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 11:01, 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. There are both weak and substantive arguments on either side of this discussion. While the arguments to delete are slightly stronger, the claim that the subject meets NAUTHOR has not been convincingly refuted (as the claims to GNG have been). The discussion has been relisted thrice, so I have no option but to close this as "no consensus", with no prejudice against renomination at any point. Vanamonde (Talk) 21:38, 27 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Elizabeth Celi

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

Not notable. According to her website she is no longer engaged in the practice of psychology, but is apparently looking for work as a director in the film industry. According to her film CV, she has not yet made any notable or even significant films, She never was notable as a psychologist, the only references for this are her own interviews. I cannot confirm Director of Australian Psychological Society, but that seems to be an administrative position, not president of a society. She has published 2 unimportant academic papers in minor journals, and self-published two books. DGG ( talk ) 17:35, 28 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. Icewhiz (talk) 17:41, 28 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sexuality and gender-related deletion discussions. Icewhiz (talk) 17:41, 28 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. Icewhiz (talk) 17:41, 28 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Psychology-related deletion discussions. IntoThinAir (talk) 18:27, 28 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. IntoThinAir (talk) 18:27, 28 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The subject's book Breaking the silence : a practical guide for male victims of domestic abuse is held in at least sixty-seven libraries across Australia, see here and here. Self published or not, unworthy books do not get this level of ackowledgement. Passes NAUTHOR. Aoziwe (talk) 11:36, 29 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

If we were discussing the notability of the book then being held in dozens of libraries would be no evidence of notability; there are vast numbers of books that are held in hundreds or thousands of libraries which come nowhere near to satisfying Wikipedia's notability guidelines. However, even if we were to accept inclusion in dozens of libraries as evidence of notability of the book, that would not establish notability of its author, as notability is not inherited. And finally no, nothing at all in WP:NAUTHOR could possibly be interpreted as meaning that having written a book which is held in dozens of libraries establishes notability, nor does anything in any of the other notability guidelines. The editor who uses the pseudonym "JamesBWatson" (talk) 14:37, 29 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment The subject was a director, and here, ie, a Board member. This is a governance position, and not an administrator, but yes, subordinate to the President. Aoziwe (talk) 12:10, 29 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Personally I would very much like to see this article kept, because I think that Elizabeth Celi has something to say which deserves to be better known. However, after years of telling new editors that neither I like it nor publicising a point of view is justification for existence of an article, I have to set my own opinion aside. Unfortunately, nothing in the article suggests that she passes any of Wikipedia's notability guidelines; nor does anything in the cited sources (two are her own LinkedIn page and her page on the web site of an organisation she is connected to, one merely includes her name in a list, and all the others do no more than give a few quotes from her); nor does anything else I have been able to find (I searched through the first few dozens of Google hits, and almost all were not independent sources, the very few exceptions being unsuitable for other reasons, such as this Wikipedia article). The editor who uses the pseudonym "JamesBWatson" (talk) 15:04, 29 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 09:48, 30 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

On one hand I agree with you. If we take the relevant NGs on facevalue as they currently stand then, no, the subject is not notable. By consensus, picking a sport article example such as G. Fernando, it is seen that this person satifies WP:NCRICKET/WP:CRIN because they have appeared in one first class match. They essentially completely failed to perform, and are almost absolutely certain never to appear again in any way in WP and their article will remain a micro stub forever. (There are many many more such examples across cricket, football, etc.) The subject in question here, however, is a multiple times author, is sought out for many interviews and panel discussions, and is likely to have future content in WP if the article remains. I am not running an OTHERSTUFFEXISTS argument here but I am running an OTHERSTUFFEXISTS BY LONGSTANDING AND REVIEWED CONSENSUS argument, based on STUFF which I believe is far far less notable than the subject in question here. Yes the article does need better references, and I suggest there are sufficient to better support the article (accepting though they are barely within current NGs). Regardless of whether we like it or do not like it, surely the fundemental question is "Does it improve the encyclopedia". I believe it does. Surely if we believe there are such grounds, it is up to us to challenge consensus. We need to remember if consensus was followed in regard to encyclopedias, WP would not exist in the first place, and we would not want our own rules to stifle our own evolution - I suggest that this instance lends itself to WP:IAR? Regards. Aoziwe (talk) 11:52, 31 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

THe problem Aoziwe is that if you nominate a cricket article, all the cricket fans turn up together, as a team and insist "we have decided to set the bar low and keep everything", albeit without references to WP:GNG, and then the closing admin goes with who turned up with more friends rather than who made policy-based arguments. And then people don't want the hassle, and it just gets kept. Tony May (talk) 17:09, 7 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment' In making my nomination here, I was considerably influenced by the factthat her books are self-published. Self published books or a self published writer are notable only in exceptional circumstances (the most common exceptional circumstance at WP are in science-fiction, where major writers sometimes publish this way, and of course this can also be true of alternative or underground literature. But I think just the opposite is true for self-help or popular psychology is just the opposite--self publishing in this field is an admission of either insignificance or publishing for the sake of publicity. DGG ( talk ) 05:17, 2 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Comment A search on Ebsco databases shows that she was frequently quoted on the topic of men's mental health in media across Australia from 2008-2016, so I'm not sure that it's true to say "She never was notable as a psychologist". Many of the sources currently in the article quote her on topics related to men's mental health or domestic violence against men - are they what you are referring to when you say "the only references for this are her own interviews", DGG? I would see them as examples of WP:AUTHOR #1 "The person is regarded as an important figure or is widely cited by peers or successors." I do think the article could be improved - having a section called "Public speaker and media commentator" sounds more like promotion of her, than outlining the areas she has worked in and the issues she has highlighted. The articles are not interviews with her - they are articles about the topics noted with quotes from her (and others) as a leader in the field. RebeccaGreen (talk) 14:33, 4 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Newspapers are not "peers or successors" A mental health practitioner being available for interviews is a part of promoting their business. I assume you are refering to the sources currently in the article.:

Sydney MorningHerald quotes her as 1 of 4. ABC: one of several people who were quotations .Adeleidenow: t. The Herald cites only her. BrisbaneTimes , one of 3; TheWest, 1 of 4. Some of the othersare actually academic experts who have published in the area, without needing to resort to self-publishing. DGG ( talk ) 16:03, 4 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 11:01, 5 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 07:23, 13 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Subject serves as a consultant to government and her books are widely held in public libraries. Meets notability requirements. MurielMary (talk) 09:38, 14 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Can you point to anything in any of the notability guidelines to which either which either serving as a consultant to government or having book held in public libraries is relevant? (Incidentally, my wife has served as a consultant to government, but I do not believe she comes within a thousand miles of satisfying Wikipedia's notability standards.) The editor who uses the pseudonym "JamesBWatson" (talk)

Keep subject is WP:GNG and the article can be developed WP:NOTCLEANUP Lubbad85 (☎) 19:31, 16 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 21:02, 20 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the Article Rescue Squadron's list of content for rescue consideration.} Lubbad85 (☎) 17:05, 21 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Clicking on the Google news search at the top of this deletion discussion I see she is seen as an expect in her field, many news sources quoting her on a variety of topics. Easily passes the general notability guidelines as well. Dream Focus 19:23, 22 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Meets WP:GNG. I agree with the last three writers' reasoning. 7&6=thirteen (☎) 16:52, 23 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete WP:BASIC requires significant coverage in multiple, reliable, independent sources. The sources used are little more than passing mentions of or limited quotes from Celi, with the exception of http://globalpublishinggroup.com.au/authors/elizabeth-celi/ but that is simply the publisher's profile of one of their authors. If we take that as meeting GNG, we are inviting articles for every author who publishes a book, and that's not how we have defined notability. We also should not confuse a book's notability with that of its author, as it is a principle that notability is not inherited. --RexxS (talk) 18:11, 23 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Per RexxS. That a url to Linkedin is one of the main sources is concerning. This is coverage in passing.[1] Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 19:15, 23 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Celi has been quoted in the media, but I do not see substantive independent sources about her, which is what it takes to establish notability. Quite laughable to think that one self-published book being in a few dozen libraries is "acknowledgement" that makes one notable; libraries hold cumulative millions of books. Reywas92^Talk 04:39, 25 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Wikipedia is not a resume. Trillfendi (talk) 20:43, 26 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
User:Trillfendi So what? Her accomplishments are documented. Meets WP:Author She is a recognized expert in her field, and easily passes WP:GNG. 7&6=thirteen (☎) 11:30, 27 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Wikipedia is not a resume. The first citation is literally her LinkedIn page! Unacceptable. Trillfendi (talk) 13:09, 27 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
What are the multiple independent reliable sources that contain significant coverage of Celi? WP:AUTHOR is an indication, not an alternative to GNG, which still has to be met. --RexxS (talk) 21:24, 27 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. Randykitty (talk) 04:00, 20 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Jagannath Gupta Memorial Education Society

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

No evidence of notability is provided. Fails WP:NORG and WP:GNG Muhandes (talk) 06:36, 29 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. Muhandes (talk) 06:37, 29 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. Muhandes (talk) 06:37, 29 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Muhandes (talk) 06:37, 29 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting because the article has been declined for proposed deletion in the past (see WP:SOFTDELETE for more information).
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 10:57, 5 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: relist per NA
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Nosebagbear (talk) 22:00, 12 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 18:59, 13 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. fails WP:GNG Rollidan (talk) 23:19, 16 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. This is an unusual one. The refs I can find are mostly from one of the higher education institutions operated by the Society. There are refs out there but not many that look to me like IRS. On the other hand the Society operates multiple HEIs, many of which are sufficiently notable to have Wikipedia articles themselves. The Society itself may not be very high profile but I think it is valuable to the user to have a short article on it rather than just passing mentions in other articles, so that its central organising role is clear. I also added one RS.Mccapra (talk) 06:41, 19 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 ITU-T#Key standards published by ITU. (non-admin closure) ––Redditaddict69 ^(talk) ^(contribs) 17:35, 27 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

G.114

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

This survived an AfD 15 years ago based on the usual old arguments that 'it may be important/there may be sources/etc.'. 15 years ago we have higher standards, this is still a jargon-full, nearly unreadable stub copied from some technical documentation, and it fails WP:GNG badly. WP:BEFORE does not reveal anything outside expected mentions in passing in technical documentations. At best, this can be redirected somewhere (through there's no referenced content to merge). _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 10:31, 5 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 10:59, 5 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. No vote because this article makes.... no sense. I can't understand what on earth it's talking about so it might or might not be notable whatsoever. Maybe WP:TNT if anyone actually knows what it's about? Mosaicberry (talk) 22:58, 5 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
- Come to think of it, there is a slight chance that this is a copy of some technical manual, that might belong on wikisource if this is PD. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 05:57, 8 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 07:19, 13 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Merge and Redirect to ITU-T#Key standards published by ITU. Not notable on its own. Mccapra (talk) 09:03, 13 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - No indication of notability in independent sources. Not opposed to a redirect if it's added, with sources, to another article. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 22:12, 13 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Merge and redirect into ITU-T#Key standards published by ITU as also suggested by Mccapra Graywalls (talk) 14:23, 20 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 21:01, 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. This is still not a very clear-cut case even after a DRV and three relists, but the "delete" arguments are more persuasive. I'm disregarding the conflicting views expressed by Djm-leighpark. There is exactly one opinion addressing the issue of third-party sources that is at the core of this AfD, and it's a "weak keep". There are two other "keep"s (and one "delete") that do not address third-party sources and must be given little weight. Everybody else argues that there are no (or not enough) third-party sources. This argument is, as mentioned, barely contested, and therefore remains decisive. Sandstein 17:28, 15 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Kst (software)

