Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2019 April 18

Recent AfDs: Today Yesterday

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

< 17 April	19 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 merge to Brawl Stars. -- Scott Burley (talk) 07:32, 26 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Shelly (character)

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

Lacks significant coverage in multiple reliable sources. See also Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Giant (Clash of Clans), a bundled nomination covering characters created by the same developer. CoolSkittle (talk) 23:03, 18 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Merge/redirect to Brawl Stars, the mobile game that contains the character. MarkZusab (talk) 23:10, 18 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Video games-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 23:24, 18 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 14:08, 19 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

~~Redirect~~ to Brawl Stars. The character is not independently notable, and the only sources are either brief mentions of the character while talking about the game as a whole, or just game guides. The basic information on the character is already present in the main article, so a merge is not necessary. Rorshacma (talk) 16:47, 19 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Changing vote to Delete rather than Redirect. Sergecross73 makes a pretty convincing argument below as to why this would not be a particularly useful search term. Rorshacma (talk) 15:50, 25 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Merge/redirect (as suitable) - per the lack of Sig Cov in reliable sources. Brawl Stars seems the obvious merge/redirect target. Nosebagbear (talk) 21:38, 19 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Merge/redirect to Brawl Stars per the above discussion. Aoba47 (talk) 19:34, 23 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, then redirect to Brawl Stars. To prevent future spurious recreations and discussions of this non-notable character. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 13:38, 24 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Unless the redirected is fully protected i don’t see that as really doing much to stop someone determined to recreate the article.--64.229.166.98 (talk) 21:37, 24 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

People are more likely to recreate an article when it’s as easy as a single click of the “undo” button, rather than rebuilding it from scratch. Sergecross73 msg me 22:51, 24 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - fictional character not independently notable from its respectful video games. No RS coverage. While not overtly against a redirect, I don’t believe it’s particularly likely search term with its common name and character disambiguation present. Sergecross73 msg me 22:51, 24 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. Consensus is to keep (non-admin closure) scope_creep^Talk 12:03, 24 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Anuj Saini

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

Commercial actor, non notable. Fails WP:BIO and WP:NACTOR. 3 of the 5 references are driven by press releases. Brand new actor only 18 months in the job. May be WP:TOOSOON. scope_creep^Talk 21:32, 4 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 21:43, 4 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fashion-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 21:43, 4 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 21:43, 4 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 21:43, 4 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 21:45, 4 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep if it's not violating terms I & my sister were watching ad and she asked me to search for this guy I did and found nothing! so got into digging and for this information on him and as I like creating articles on made for him. rest is upto you. I found no more references on him. Vixhere (talk) 07:46, 5 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Satisfies WP:BIO, WP:NACTOR, etc.--PATH SLOPU 12:10, 9 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Nosebagbear (talk) 22:00, 11 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Nosebagbear (talk) 22:39, 18 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - @Path slopu: - can NACTOR be passed purely by adverts - obviously there's a goodly number and they're big companies - I'm fairly neutral on the possibility and was interested on expansion Nosebagbear (talk) 21:47, 19 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Move to Drafts Definitely WP:TOOSOON. Perhaps should be moved to drafts?

Exploreandwrite (talk) 09:55, 23 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Userfy - it's far to soon and he's a classic "up and coming" actor. Bearian (talk) 20:08, 23 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I think i'm going to close this with a keep unless anybody says otherwise and I'll do the cleanup. scope_creep^Talk 20:11, 23 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 soft delete. WP:REFUND applies. — JJMC89 (T·C) 01:28, 26 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Nation of Exiles

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

Fails WP:NFILM. Run-of-the-mill documentary. Promotional article, created by a now banned sock. Will be nominating the film's director on the same basis. Edwardx (talk) 22:30, 18 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Iran-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 22:40, 18 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 22:40, 18 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 22:40, 18 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 St Peter's School, York. -- Scott Burley (talk) 07:33, 26 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

St Olave's School, York

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

This junior school does not seem notable. The article is poorly sourced and I have not been able to find better sources. Considered a merge to the senior branch of the school, St Peter's School, York, but the notability concerns deterred me. Tacyarg (talk) 22:17, 18 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. Tacyarg (talk) 22:20, 18 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. Tacyarg (talk) 22:20, 18 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Merge - it has been part of St Peters since 1901, nothing to suggest it has independent notability. The only geographical separation between the schools is the width of a cricket pitch, which is part of the school grounds, and the main source used is the schools own website. My google searches only gave brief mentions or are promotional/ run-of-the-mill/ publicity stories in local papers or listings in school guides. EdwardUK (talk) 00:30, 19 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Merge per EdwardUK. Crouch, Swale (talk) 11:39, 24 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) 01:27, 26 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Magenta Blue

