat (talk) 14:24, 8 April 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. Goodness knows why this was relisted for a second time, as by then consensus was clear. The editor who uses the pseudonym "JamesBWatson" (talk) 12:32, 26 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Charles G. Hall

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

Not notable and poorly sourced. Being nominated for a Pulitzer prize does not make you notable, winning it does. Rusf10 (talk) 01:29, 5 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Photography-related deletion discussions. CASSIOPEIA^(talk) 02:51, 5 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Illinois-related deletion discussions. CASSIOPEIA^(talk) 02:51, 5 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Nebraska-related deletion discussions. CASSIOPEIA^(talk) 02:51, 5 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Wyoming-related deletion discussions. CASSIOPEIA^(talk) 02:51, 5 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - most longtime and award winning journalists are encyclopedic. This article passes WP:CCPOL and is, in my opinion, encyclopedic. Smmurphy^(Talk) 15:36, 5 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Journalism-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 19:39, 5 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 19:39, 5 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. This person does not meet the notability criteria outlined at WP:CREATIVE, so this article should be deleted. Qono (talk) 20:50, 5 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
- Hall received the award, television photographer of the year for the central region, by the NPPA among other awards which seems to satisfy #1 and #4, no? Smmurphy^(Talk) 21:54, 5 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  - No. The policy says "widely cited" and "significant critical attention". This award does not satisfy either criteria. Qono (talk) 23:47, 5 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
delete I don't believe the awards he received show automatic notability and I'm not seeing coverage that meets the GNG (in my opinion).Sandals1 (talk) 14:52, 12 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
- Regarding the extensiveness of coverage - the vast majority of newspapers.com articles on searches of "Pat Hall" focusing on the states he worked during his career are about him or his work, such as the 115 results searching Wyoming between 1961 and 1976"pat+hall"&dr_year=1961-1976&offset=22&p_place=WY. Many of these hits are about his reportage, although none of the magazines he worked at in Wyoming are indexed during that period. During the period 1972-1976 he was primarily not working as a journalist, but as a director of bicentennial celebrations in the Midwest/Mountain West. Here are 83 hits from Wyoming during that period, mostly about that work [2]. A large number of those 83 articles are not merely quotes of Hall, but are discussions of his operations and activities. Smmurphy^(Talk) 15:38, 12 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 07:00, 13 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete not WP:GNG Lubbad85 (☎) 17:20, 15 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
- @Lubbad85: In what sense is it "not GNG". It is sourced to a dozen RS over 50 years about the subject and his accomplishments. Sorry to ask but I'm genuinely curious. Smmurphy^(Talk) 12:14, 19 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 06:17, 20 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - Since this was relisted, I'm adding it to the history discussions list as his role in bicentenial celebrations (as regional commission chair and state committee director) might be of interest there. Smmurphy^(Talk) 16:53, 20 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. Smmurphy^(Talk) 16:53, 20 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. — JJMC89 (T·C) 23:25, 12 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

N. Leonard Smith

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

Local politician, unsuccessful senate candidate, does not meet WP:POLITICIAN. Rusf10 (talk) 01:01, 5 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. KCVelaga (talk) 01:17, 5 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Pennsylvania-related deletion discussions. KCVelaga (talk) 01:17, 5 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Neither being a third party candidate in an election nor being a county-level legislator passes WP:NPOL. Best, GPL93 (talk) 12:24, 5 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete a non-notable candidate.John Pack Lambert (talk) 18:58, 5 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 19:38, 5 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Neither holding local political office nor being an unsuccessful candidate for higher office constitutes a guaranteed inclusion freebie on Wikipedia, but the article is referenced nowhere close to well enough to get him over the bar. To be considered notable enough for inclusion in Wikipedia, a person at these levels of political significance would have to either (a) have preexisting notability for other reasons that would already have gotten him an article anyway (e.g. clearing our inclusion criteria in another field of endeavour), or (b) be referenceable to a depth and range and volume of coverage that expanded significantly beyond what's merely expected to exist for all county councillors and all unsuccessful congressional candidates. That's not what these references show, however: four of the five footnotes are primary sources that do not constitute support for notability at all, and the only one that's actual media coverage is a routine obituary in a small community weekly — which is not enough coverage to get somebody over WP:GNG all by itself if he has no notability claims that would pass any SNGs. Bearcat (talk) 14:39, 8 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. — JJMC89 (T·C) 23:24, 12 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Tracy Silna Zur

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

County politician, does not meet notability requirements of WP:POLITICIAN Rusf10 (talk) 00:58, 5 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. KCVelaga (talk) 01:17, 5 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of New Jersey-related deletion discussions. KCVelaga (talk) 01:17, 5 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Doesn't pass WP:NPOL, she was a potential congressional candidate (still not enough to pass) in 2013. Best, GPL93 (talk) 12:26, 5 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete another non-notable county level New Jersey politician.John Pack Lambert (talk) 19:01, 5 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Law-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 19:37, 5 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 13:36, 7 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy delete per G7. (non-admin closure) Sheldybett (talk) 07:17, 5 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Rachel Hart

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

I came to this article via Coin. Appears to be a promotional effort for an Australian Media producer. Once I trimmed a dozen or so references that had links straight back to the article subject, there was not much left. GNG fail. ThatMontrealIP (talk) 00:50, 5 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