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

I prodded it with the following rationale: "The coverage (references, external links, etc.) does not seem sufficient to justify this article passing Wikipedia:General notability guideline and the more detailed Wikipedia:Notability (software) requirement. " It was deprodded by User:Samsara (creator) with the following rationale "certainly not to be done via prod, after so many years!". Edit long enough, I guess one can see every weird iteration of Wikipedia:Arguments not to use in deletion discussion, including I guess "this has survived so long it should stay forever" :> Well, let's discuss this a bit more then. Sources, anyone? I couldn't find anything outside trivial mentions and primary sources. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 10:24, 5 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 10:58, 5 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Piotrus: When undoing a prod, giving reasons is entirely optional. Doing so would merely be a courtesy. I find your personal attack extremely misplaced. Samsara 14:19, 5 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I don't believe I made any personal attack. You yourself noted you were not courteous in ignoring my specific request for a proper rationale, not me. All I said is that your argument is clearly a bad one (in fact, it is not an argument at all). I don't think my response to you at any point has been particularly so, nor less courteous than your reply to me. It is was not my intent to offend you, and if you feel offended, I apologize - but it was my intent to point out, inoffensively, that your argument is useless, not backed in any rationale we have (there's no policy, guideline or even an essay I am aware of that states that 'old enough' articles should not be deleted), and results in likely (as I expect this AfD will end up in delete) unnecessary expenditure of time for editors that will be posting here. Time will tell if I am correct or not, but if this ends up in delete, I hope you'll reconsider your future deprods. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 02:25, 7 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. The software is somewhat notable. It is part of Debian. Google Scholar search for "kst-plot.kde.org" gives 28 hits. So our lemma is notable, and the article is a legitimate stub. -- Oisguad (talk) 09:55, 6 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: As best I can tell, none of those hits are actually about the software; they are about other activities, some of which used this software (or something similar to it) in the studies. Other hits included the "kst-plot" as part of a list of software that could be used for certain activities. When looking directly at Google Scholar for "Kst (software)", many if not most hits are for knowledge sharing technology (KST). Risker (talk) 21:52, 6 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

- Comment. Per Risker, AfD is not a vote and your argument is WP:GOOGLEHITS - also from the list of arguments to avoid during AFD. Please try to find proper in-depth sources required by WP:GNG. All you have proven is that the topic is not a hoax and it exists, and this is not being disputed. Existence, however, is not sufficient for having a Wikipedia article. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 02:28, 7 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I've looked further for sources, and please also see my comment above. There just isn't enough software-specific information here. It would perhaps be suitable for merge into an article (or list article) that focuses on similar KDE extensions; many of those individual articles probably do not meet the threshold for notability, either, but as a group of applications would probably cross the notability point. Risker (talk) 03:40, 7 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
- Agreed. I fully support soft delete/redirect/merge, as long as anyone can think of a proper merge target (or create it). --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 05:56, 8 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This software already appears in the article List of KDE applications. Suggest deletion with a redirect to that page. There's simply not enough reference material to this particular application to demonstrate notability, let alone write a proper article. Risker (talk) 03:20, 25 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Comment:~~Weak keep~~: Comment: (was weak keep as relist but see re-!vote below) Rob Reilly Linux Journal Volume 2010 Issue 196, August 2010 Article No. 4 Real-time plots with kst and a Microcontroller ... seems a likely feasible reference though I haven't read it (its unlikely to refer to the Kepler space telescope but who knows?). One no-brainer tenable redirect target is List of KDE applications#Science. Djm-leighpark (talk) 09:33, 10 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Further scanning through some scholar hits ... and with kst meaning some other things as well filtering is nightmarish ... kst seems to being particularly applied where real time speed is essential. [2].Djm-leighpark (talk) 10:13, 13 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisted after Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2019 April 14 overturned the "delete" closure.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 12:22, 22 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I've looked into the source code on this project and it seems to have stagnated, It may work very well but the toolkit it is using is a full generation behind with no activity in it's repo since 2014. The information is sparse even for a stub class article. I second the merge that User:Risker mentioned. I feel that it would better serve the average Wikipedia user if it was alongside similar software that would provide better context then an almost direct copy paste of it's main web page. On it's own it's notability is questionable, but with similar Software related to it, it's far more relevant. Andrdema (talk) 05:20, 25 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
- The relevant criterion is notability, not software development activity. Samsara 14:39, 26 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  - I'd like to second that. At some point in its lifecycle software can get to the point where it just works and doesn't really need further development. I don't say this has happened here ... but it is possible.Djm-leighpark (talk) 15:35, 26 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  - Yes, I can second (third?) that too - with a stress that this is a clear fail of notability, since nobody has yet found a non-WP:PRIMARY (manual) source. This piece of code doesn't seem to have been reviewed or studied in depth, hence, it is not important enough to have a stand-alone article. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 01:56, 27 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I think this is notable and could become a proper article. I would highlight the following points:
- The title Kst suggests that this is statistics for KDE, and that seems to have been the idea when it was first created over a decade ago (and, btw, there are also stand-alone binaries for Macos and Windows, so it pretty much runs anywhere). However, the open source statistics market is now strongly dominated by R, which easily exceeds Kst in features. There isn't really any competition in that market any more, but of course, Wikipedia is not concerned merely with the here and now. As Djm-leighpark as well as the software's homepage emphasise, Kst's strengths are in real time visualisation of data. In fact, it may be the leading open source application in this area. This includes uses in electronics, medical devices, and astronomy. More on that below.
- Perhaps one might wonder why there aren't any third party books on Kst. Well, the Canadian Space Agency provided funding to support the creation of what ended up being an almost 300-page manual written at the universities of British Columbia and Toronto. In case this is of interest, the authors are Duncan Hanson, Rick Chern, Philip Rodrigues, Barth Netterfield, Yiwen Mao, and Zongyi Zhang.
- In terms of its connection to astronomy, Kst includes import filters for various formats that are either specific to, or were originally developed in, that field. These include HEALPix, CDF and netDCF, LFIIO, SCUBA and WMAP Time Ordered Data (TOD) files.