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

Fails WP:MUSIC, not many sources. THEFlint Shrubwood (talk) 21:30, 18 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 21:37, 18 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Japan-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 21:37, 18 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 21:37, 18 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The little number of sources exist because they're new band who formed not even half year ago. But yesterday they've released first single and I'm sure they will continue their music activity. By time I plan to update wikipedia article. What other links are considered as a "source"? I will try my best to find them. - Qucipuci1

delete If they're not notable now, then this shouldn't exist. If and when they become notable, article could be created. Graywalls (talk) 17:32, 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. — JJMC89 (T·C) 01:27, 26 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Nirav Tripathi

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

Vanity piece a non-notable individual. Available sources do not indicate WP:SIGCOV in reliable third-party sources, and therefore the subject of the article does not cross the notability threshold as provided under WP:BIO and WP:GNG. Analysis of sources: The small article in the Newscorp-owned Sunshine Coast Daily extensively quotes the subject of the article, and therefore it cannot be called a "third party" source — [1]. Another article in The Courier-Mail, a Brisbane-based tabloid owned by Newscorp, also quotes the subject extensively leaving very little substance to the article that may be truly called "third-party" or "independent of the subject" so as to fall under WP:SIGCOV — [2]. Please note that both publications are from the same publishing organization — Newscorp. — Nearly Headless Nick {c} 20:01, 18 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 20:42, 18 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 20:42, 18 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Giant Snowman 08:26, 23 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - overly promotional and no evidence of notability. Giant Snowman 08:31, 23 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Also, he's not really notable in his own right - rather only through business connections. Bearian (talk) 20:12, 23 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) 01:26, 26 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

TraderMade

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

Rightly or wrongly, I declined a G11 speedy deletion nomination for this. I believe that after seven years here it merits a full discussion of whether or not it is notable under our guidelines for companies. It's a blatant COI/UPE creation. It gets a handful of hits on Gnews, and about five verifiable results on Gbooks. I don't see any in-depth coverage of the company; the two Investors Chronicle pages used as references don't load for me and appear not to be accessible through archive.org. Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 17:54, 11 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 18:26, 11 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 18:27, 11 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 18:27, 11 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 19:52, 18 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Definitely an ad, and no real reliable sources to write with.Citing (talk) 02:25, 25 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) 01:26, 26 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Healthcare Research & Analytics

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

Fails WP:CORPDEPTH, please see below source analysis. SITH (talk) 17:46, 11 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment:

**Source assessment table:**
Source	Independent?	Reliable?	Significant coverage?	Count source toward GNG?
1			NOTDIR directory entry.	✘ No
2			Mentioned once in passing.	✘ No
3	? 404	? 404	? 404	? Unknown
This table may not be a final or consensus view; it may summarize developing consensus, or reflect assessments of a single editor. Created using {{source assess table}}.

SITH (talk) 17:46, 11 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 17:49, 11 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Health and fitness-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 17:49, 11 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of New Jersey-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 17:50, 11 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 19:51, 18 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

DELETE. A listing in Bloomsberg biz isn't an indication of notability. That US News article is WP:CHURNALISM and the article generally smell of gaming of the rules by marketing and public relations professionals, such as the involvement of not one, but several single purpose accounts. Graywalls (talk) 01:40, 25 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) 01:25, 26 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Indus Pharmaceuticals

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

Does not pass GNG. Natureium (talk) 17:38, 11 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. PATH SLOPU 13:46, 12 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. PATH SLOPU 13:46, 12 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. PATH SLOPU 13:46, 12 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 19:51, 18 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Complete failure to pass WP:NCORP, and I believe they were acquired so no chance of passing it now (I'd merge but their new owner doesn't have an article). Personally a PROD would have seemed the logical route, but now that we're here.

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

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

The result was soft delete. WP:REFUND applies. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 01:10, 25 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Jeffry Griffin

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

This is a highly promotional puff piece that relies entirely on an interview that is reposted to many rs sites. Despite the "chemistry" between Gosling and Griffin, I see no evidence that an extra turned minor character meets WP:NACTOR and the only coverage of him revolves around the Variety interview, otherwise everything else is just a passing mention of "x in y movie" Praxidicae (talk) 14:23, 11 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 14:52, 11 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Texas-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 14:52, 11 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 14:52, 11 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 14:53, 11 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 19:49, 18 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) 01:25, 26 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Pete Antonacci