There seems to be the strong odor of undisclosed promotional editing as well, as is evidenced by the placement of a speedy tag by the article author, the author's contribs list, and the requests to save it via draftify. Maybe some highly skilled admin can figure out what is gong on here. ThatMontrealIP (talk) 04:33, 5 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Okay. You can remove, but please draftify for the meantime. Thank you ThatMontrealIP. --Media Edit NZ (talk) 00:57, 5 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
New Zealand. Not Australian. Again, can you please draftify the aritle please. This is just going around in loops. And I can look at trying to get it reviewed at a later time. Thanks --Media Edit NZ (talk) 01:10, 5 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete not only is this obvious WP:UPE but I can't find any indication the subject is notable. Praxidicae (talk) 01:15, 5 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. KCVelaga (talk) 01:16, 5 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of New Zealand-related deletion discussions. KCVelaga (talk) 01:16, 5 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I agree. I was almost swayed by their Promise that it is not UPE, but have come around. I appreciate anyone who wants to look at their other contribs. See also the connected article Alex Breingan, which I just AFD'd. ThatMontrealIP (talk) 04:27, 5 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 04:55, 5 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 04:55, 5 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. — JJMC89 (T·C) 23:23, 12 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Dave Schulz (musician)

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

Pretty much a promo for a random musician. Written like a resume. Not a single secondary source. Hydromania (talk) 00:22, 5 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Hydromania (talk) 00:26, 5 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. KCVelaga (talk) 01:16, 5 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete under G12 - it's a straight WP:COPYVIO of the biography on Schultz's own website [3]. Richard3120 (talk) 12:22, 5 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
delete Promotional and WP:COPYVIO for it's cut and paste content from his website. However, looking over the press section of his website, he may genuinely qualify for notability per RS coverage (Keyboard magazine, Playboy.com, etc), but the article needs recreated and resubmitted per wiki standards. ShelbyMarion (talk) 14:37, 8 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Purely WP:COPYVIO. 111.68.115.165 (talk) 05:49, 9 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: No evidence of notabillity and per WP:PROMO. SSSB (talk) 14:55, 9 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Non notable musician, WP:COPYVIO and purely promotional. Ceethekreator (talk) 20:28, 11 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as copyvio, added G12, suggest start again at afc basing the content on independent reliable sources Atlantic306 (talk) 22:08, 12 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. This has already been relisted twice and had no further discussion. There's no clear consensus and unfortunately this would be considered a disputed PROD, hence the closure as No Consensus. (non-admin closure) Dusti ^{*Let's talk!*} 02:33, 27 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Saranya Bhagyaraj

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

Actress with little notability. She only seems to have done 2 films so far (I can't find any others that she has been in), as well as a not inherited issue. Wgolf (talk) 00:12, 5 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. KCVelaga (talk) 01:15, 5 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. KCVelaga (talk) 01:15, 5 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. KCVelaga (talk) 01:15, 5 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

Delete not enough significant roles for notability.John Pack Lambert (talk) 19:01, 5 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. The formerly unreleased film has now been released. https://www.cinemaexpress.com/stories/news/2019/mar/19/horror-film-gets-a-release-after-12-years-10616.html I think her multiple roles are enough to establish notability. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 20:33, 5 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Draft as may become notable after the film mentioned above is released, its planned for release later this year and the actress has a leading role but given the previous 12 year delay I don't think its release can be taken for granted so drafting is an option I think is appropriate Atlantic306 (talk) 22:52, 8 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Spartaz ^Humbug! 14:11, 13 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Nosebagbear (talk) 21:48, 20 April 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 07:01, 13 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Documentary for the Recently Deceased

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

Minimally sourced article about a film which was still only in the crowdfunding phase as of the last time any source (reliable or otherwise) actually wrote about it. As always, every film that enters the production pipeline does not automatically get an article as soon as just one or two sources verify that the film is planned: most films aren't eligible for articles until we can at least source a confirmed release date, and only select high-profile projects that get a lot more coverage than the norm actually get to have articles any earlier than that, and that's especially true as long as you have to rely entirely on blogs to actually have any sources at all. Bearcat (talk) 00:11, 5 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. IntoThinAir (talk) 00:19, 5 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete/draftity. WP:TOOSOON. Might be best to draftify this, so the creator can restore this after the film is released if it wins awards/gets more coverage. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 10:26, 5 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete/draftify. I was going to argue that there's enough coverage to mention this on the other media section for the article on the film itself, however I have two arguments against this. The first is that there's no coverage beyond announcements that funding campaigns were launched. There was some light coverage in 2017 when the first one was launched and some other light coverage when the Kickstarter campaign was launched about a year later to fund more interviews. The second is that the Kickstarter campaign was unsuccessful and they failed to meet their goal, so they didn't get their money. This means that any progress that is being made on the movie will either be halted or slowed dramatically, which will result in it being a very long time before it's completed and released. This in turn means that the documentary's progress will be unlikely to receive coverage in the media. I'm aware that they've started filming, but the coverage just isn't heavy enough to really justify an article at this point in time or really a mention on the main article. I think turning this into a draft is the right option here. ReaderofthePack(formerly Tokyogirl79) (｡◕‿◕｡) 00:21, 6 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Draftify per above. At this stage there simply isn't enough evidence to suggest it is sufficently notable for an article. If it becomes notable later it can be recreated. SSSB (talk) 14:51, 9 April 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.

@@ Line 12: / Line 12: @@
 __TOC__
 <!-- Add new entries to the TOP of the following list -->
+{{Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/St. Francis of Assisi Catholic Church (Jefferson, North Carolina)}}<!--Relisted-->
 {{Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Deprivation index}}<!--Relisted-->
 {{Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/St. Katherine Greek Orthodox Church (Burlington, North Carolina)}}<!--Relisted-->