I may write more if I can find the time, but for now, I'd like to note that everyone commenting so far seems to have ignored the existence of the manual, with some even complaining about the absence of such material (e.g. Risker: "There's simply not enough reference material to this particular application"). Samsara 15:50, 26 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Manuals are problematic sources, since generally they are WP:PRIMARY. If manual would be sufficient to make a topic notable, every household appliance would be notable. Heck, even USB hubs and such come with manuals these days... what doesn't? --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 01:53, 27 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Astronomy-related deletion discussions. Samsara 15:54, 26 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

s>*Keep: Following development progression of article to scrape start-class by myself within the last 24 hours and with adequate referencing and removal of some contentious claims from WP:PRIMARY I am moved to change my !vore from weak keep to keep.Djm-leighpark (talk) 09:04, 29 April 2019 (UTC)</a>[reply]
Delete—fails to assert why it's notable as currently written, and cursory checks for sources turn up no significant third-party sources discussing it. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs^(talk) 17:44, 29 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Need further discussion now the article has been significantly improved since the start of the AfD.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 14:03, 30 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Keep. I've used KST for over a decade, but am not involved in the project. Linux Journal is in depth. The other refs just possibly push this over the line. It definitely shouldn't be deleted - at the very least it should be merged somewhere (KDE? An article on real time plotting?) - as the content does pass WP:V.Icewhiz (talk) 15:48, 30 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
- Verifiability is separate from notability. The issue is not whether we can determine KST exists but whether it is notable enough to have an article. A Linux magazine that uses the software to accomplish a tutorial doesn't expressly demonstrate the importance of the software. Put another way: are there interviews with the creators about KST? An article about KST's importance in applications (rather than just examples where it is used?) Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs^(talk) 16:34, 30 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  - The contents should be merged at the very least. We do have an interview - [3].Icewhiz (talk) 17:18, 30 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: It seems like we need some more source analysis here based on the last few votes
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 07:50, 8 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: The sources per article source are grand. The totality of the hinting of the use of the interview (almost a cherrytoppping that interview actually) the hinting almost seems like an attempt to motivate upclassing work on the article but after 3533 days at AfD/DRV by this one with associated scummering and another astronomical graphical pussycat as well I'm kinda spent and this is past the post.Djm-leighpark (talk) 10:24, 8 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: This has been here too long. Just have your way and bin it forever as that's what everyone wants.Djm-leighpark (talk) 20:00, 12 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
- Note to closer Within a period of about 24 hours (my impression, did not count it precisely), Djm has added delete !votes or changed his keep !votes, with a "variety" of rationales, on multiple noms,[4][5][6] mirroring his "change of opinion" here, in one case verbatim. Samsara 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 keep. (non-admin closure) Natg 19 (talk) 20:03, 12 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Fallen Legion: Flames of Rebellion

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

Does not meet WP:NVG by any means whatsoever. All sources are aggregations/lists. Spretznaz (talk) 10:21, 5 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Wow. A game that does not meet NVG? That's so rare it could make it notable. I am sure that if we search a bit more we will find some obscure game review site that has a copy of a press release or such that will make it pass VGN with flying colors. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 10:33, 5 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Video games-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 10:59, 5 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Please, take your soapbox elsewhere, this isn’t the place for this sort of griping. Sergecross73 msg me 12:16, 5 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, though probably rename to the more vague Fallen Legion instead, because there’s a few different variations and re-releases with it now. Article is in rough shape, but the sourcing is out there. Looks to be a failure of WP:BEFORE. Sources below are considered reliable per WP:VG/S.

Keep - Is a legit game and I'm not the greatest and constructing a perfect article, sorry. But hopefully other people may fill in the holes in future since it doesn't should stay since It's legit with reliable sources out there. Thursby16 (talk)
Keep per Sergecross73, Thursby16. Mosaicberry (talk) 22:59, 5 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Sergecross73 I think I have to clarify the mess about the title of the game. Firstly, this game got separate two releases: one on PSVita and PS4 (Fallen Legion: Sins of an Empire and Fallen Legion: Flames of Rebellion, whereas this AfD and article is about is the Vita one) [7] Then, in the same year, these 2 games combined got released on PC as Fallen Legion+ [8] and then on Switch as Fallen Legion: Rise to Glory [9]. Certainly a notable game franchise per WP:GNG in multiple significant coverage in reliable sources where I also found [10] and [11] but it needs to move to Fallen Legion at the very least, as the PSVita version is it's least notable iteration. Jovanmilic97 (talk) 09:00, 7 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as notability has been established by coverage in reliable sources, and there is clearly sufficient material available to expand the article substantially. Issues with article title, organization of contents, and addition of sources can be addressed outside AfD. Bakazaka (talk) 04:30, 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 delete. — JJMC89 (T·C) 23:34, 12 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

List of distilleries in Maryland

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

Fails WP:NOTDIRECTORY. Just a collection of website links and just one article Ajf773 (talk) 08:44, 5 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Maryland-related deletion discussions. Ajf773 (talk) 08:44, 5 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Ajf773 (talk) 08:44, 5 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. Ajf773 (talk) 08:44, 5 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Keep A blatant failure to follow the WP:BEFORE process as it is quite easy to find more sources which demonstrate that the topic passes WP:LISTN. For example, see Forgotten Maryland Cocktails: A History of Drinking in the Free State. Andrew D. (talk) 10:00, 5 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