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

WP:BLP of a political figure whose highest level of office held is as a county election supervisor. This is not a role that confers an automatic free pass over WP:NPOL on every person who holds it, but the article is referenced nowhere near well enough to get him over WP:GNG -- it cites just two pieces of the purely routine coverage that any political appointment would simply be expected to receive in the local media, with no evidence of wider or ongoing coverage beyond that week. Bearcat (talk) 19:46, 18 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Florida-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 20:45, 18 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 20:46, 18 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - not shown to be notable for stand alone article. Trivial bio. Kierzek (talk) 21:21, 18 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. _signed,Rosguill ^talk 23:02, 18 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete county election inspectors are just plain not notable, even in Broward County.John Pack Lambert (talk) 02:26, 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 soft delete. WP:REFUND applies. — JJMC89 (T·C) 01:24, 26 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Wendy Neuss

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

May not meet WP:GNG or WP:NBIO. Can't find third-party coverage for the person. Has been tagged with {{BLP sources}} since May 2011. Tyw7 (🗣️ Talk) — If (reply) then (ping me) 19:39, 18 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Tyw7 (🗣️ Talk) — If (reply) then (ping me) 19:40, 18 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Tyw7 (🗣️ Talk) — If (reply) then (ping me) 19:40, 18 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Science fiction-related deletion discussions. Tyw7 (🗣️ Talk) — If (reply) then (ping me) 19:40, 18 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. Tyw7 (🗣️ Talk) — If (reply) then (ping me) 19:40, 18 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. Tyw7 (🗣️ Talk) — If (reply) then (ping me) 19:40, 18 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Tyw7 (🗣️ Talk) — If (reply) then (ping me) 19:40, 18 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of New Jersey-related deletion discussions. Tyw7 (🗣️ Talk) — If (reply) then (ping me) 19:40, 18 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) 01:23, 26 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Ottawa Ice Dragon Boat Festival

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

Semi-advertorialized article about a local event, not reliably sourced as the subject of enough media coverage to clear our notability standards for events. This is referenced to one primary source (the self-published website of the International Ice Dragon Boat Federation) and one blog entry on The Huffington Post -- but primary sources are not support for notability at all, and while the HuffPo is a permissible source, it isn't enough to magically clinch notability all by itself as the only non-primary source in play. We require considerably more than just one media source before a local event is notable enough for a Wikipedia article. Bearcat (talk) 19:18, 18 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 20:09, 18 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 20:09, 18 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete have actually been to this a few times in my youth and it no way is it a large scale event....was fun (drunk collage kids).....but in no way notable enough for an article.--Moxy 🍁 21:24, 18 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I think you're thinking of the summer one (which has a separate article at Ottawa Dragon Boat Festival, but isn't very well-sourced and may need AFD consideration too). This is a new winter one which only just started two years ago. Bearcat (talk) 00:26, 20 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 11:37, 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 redirect to Marshmello discography. Redirection is probably close enough to deletion in this case, anyhow Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 05:56, 26 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Joytime III

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

This fails FUTUREALBUM. The 6 references in the article are all variations on the same thing (two of them are direct translations of each other), and they're all based on the same tweet by Marshmello. Wikipedia is not a CRYSTALBALL. – bradv🍁 19:03, 18 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 20:13, 18 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 20:14, 18 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Pennsylvania-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 20:14, 18 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Per nom. It's also pretty WP:NOTNEWSy and what I'd expect in a tweet, not an encyclopedia. Praxidicae (talk) 20:32, 18 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

~~*Draftify~~ until there is enough material. There almost definitely will be an article about this in the not-too-distant future, so it can't hurt to let people continue to develop it. WP:Deletion is not cleanup —pythoncoder (talk | contribs) 22:31, 18 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

pythoncoder, it was previously draftified, so the accepted practice is to send it to AfD rather than move-warring. And I agree that deletion is not cleanup, but neither is draftspace a holding place for topics that may become notable in the future. – bradv🍁 22:37, 18 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Struck because it was previously in draftspace. —pythoncoder (talk | contribs) 22:38, 18 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect. Great! More reason to stay away from this place. This page should be redirected to Marshmello discography where the subject is listed as an album per {{r from album}}. -- Flooded w/them 100s 04:59, 19 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Marshmello discography. I assume Mr. Mello is not exaggerating about a new upcoming album, but just a vague announcement about near-future work means this album is nowhere near ready for its own article. If/when the album becomes a reality, a reversal of the redirect will be viable. ---DOOMSDAYER520 (Talk|Contribs) 22:24, 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 keep. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 05:54, 26 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Dian Bachar

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

Non-notable actor. Tagged for notability since 2016. Seems to be friends with the South Park creators, and thus has some film credits in films made by them, but no independent notability. Natg 19 (talk) 17:49, 18 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Natg 19 (talk) 17:49, 18 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Natg 19 (talk) 17:50, 18 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Colorado-related deletion discussions. Natg 19 (talk) 17:50, 18 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 18:04, 18 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 18:05, 18 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Having notable friends does not make you non notable. duffbeerforme (talk) 03:21, 19 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Duffbeerforme: - It doesn't, but this isn't actually an argument to retain Nosebagbear (talk)

When the nomination basically claims he is not notable because the films he was in were his friends films then it is, it directly refutes the nominations claim. Friends film or strangers film, irrelevant. duffbeerforme (talk) 12:41, 24 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - NACTOR doesn't require "major", just "significant". And while not the stylistic productions in the last century, his roles in Orgazmo, BASEketball would probably be enough. Nosebagbear (talk) 21:58, 19 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as does have prominent roles in notable productions such as BASEketball, Cannibal! The Musical, Orgazmo and others so is an actor that Wikipedia would be expected to cover. His roles are confirmed in the google search of reviews of the relevant films, thanks Atlantic306 (talk) 16:13, 21 April 2019 (UTC) 16:10, 21 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) 01:23, 26 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Seven Spades

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

An unnotable card game that was literally WP:MADEUP. There are no sources that talk about the game aside from the one external link present in the article, which is just a page in which users can post their own, invented rules. The article itself makes no claim of notability, merely stating the rules of the game, and as there are no actual sources discussing the game, there is nothing that can be added to pass the WP:GNG. Rorshacma (talk) 17:47, 18 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Games-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 18:06, 18 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom - other than a single site (with content free t be added by anyone, it seems, and only giving the rules), there is zilch coverage I could find on this. Nosebagbear (talk) 22:00, 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. — JJMC89 (T·C) 01:21, 26 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Jana and Gavin Grazer

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

Unsourced BLP, not one independent reliable source in our page, Google searches for news and books get no verifiable hits at all. If they are not notable as a couple, why does our page treat them as one? Individually, she comes up blank in news and book searches, while he gets some hits, many of which mention him as the brother of a more notable producer. Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 14:36, 11 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose: working on doing exactly that, with regarding improving the page. MacCready (talk) 15:15, 11 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Well the page was about her until recently when someone combined them... and it's currently a mess as the filmography is combined. Not sure why the page was messed up like this. Spanneraol (talk) 16:49, 11 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Spanneraol: My bad, I'm working on fixing that right back up. Are you in favour of keeping the page to improve upon also? MacCready (talk) 09:45, 12 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

So far, despite the claim above of working on improving the references, the only action has been to use linkedin as a reference. -- Whpq (talk) 18:13, 18 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 14:50, 11 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 14:50, 11 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 14:50, 11 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Pennsylvania-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 14:50, 11 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 14:50, 11 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 14:51, 11 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 14:51, 11 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - This page was moved by User:MacCready from being about Jana Grazer to be about the couple without any discussion. There are no reliable sources that indicate that the couple together are notable in any way. Nor are they individually notable either. As such, reverting the move would be pointless as the article would still be a problem from a notability standpoint. -- Whpq (talk) 19:25, 11 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, TonyBallioni (talk) 17:42, 18 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete It is high time that only being sourced to IMDb becomes grounds for speedy deletion.John Pack Lambert (talk) 02:15, 20 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Neither Jana Thompson (the name she has performed under) nor Gavin Grazer appear to be notable, individually or as a couple. (I completely disagree "that only being sourced to IMDb should become grounds for speedy deletion". Many articles about people who have appeared in films or tv shows are sourced only to IMDB, but there may be many reliable sources available - and their career may include stage performances which are not included in IMDB. The policy WP:NPOSSIBLE "Notability is based on the existence of suitable sources, not on the state of sourcing in an article" has a very valid foundation, and speedy deletion does not allow reasonable time for improving sources.) RebeccaGreen (talk) 15:13, 25 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) 01:21, 26 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Belle Ayr, LTD.