There are no grounds for speedy keep. Throwing one book reference does not make a directory of predominantly external links into an notable list. As this has been mentioned to you on similar AfD's. Ajf773 (talk) 18:53, 5 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

It's easy to find more books with detailed coverage of distilleries such as the History of Western Maryland. AfD is not an article improvement service and so drive-by deletionism without due diligence is disruption. Andrew D. (talk) 19:22, 5 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

There is nothing disruptive about nominating any article that doesn't comply with WP:NOT. Ajf773 (talk) 08:05, 6 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Food and drink-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 11:00, 5 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete The existence of Andrew D.'s book that discusses the history of drinking in the state means that something like Alcohol in Maryland could be an appropriate article, or similar that includes notable distilleries. It does not mean it is appropriate to have a WP:LINKFARM WP:DIRECTORY of non-notable local businesses merely for their existence. Reywas92^Talk 18:54, 5 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
The article follows the same standards seen with hundreds of similar articles such as the various lists such as https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_breweries_in_the_United_States which contains pages of lists of microbreweries by state. The same for wineries. This does seem like a drive-by deletion as there are similar pages for states in the United States such as https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_microbreweries , https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_breweries_in_the_United_States, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_wineries,_breweries,_and_distilleries_in_New_Jersey#Distilleries. Within each article are dozens of additional links to such lists. These lists then encouraged the manufactures to link back to the pages with their own pages so that descriptions of their businesses, products manufactured, and interests are listed. Brewder (talk) 17:08, 19 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete- WP:NOTDIR and WP:LINKFARM.--Rusf10 (talk) 23:01, 6 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the Article Rescue Squadron's list of content for rescue consideration. --Tryptofish (talk) 20:27, 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.

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 Stars Falling from the Sky. (non-admin closure) wumbolo ^^^ 20:23, 20 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Stars Falling from the Sky (soundtrack)

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

I did the search and I didn't find any sources, I read the notability for music and the article is not meeting it AnbyG (talk) 08:35, 5 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. Icewhiz (talk) 08:48, 5 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. Icewhiz (talk) 08:48, 5 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of South Korea-related deletion discussions. Icewhiz (talk) 08:49, 5 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to Stars Falling from the Sky. The soundtrack ranked number 12 on the national Gaon Album Chart, so it meets WP:NALBUM. However, my search for Korean sources yield very little information about the soundtrack to justify a separate article. The content should at least be included on the drama's article. ℯ xplicit 00:44, 6 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 07:18, 13 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Merge into the main article. Agree with Explicit's reasoning. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 14:55, 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. Spartaz ^Humbug! 14:06, 13 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Bhaavna Arora

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

Non-notable author Gamesmaster G-9 (talk) 03:24, 29 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. You try to author a top-ten in India book (measured in Amazon sales). --Doncram (talk) 04:17, 29 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. Icewhiz (talk) 05:28, 29 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Icewhiz (talk) 05:28, 29 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Icewhiz (talk) 05:28, 29 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

- The claim that her book was "top-ten in India" is dubious. It is based on a single press release with no accompanying figures. No other sources mention it as a best-seller. Even the own Amazon India page has its rank as 54,123 (and 6,712 in its genre). Globally, its numbers are even lower. Also, keep in mind that Amazon does not dominate the book retail space in India (or even the online book retail space). Gamesmaster G-9 (talk) 15:28, 29 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  - I dunno. The source looks okay to me, offhand. It is not just about being "top 10" for an instant, it is about being "top 10" of entire year. And sure, Amazon might or might not be as relatively important in India as it is in the U.S. where you and I other judgmental narrow-minded Americans are making AFD nominations and !voting upon them....but India is HUGE!!!! And I think Amazon in India is quite big. Anyhow, again, why don't you please cancel any AFDs like this, then try to reach that benchmark yourself, before coming back to AFD, frankly. :) --Doncram (talk) 02:53, 30 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    - I'm actually Indian, and I know how big Amazon is in India (it's the second biggest online retailer behind Flipkart, but online book sales are still small overall).Gamesmaster G-9 (talk) 23:12, 31 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MarginalCost (talk) 07:00, 5 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Subject does not pass WP:GNG. I'm not seeing any significant sources indicating notability about the books. Add this to the fact that there's some obvious COI and possible sock puppetry going on. Wikipedia is not a platform to promote yourself. Skirts⁸⁹ 09:36, 5 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: In reference to the Amazon sales rankings, Amazon chart rankings are not considered to be a sign of notability on Wikipedia. To be honest, it was only in the past few years that bestseller lists were seen as a sign of notability in general - there actually was a fairly lengthy discussion about this at WP:NBOOK and ultimately it was decided that;

A book's inclusion in a reliable bestseller list is non-trivial treatment if the list is notable or the list is published by a notable media outlet and the list is republished or covered by other reliable sources. Bestseller lists in retailer or e-commerce sources like Amazon or self-published sources like personal websites, blogs, bulletin boards, wikis, and similar media are not considered reliable. Social media review sites like Goodreads and LibraryThing do not qualify for this criterion.

By extension this also applies to authors the same way that book reviews count towards an author's notability by way of showing that their work is notable. Specifically excluding sites like Amazon from the bestseller list rule was one of the only reasons it was able to be finally added as a sign of notability. (If you're curious, the reasons for this revolved around several issues, one of which is that Amazon rankings can often be manipulated if someone knows how to accomplish this.) ReaderofthePack(formerly Tokyogirl79) (｡◕‿◕｡) 23:56, 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) 23:32, 12 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Yuliya Linhares

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

Compliance with WP:PROF or WP:GNG has not been demonstrated. Ymblanter (talk) 06:26, 5 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Icewhiz (talk) 06:49, 5 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. Icewhiz (talk) 06:49, 5 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Florida-related deletion discussions. Icewhiz (talk) 06:49, 5 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as per nom; reads like a press release or CV. Nothing special shown for a stand alone article at this point. Kierzek (talk) 16:26, 5 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete this resume. Trillfendi (talk) 20:44, 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) 23:31, 12 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

MTV Pilipinas for Best Editing in a Video

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

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

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

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

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

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

Questionable page for a an award show that has just given this award once. (some of the awards for the said show are on the main page.) There are more of these I would like to have merged into this AFD.