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

Very little nobility. Not widely known and not verifiable. This article was written by the founder of the company, seen on the image information of the image on the article. Regardless of the COI, this company is obviously not widely known. Lafayette Baguette ^talk 17:41, 18 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Animal-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 18:08, 18 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 18:08, 18 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Scotland-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 18:09, 18 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete -- BhagyaMani (talk) 09:02, 19 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - unreferenced article about a run of the mill breeder, one of thousands. Bearian (talk) 20:30, 23 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Nothing in the article to suggest notability and this reads more like a directory listing than a Wikipedia article. Dunarc (talk) 20:13, 24 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 redirect to Kim Ji-hoon (director). Consensus that with the film indefinitely postponed and no particularly major coverage already the redirect is preferable. I've added in a line to the director's page. (non-admin closure) Nosebagbear (talk) 21:26, 25 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I Want to Know Your Parents

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

The film has been postponed indefinitely due to a sex scandal with one of the main cast. Article contains little of substance and I can find no significant coverage elsewhere. Fails WP:NOTFILM. PC78 (talk) 17:22, 18 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of South Korea-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 18:11, 18 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 18:12, 18 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Kim Ji-hoon and add a brief mention of the film there. If it was canceled deletion would be preferable but postponed means that the article could be resurrected one day. MarnetteD|Talk 18:20, 18 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
- Kim Ji-hoon (director). PC78 (talk) 18:22, 18 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  - D'oh! Thanks you so much PC78. MarnetteD|Talk 19:44, 18 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect as above as a shelved project at this stage Atlantic306 (talk) 19:13, 21 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. -- Scott Burley (talk) 07:38, 26 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The Complete Works

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

WP:DICDEF --wooden superman 09:01, 4 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 09:02, 4 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. I found it easy to add a scholarly fact on the topic, using Google Books. Charles Matthews (talk) 09:13, 4 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Nosebagbear (talk) 13:22, 11 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Randykitty (talk) 17:08, 18 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Language-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 11:00, 19 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment, is this more appropriate for Wiktionary? Coolabahapple (talk) 11:02, 19 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:NOTDIC, specifically the fact that there is no single topic here but a number of different things that share a label. The article is not about "complete works" as a concept in, say, publishing or taxonomy. Nor is it about the phrase the complete works as such. It is about complete editions of Shakespeare, Bach, Euler, etc. Cnilep (talk) 04:07, 25 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. (non-admin closure) Kpg jhp jm 02:34, 26 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Chad Mureta

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

This article is promotional in nature. Majority of sources cited are either 404'ed, press-releases, or blatant paid advertisement. Questionable notability. Original creator banned for sockpuppetry, likely paid editor. PureRED | talk to me | 16:02, 11 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 16:09, 11 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 16:09, 11 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of South Carolina-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 16:10, 11 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, InvalidOS talk 16:43, 18 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep WP:GNG and the article may be promotional, however WP:NOTPAPER applies Lubbad85 (☎) 17:07, 18 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - I improved on the article some, but it needs more attention, including with some refs. A few other sources are reliable and show notability, including BBC business news. Passes WP:GNG. -AuthorAuthor (talk) 02:58, 23 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - GNG/Basic are satisfied. I don't believe the degree of Promo (or at least, isn't any longer) major enough to necessitate deletion rather than cleanup. Nosebagbear (talk) 21:32, 25 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) 01:19, 26 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

List of virtual communities with more than 100 million active users

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

Fails WP:LISTCRITERIA: the list includes social networks, instant messengers, mobile messaging apps, photo sharing sites, etc. It is unclear why all those have been called "virtual communities". What about IRC servers? Or newsgroups? Or Wikipedia?
It is unclear what "active user" means; the majority of listed sources mention "registered users", but this is not the same.
Why 100 million and not, say, 10 million or a billion? What's so special about 100 million? See WP:LISTCRITERIA
Good luck with convincing me that Skype, Blackberry messenger or iMessages are "virtual communities". What next, text messaging? Delete. — kashmīrī ^TALK 16:42, 18 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 16:50, 18 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 16:50, 18 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 16:50, 18 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of China-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 16:50, 18 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Estonia-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 16:51, 18 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sweden-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 16:51, 18 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Denmark-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 16:51, 18 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Israel-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 16:51, 18 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Russia-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 16:51, 18 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Japan-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 16:52, 18 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of South Korea-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 16:52, 18 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 16:52, 18 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 16:52, 18 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 16:52, 18 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 16:53, 18 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. We have Virtual community and a very well-populated Category:Virtual communities, so that is not a term unique to this list FWIW. There might still be an argument that it is too broad of a term to be a useful basis for such a list, but it shouldn't be considered "unclear" what belongs in it unless all of our content under that term is invalid. Also, it seems that List of virtual communities with more than 1 million users should have also been included in this nom. postdlf (talk) 18:29, 18 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete There is no reason to have a standalone article of 100 million users when https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_virtual_communities_with_more_than_1_million_users already covers the theme so well. Garlicolive (talk) 22:41, 18 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per all — Preceding unsigned comment added by John M Wolfson (talk • contribs)
Do not delete, please. Article is useful, even if some information is recorded elsewhere. You can argue about categories indefinitely, but more is better than less. Role of these "groups" has changed and continues to change over time. There will never be a perfect organization of knowledge. This page is useful; I found it from a link on MySpace article and it tells a lot. Are you running out of space that you have to delete things?Proyster (talk) 21:37, 21 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. We do not base lists or categories on arbitrary inclusion cutoffs, so maintaining separate lists for "X > 1 million" and "X > 10 million" and "X > 100 million" is not a thing we should be doing. Bearcat (talk) 02:57, 23 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. No prejudice against speedy renomination per low participation. Perhaps the notion of a merge can be discussed on a talk page. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 01:16, 25 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

List of Kasautii Zindagii Kay cast

Hi I think we should delete the page because it is unnecessary to put a separate page for the cast of the iconic show. Even there are other popular longest running shows in India but they don't have a separate page. Nora Fatehi (^Talk/_Edits) 20:41, 3 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 20:12, 3 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 20:12, 3 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists of people-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 20:12, 3 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 20:12, 3 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

When you look at Kasautii Zindagii Kay (2001 TV series)#Cast, what do you see there? postdlf (talk) 01:27, 4 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 09:39, 11 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Randykitty (talk) 16:15, 18 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The nominator has failed to respond, but the issue is that this should be at best a merge, not a delete, because their complaint is just that this is a separate page but its content does not exist in the parent article (which just links to this list). postdlf (talk) 18:12, 18 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. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 05:53, 26 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Ali Ansari (actor)

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

Fails WP:NACTOR and undersourced in tone, mainly because all is TV and film appearances are all minor by the looks of it. Sheldybett (talk) 16:05, 18 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Keep easily passes WP:NACTOR with many prominent roles in nationally broadcast television series such as Andaaz-e-Sitam and Iss Khamoshi Ka Matlab; also has coverage in multiple reliable sources such as The Express Tribune and Dawn Atlantic306 (talk) 16:32, 18 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 16:42, 18 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 16:42, 18 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 16:42, 18 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 16:43, 18 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep This article 'Ali Ansari' already has an exclusive article and news coverage by a major English-language newspaper of Pakistan, The Express Tribune. I just added to the article his Filmography from IMDb website showing many of his TV shows that he has acted in. In addition, there is a reference and news coverage of one of his films in a major newspaper of the Middle East, The Gulf Times. I also moved some 'out of place' given existing references to their proper locations on the 'Wikitable'. Ngrewal1 (talk) 22:34, 18 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) 01:18, 26 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Apr 20, 2019

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

Should not have an article on its own, nor should the article be named what it is. This sort of thing should be merged into Terence Crawford or Amir Khan. Lafayette Baguette ^talk 15:35, 18 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Each boxer's article already has a section on the fight; no need to merge anything here. Nate • (chatter) 15:50, 18 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Per nom and above Rollidan (talk) 16:15, 18 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Boxing-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 16:47, 18 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 16:47, 18 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 16:47, 18 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 16:47, 18 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 16:47, 18 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Strong delete Graywalls (talk) 14:39, 20 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as per nom Hughesdarren (talk)
delete Totally mistitled article. Article is about a fight that is already covered in both fighters' articles. The lack of references shows the fight is not notable enough for its own article.Sandals1 (talk) 18:00, 22 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:SNOW. Bearian (talk) 20:33, 23 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. --XenonNSMB (talk, contribs) 22:31, 23 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. -- Scott Burley (talk) 07:42, 26 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Triune Kingdom of Croatia

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

This page was created by User:Ban kavalir after deleting a substantial portion of Kingdom of Croatia (Habsburg) and created the article, which is very biased and discusses a Croatian nationalist idea of the Triune Kingdom. Uncontroversial, sourced facts, such as that Croatia (Habsburg) "ended" in 1868 and became Kingdom of Croatia-Slavonia has (previously) been changed to end in 1848 and the "Triune Kingdom of Croatia" has been pushed and presented as a "real" and recognized entity after 1848, despite it never being realized. The real situation should be restored (as I have done on the Croatia (Habsburg) page) and this page be deleted. The situation regarding the Triune Kingdom is already discussed (in its actual situation) here: Triune Kingdom. Even the Croatian page(s) show the Kingdom of Croatia to "end" in 1868 and the "claimed" Triune Kingdom of start in 1868. Havsjö (talk) 11:06, 3 April 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 April 3. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 11:24, 3 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. Icewhiz (talk) 11:39, 3 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. Icewhiz (talk) 11:39, 3 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Croatia-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 11:41, 3 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Separate state era then the period of crown union with Hungary (keep the article)

The Triune Kingdom of Croatia, Slavonia and Dalmatia (1848-1867) is a different era and state entity then the ones before 1848 and the ones after 1867. This is due to this facts:

- Sabors proclamation of 1848 (Constitution)
- Establishment of a new system of government
- Establishment of a new constitutive law
- Ending of the crown union with Hungary
- Establishing of a separate entity with the Monarchy
- Establishing of new institutions
- Establishing of new state symbols
- Establishing of new state functions
- Establishing of new state titles
- Establishing of new state administration
- Establishing of new legal system
- Establishing of new currency

ect This era is different due to the explained reasons, the same and even fewer reasons are used for the period of the Triune Kingdom (Croatia-Slavonia) 1868-1918 to be in a separate article. Also in Croatian historiography as well as legal system it is regarded as a separate state era due to all the mentioned. Not to mention that the article has at least five times!!! more texts, sources and materials then it had in the previous article, which alone would be the reason to start a more detailed article on that period. PS no sources or text were deleted, they were all incorporated into the new article, but as mentioned the article has FIVE TIMES more texts, sources and materials on the subject of the era of 1848-1867 SY dr.sc.Ban kavalir (talk) 08:35, 5 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Even the Croatian page (and the [old english version]) for the Habsubrg-controlled Croatia shows accurate flags and years, while also detailing information about the 1848 revolution and subsequent years until the settlement in 1868, when the Kingdom of Croatia and the Kingdom of Slavonia, were merged into the Kingdom of Croatia-Slavonia. And even though the croatian wikipedia shows gives more prominence to the "Triune Kingdom" in the article for Croatia-Slavonia (than the english previously did), it neutrally explains the ideologically drive aspirations and claims surrounding the Triune Kingdom. It als does not claim it was already a thing since 1848(!) The very blatant push for the legitimacy of Triune Kingdom is very obvious.

Information for other people reading this about the Triune Kingdom can be read here and in many, many previous discussion in talk pages of many of the articles mentioned in this discussion. All of them detailing the nationalist and territorial aspirations and the idea of the "Triune Kingdom" in the late 19th century. Some more information and discussion on the situation that as been happening on these articles can be read on this talk page. This article is a total sham and its content should be restored or moved to a restored version of the Kingdom of Croatia (Habsburg) --Havsjö (talk) 10:26, 5 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Content forking. We have Triune Kingdom to deal with the use and meaning of this phrase, which is not restricted to any particular period and did not usually reflect the actual state of things. As it goes, this multiplication of pages only increases confusion. Srnec (talk) 21:28, 6 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as a content fork. In addition, none of the related articles seem long, so there is space within existing articles to add useful/reliable information as needed.
Comment -- This area of history is not my area of expertise, but this seems to be trying to provide a more detailed history of Croatia from the 1848 revolution until the establishment of Triune Kingdom in 1867. In this period, the area seems to have been governed by a Ban as governor under the Emperor-king. The period is covered by Kingdom of Croatia (Habsburg), but there is no reason why we should not have a more detailed article on this period. Whether this is capable of being it, I cannot judge. Peterkingiron (talk) 16:34, 7 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 09:02, 11 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as a content fork. There may be a case for splitting out this period in a separate article, but there is no case for a new article that contradicts existing content. Let's expand the existing articles in a way for which there is consensus for the neutrality of the material. Once it has grown to something that is too long for the existing pages, then split it out. SpinningSpark 18:22, 11 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - there are many references and other material here that might be useful, so it would be good if an effort could be made to examine and WP:PRESERVE as much as possible, and to merge it into other articles as appropriate, being careful to follow WP:NPOV, if the article is to be permanently deleted. In other words, "don't throw out the baby with the bathwater". There are several overlapping articles, i.e. Triune Kingdom, Triune Kingdom of Croatia, and Kingdom of Croatia-Slavonia, each of which say that The Triune Kingdom of Croatia, Slavonia and Dalmatia is a synonym or MOS:ALTNAME for their article's title and subject. They each give quite different and contradictory accounts of what it means, and I find that it's not possible to get a clear understanding of it. I hope that it can be rectified, as the way it is now I think is confusing to readers. --IamNotU (talk) 01:28, 12 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Which sources do you think should be conserved? There's a couple of youtube videos, and lots of repeats from the same books whose ISBNs don't seem to exist in Google Books or Open Library. I'm not sure there's much baby here, if any. CMD (talk) 02:34, 12 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Don't rely on gbooks to establish the existence or otherwise of a book. I took the first book reference as an example. Sure enough, it's not on gbooks, but here it is on WorldCat, Open Library, Library of Congress, and Amazon. By my count, there are five book sources with cited ISBNs, all available in at least some catalogues: [3][4][5][6][7]. Further, there are even more other books and scholarly papers for which no index or link is given, making them slightly harder, but not difficult to track down. For instance, ref #11 is this book on WorldCat. In short, my general impression is that the references in this article are quite solid and the argument for retaining and resusing them is a valid one. SpinningSpark 09:55, 12 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment -The Kingdom of Croatia-Slavonia was officially called Triune Kingdom "internally" and had claims on Dalmatia, which was not part of it in reality, that articles discusses the "region" in Austria-Hungary. The article Triune Kingdom talks about the aspirations/history/idea behind the Kingdom and basically the reasons why Croatia-Slavonia called itself that and wanted Dalmatia, as well as the movements that sought to make it a reality during the birth of modern Croatia. So they dont really overlap. This article (which is tagged for deletion), however, is just bad history (or outright fake), even Croatian wikipedia explains the situation in a neutral and academic manner surrounding the Triune Kingdom and Croatia-Slavonia (1868-1918). This article talks about a "Triune Kingdom" even since from 1848, and presents it as a very independent/sovereign Kingdom all the way until Croatia-Slavonia in 1868, even skirting around (with no source) the years of Baron Alexander von Bach "Absolutism", during which Austria enforced a complete control, absolutist system over the empire during which Austria ruled everything very "totally" and Croatian national symbols were even banned. This article neglects this (and has removed it from Kingdom_of_Croatia_(Habsburg)#19th_century after that period was moved to here, although it has since been restored), which details it in much more neutral and clear light, without being obfuscated in this obvious push for the Triune Kingdom idea. Even the Croatian wikipedia page of that era too, does not make such claims (like a Triune Kingdom from 1848) and has a very neutral and informative tone regarding that time, as the restored English version now does too. Ban Kavalir has also in the article for Triune Kingdom, used sources to support historical basis for the Triune Kingdom[8], while also neglecting to include that the very same source mentions how the term didnt really receive common usage until the nationalist push in the 19th century. He has also used sources from the 19th century written by people who are members of political parties whos explicit primary goal was "the recognition of the Triune Kingdom". An obvious agenda is behind this article, and I again suggest comparisons with both the (currently restored) English articles as well as the Croatian counterparts for a more netural view for the people who might be a bit confused about all these criss-crossing articles. I also suggest looking at the current talk page of User:Ban kavalir for another "show of character"... --Havsjö (talk) 10:05, 12 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