Anyway either redirect or merge maybe if not deleted.

Here are more pages if someone can put them into this afd:

(I didn't want to put a AFD for each page, so yeah if someone can make a big AFD for all of them-that be great) Wgolf (talk) 02:51, 29 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists of people-related deletion discussions. Icewhiz (talk) 05:29, 29 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. Icewhiz (talk) 05:29, 29 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. Icewhiz (talk) 05:29, 29 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Honestly, MTV Pilipinas Music Award could go in here itself, along with the other awards categories; a completely non-notable awards ceremony which had no notability and was part of a troubled network which only stayed on for less than a decade (and judging from MTV having four variations since the new millenium in the nation, it just never worked out for them). Every article is zero-sourced, and thus it just can't stay here. Nate • (chatter) 06:56, 29 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete all. It can't be a notable award if it has only been awarded once, back in 2006. Ajf773 (talk) 07:21, 29 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Comment, can someone merge the other ones into this afd? I didn't want to start one for each of them as it seemed too much. Wgolf (talk) 20:34, 29 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Procedural: I've tagged the other articles now.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — JJMC89 (T·C) 06:17, 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 keep. Spartaz ^Humbug! 14:07, 13 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Feed My Lambs

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

Clearly does not satisfy WP:CORPDEPTH. Would PROD, but it was AfD'd in 2009. SITH (talk) 19:00, 22 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Reporting in the AJC has been extensive and in-depth (a sample listed below) I accessed it through a paywall, which probably explains why you couldn't see it.E.M.Gregory (talk) 23:40, 7 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Georgia (U.S. state)-related deletion discussions. IntoThinAir (talk) 19:27, 22 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. IntoThinAir (talk) 19:27, 22 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. MrClog (talk) 21:55, 26 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. MrClog (talk) 21:55, 26 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Georgia (U.S. state)-related deletion discussions. MrClog (talk) 21:55, 26 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Lean towards keep -- This seems to be a modest sized chain of schools. It is not clear if they are Primary or Secondary. If they were secondary, we would normally keep the school. For Primary we would merge to a list article of the schools of a School Board or Education Authority. If we keep schools, we should probably keep the parent organisation. This seems to be the equivalent of a school board. Peterkingiron (talk) 16:23, 27 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 10:13, 29 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 06:09, 5 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep but move to Feed My Lambs (Christian preschools) and pray for an editor to upgrade the article. As User:Peterkingiron said, it is an active chain of charity pre-schools, a sort of Christian Head Start (program). Disambig is needed because there have been Christian preschools by this name for at least a century, in Britain and various parts of the U.S.. plus other types of Cristian charities use the name. Sources include :

Heeding his call Feed My Lambs ministry reaches out to preschoolers in poorest neighborhoods: [Home Edition] SANDERS, ALVELYN J. The Atlanta Journal - Constitution; Atlanta, Ga. [Atlanta, Ga]15 May 2004: B.1.
Community of Faith: 'Lambs' ministry aids kids: [Main Edition] Hannigan, Candice. The Atlanta Journal - Constitution; Atlanta, Ga. [Atlanta, Ga]28 Dec 2006: JQ.5.
Preschool still needs a home: No building yet for Marietta location. Feed My Lambs counts on donations to run Christian academies. Hannigan, Candice. The Atlanta Journal - Constitution; Atlanta, Ga. [Atlanta, Ga]31 Oct 2009: D.1.
Cobb DA: President of family's charity allegedly siphoned $873K Brasch, Ben. The Atlanta Journal - Constitution; Atlanta, Ga. [Atlanta, Ga]01 June 2018: B.9. (Feed My Lambs, according to a warrant filed by the Cobb district attorney's office. ......organization's American Express card. Feed My Lambs sent a statement to the...)
Neighborhood preschool lets woman live dream of teaching Laura Ingram STAFF WRITER. The Atlanta Journal the Atlanta Constitution (pre-1997 Fulltext); Atlanta, Ga. [Atlanta, Ga]22 Feb 1996: G.11. E.M.Gregory (talk) 23:35, 7 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep and rename as above, there is now multiple reliable sources coverage that have been identified so deletion is no longer required in my view, thanks Atlantic306 (talk) 13:00, 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. Spartaz ^Humbug! 14:08, 13 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Roku Server Protocol

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

Totally unreferenced. The coverage (references, external links, etc.) does not seem sufficient to justify this article passing Wikipedia:General notability guideline and the more detailed Wikipedia:Notability (software) requirement. WP:BEFORE gets me a single mention in passing in a Finish article: [12]. That's a far cry from even borderline. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 10:54, 22 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. Icewhiz (talk) 14:09, 22 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. Icewhiz (talk) 14:09, 22 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: I have included 4 references. Software is used in a number of Linux media players. Geertivp (talk) 12:27, 22 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Of the 4 references the Finnish reference may be acceptable for notability, however the remaining 3 look as if they are deriviations of (the same) press release which is of no use for that purpose, as opposed to an independent hands-on review which might be candidates.Djm-leighpark (talk) 09:05, 23 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

If you mean [13], while this looks mildly reliable (student thesis?), it seems that the software is mentioned only in one single paragraph, which rather fails the 'in-depth' requirement and instead lends itself to be dismissed as a 'passing mention'. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 05:44, 25 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

My apologies I mis-interpreted what you commented on your opening statement rather than reviewing the reference.Djm-leighpark (talk) 06:53, 25 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Merge: to SoundBridge, Comment: but I do so in the knowledge I am too overloaded to do the merge and am concerned why Geertivp did not seek this option already or why it was not picked up at WP:BEFORE.Djm-leighpark (talk) 08:31, 28 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 11:11, 29 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 06:08, 5 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: For about 168 reasons I am no longer prepared to do this merge myself and therefore need to withdraw my offer. I would !vote to anyone else offering to do so. Withdrawing and unwatching this deletion discussion. Thankyou. 07:50, 5 April 2019 (UTC)

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. Spartaz ^Humbug! 14:09, 13 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Alex Simpson (attorney)

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

Much like the now-deleted article Audrey McGinn, this was created as undisclosed paid editing for the California Innocence Project. The article relies primarily on self-published sources such as press releases. While this subject has been cited in some local news articles over the years, it does not met the notability requirement of "significant coverage" in reliable sources. Additionally, the article is clearly a puff-piece with plenty of extraneous detail, written with promotional intent. As another user pointed out, this article is longer than the article we have for Thurgood Marshall. Cosmic Sans (talk) 12:31, 21 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2019 March 21. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 12:51, 21 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Law-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 23:13, 21 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep WP:ANYBIO Meets WP:GNG. Well sourced as it is. Lubbad85 (talk) 15:15, 26 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep As Comic Sans points out, I was indeed a paid editor for this article and I originally didn't realize I had to disclose that fact. Comic Sans has not pointed out, however, that, soon after it was pointed out to me that my omission violated Wikipedia’s terms, I acknowledged my error and have revealed on both the article’s talk page and my user page that I was compensated. Furthermore, when Comic Sans proposed this article for deletion, Comic Sans did not notify me, as the creator of the article, on my Talk page as is customary, and seems not to have followed the proper procedures, which is odd for someone who is implicitly criticizing me for not following proper procedures.

It is furthermore not at all true, as Comic Sans alleges, that the content of the article consists primarily of press releases (though admittedly there should be fewer primary sources), nor that the article is a mere “puff piece.” Cited secondary sources in which Mr. Simpson’s opinions and observations have appeared, or to which he has contributed full interviews, include The Los Angeles Times, SF Gate, KPBS, NBC-TV Los Angeles, ABC-TV, RT, The Sacramento Bee, The Press-Enterprise, The San Bernardino Sun, etc.

In his print and broadcast media appearances, Mr. Simpson has served as a subject matter expert on at least four topics: a) the death penalty; b) the flawed nature of eyewitness identifications; c) legislation regarding the use of new evidence of innocence; and d) monetary compensation for those who have been exonerated. The links at citations 26, 27, 28 and 50 quote him on various issues relating to the death penalty, and for all of these, he doesn’t discuss any of his own clients, which implies that he was asked to appear as a recognized expert on the topic. He was also allowed to testify as an expert witness at a joint session of the California legislature relating to a proposed death penalty bill (see citation 29). The links at citations 15 and 25 relate to his views on eyewitness identifications. At the links at citations 9 and 21, Simpson comments on laws to make it easier to prove innocence. The links at citations 22, 23 and 38 relate to the issue of compensation for exonerated prisoners.

Mr. Simpson has also published scholarly articles about these topics (see citations 5, 30 and 31). Finally, Mr. Simpson has been named in the Acknowledgements section of the book Forensic Testimony: Science, Law and Expert Evidence by C. Michael Bowers, and is prominently mentioned in the recently-published book Burned by Pulitzer Prize winner Edward Humes.

Comic Sans has cited the observation of another Wikipedia editor to the effect that this article is longer than the Wiki article on Thurgood Marshall. (My personal opinion is that the Marshall article is actually much too short, given that jurist’s historical prominence, but I won’t quibble.) The fact that Wikipedia has no single editor-in-chief to decide which articles are to be allowed inclusion, and how long each article ought to be, makes such paradoxes inevitable. And in fact, I agree with Comic Sans that this article is overly long and should be trimmed. But the issue that Comic Sans raises concerning the proper length of the article is utterly irrelevant to the question at hand, which is whether the article ought to exist at all, which it clearly should.

Dylanexpert (talk) 03:28, 27 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The nominator is not actually required to notify you of the AfD nomination, so I suggest you withdraw your personal attack on Cosmic Sans. Note that you, as a paid editor, "must respect the volunteer nature of the project and keep discussions concise" (WP:PAYTALK). That's a requirement. Bakazaka (talk) 23:38, 27 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Bakazaka: The nominator is not actually required to notify the creator of an article of an AfD nomination, true, but as a matter of courtesy this should be done, and was done by the editor who nominated the above-mentioned Audrey McGinn page for deletion. I have tried to keep the discussion as concise as possible. You have not addressed any of my arguments above, which would tend to refute the WP:PROMO argument. And for the record, although I was paid to create the article, I am not being paid to defend it, so on this page I am as much a volunteer editor as Comic Sans or you.

Dylanexpert (talk) 14:22, 28 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as unambiguous WP:PROMO, aggravated by paid article creator's wall of WP:PAYTALK text in this AfD, which shows great disrespect for the time and attention of volunteer editors who do not get paid to filibuster for their clients. By policy, Wikipedia is not a platform for promotion. Bakazaka (talk) 23:28, 27 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. Bakazaka (talk) 23:47, 27 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Randykitty (talk) 17:23, 28 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Need a bit more discussion on source quality and whether the text as-is is unduly promotional.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 06:06, 5 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Per the previous commenters, this subject does not pass basic notability requirements. The obvious COI problems here are a waste of every volunteer's time. Does not pass WP:GNG and should probably get some WP:SALT. Skirts⁸⁹ 09:55, 5 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - Thank you Cosmic Sans for this AfD. We may also want to look at the other paid articles, Justin Brooks and Michael Semanchik. What do you think about listing those for AfD as well? I have serious concerns about their notability, and obvious WP:PROMO problems. Skirts⁸⁹ 09:59, 5 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - You're welcome. I'm going to be looking at potentially nominating all of these COI articles as time goes on. I want to make sure I give each article due consideration before I nominate it for deletion instead of doing them all at once. It could very well be that one of the subjects is notable even if the article was created as part of an undisclosed paid editing project. Cosmic Sans (talk) 14:48, 5 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - To my embarrassment, I must confess that I misread the name of the user "Cosmic Sans" as "Comic Sans," because of the name's similarity to the Comic Sans typeface font. This may be the reason for claims to the effect that I was being disrespectful to volunteer editors, when that was not my intent, and I apologize for the misunderstanding. However, I stand by my earlier arguments in my "Keep" comments, which have yet to be addressed by those editors, including Cosmic Sans, who voted to "Delete." Dylanexpert (talk) 15:34, 8 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

WP:PAYTALK: Volunteers should be aware that paid editors may be submitting evidence of their talk-page posts to justify their salaries or fees. No editor should be expected to engage in long or repetitive discussions with someone who is being paid to argue with them. Bakazaka (talk) 21:39, 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) 20:30, 20 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Marutsu Elec

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

The coverage (references, external links, etc.) does not seem sufficient to justify this article passing Wikipedia:General notability guideline and the more detailed Wikipedia:Notability (companies) requirement. Not seeing any in-depth, independent, reliable coverage. Perhaps it exists in Japanese - if you find non-English sources, please make sure to explain to others what makes them reliable if this is not apparent in the first glance (like coverage by notable mainstream Japanese newspapers, etc.). _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 10:50, 22 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Icewhiz (talk) 14:12, 22 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. Icewhiz (talk) 14:12, 22 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Japan-related deletion discussions. Icewhiz (talk) 14:12, 22 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, So said The Great Wiki Lord. (talk) 15:29, 29 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting because the article has been declined for proposed deletion in the past (see WP:SOFTDELETE for more information).
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 05:55, 5 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 07:03, 13 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete promotional Lubbad85 (☎) 12:23, 17 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, though it's absolutely not promotional. I've been unable to find any additional coverage since I no longer live in Japan. ···日本穣 · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe · Join WP Japan! 16:30, 18 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
- Yep, it's not promotional, just WP:YELLOWPAGES. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 09:07, 19 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. Can be recreated by an established editor who isn't being paid for it. Sandstein 20:59, 20 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

DataXu

AfDs for this article:

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

The company does not meet Wikipedia notability standards. They are an obscure company within their field. The article serves as unambiguous advertising or promotion for the company. Additionally, the page is written by numerous dummy accounts from Wiki Professionals, a marketing agency that specializes in writing and managing Wikipedia pages for a fee. They also promote it on their portfolio: https://[wiki professionals company domain]/wiki-portfolio/ The URL for Wiki Professionals has been blacklisted from Wikipedia. This is a clear violation of Wikipedia rules. Sonstephen0 (talk) 17:35, 29 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 21:53, 29 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 21:53, 29 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 21:53, 29 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Massachusetts-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 21:53, 29 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Advertising-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 21:54, 29 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 21:54, 29 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Based on amount of references and also additional references in Google news, it meets basic WP:GNG. Google news has 253 results on the company name! ~Leny Tee55~ 07:29, 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 05:43, 5 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 07:03, 13 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - So here's the thing: it looks a little notable, based on the sources. However, it is the product of undisclosed paid editing, and does not look to have more than minor changes by anyone else. Thus I would support deletion, without prejudice to an established editor recreating. It's striking how many of the keep !votes at the AfDs are very new, largely working on corporate profiles. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 14:38, 13 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, hold on. I'm not actually seeing the concrete evidence this was created by a paid editor. @Sonstephen0: I think I'm looking at the page you referenced, but don't see DataXu listed? Could you clarify? — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 14:43, 13 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

It looks like they updated their portfolio page and it isn't listed anymore. However, the talk page of the article mentions that it was created by numerous SPA's and the page creator isn't active on wikipedia anymore. Sonstephen0 (talk) 15:27, 15 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 literally been listed here at AFD for nearly a month and we're still split as far as consensus goes. No issues with speedy renomination. (non-admin closure) Dusti ^{*Let's talk!*} 02:11, 20 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Farley's Eatery and Pub

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

Does not meet WP:NCORP. Single-location defunct restaurant. Lack of in-depth coverage in independent RS. Article does say that an actor died there, and it was mentioned in one episode of a TV show. Neither is significant enough to establish notability. MB 21:07, 22 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 21:26, 22 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Pennsylvania-related deletion discussions. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 21:26, 22 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Food and drink-related deletion discussions. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 21:26, 22 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. I added evidence of in-depth coverage by reliable sources. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 21:49, 22 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Local coverage of a place with local importance. There are tens of thousands of restaurants that we could write this kind of article for, but that’s too low a threshold of notability. Mccapra (talk) 06:56, 29 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Nosebagbear (talk) 22:56, 29 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 05:04, 5 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Spartaz ^Humbug! 14:10, 13 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Problem with this article is, it does not becomes automatically notable because it is associated with notable ones WP:INHERITORG QueerEcofeminist^{"cite! even if you fight"!!!} [they/them/their] 17:36, 13 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The AP source provides a good detailed history of the place, the other sources demonstrate notability per WP:GNG and there are lots more to find, owing to its appearance as a location in The Office. Andrew D. (talk) 11:56, 14 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom and QEF. ∯WBG^converse 14:21, 16 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Sourced and WP:GNG not overly promotional. Lubbad85 (☎) 12:21, 17 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 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 [14], 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 [15]. 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 [16]. 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/Elizabeth Celi}}<!--Relisted-->
 {{Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Jagannath Gupta Memorial Education Society}}<!--Relisted-->
 {{Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/G.114 (2nd nomination)}}