You are responding to an argument I did not make (strawman). It seems to have entirely passed you by that I have already !voted delete. I was commenting on the potential value of the sources, not on the value of the article. You have dismissed the sources in what seems to me to be an extraordinarily offhand and inaccurate way. Even the Youtube videos may have some value – Youtube should not always be dismissed out of hand. This one is from KnajzTV; Robert Knjaz appears to be a well known Croatian broadcaster [9]. The video is from his Croatian Greats series, which is in the Discovery Channel catalogue. SpinningSpark 10:20, 12 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, I was commenting/answering User:IamNotU's comment! I think too that some sources here could be well used (on the respective other article...), those are no need to be just ignored/thrown away--Havsjö (talk) 10:25, 12 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, ok. In that case you used too many indents to reply to IamNotU, but don't change it now. That will make my reply confusing. But I think IamNotU could make the same complaint; you were not responding to the point they were making. SpinningSpark 10:57, 12 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Well, I rewrote the opening of Triune Kingdom to more clearly describe it and to give it more separation as an article from the Croatia-Slavonia article. Hopefully it should be easier to understand now, without giving contradictory information etc --Havsjö (talk) 17:12, 12 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Since Triune Kingdom still does not anywhere link to, or mention, Triune Kingdom of Croatia the distinction is still as clear as mud to me. Sorry, still looks like a POVFORK. SpinningSpark 17:45, 12 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Yea, between Triune Kingdom and Triune Kingdom of Croatia there is no distinction/separation at all. I meant between Triune Kingdom and Croatia-Slavonia, which were also mentioned by IamNotU before, hehe --Havsjö (talk) 17:52, 12 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I was not relying on Gbooks to establish the existence of the sources, I had for example found the two I checked elsewhere. I was instead noting the difficulty of accessing them, and therefore an inability to assess how reliable they may be. I'm not minded to take a book's existence as proof it's a good source, and while some/all may be, I am even less willing to trust their use/interpretation on this page. CMD (talk) 13:01, 12 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

But that's not what you said. You strongly implied that their were few book sources (not true) and that the ISBNs could not be found in online indexes (also not true). It is not even true that they cannot be found in one you explicitly mention, Open Library. At best, your comments were misleading from lazy reviewing, and at worst, it is deliberate bad faith. We do not rule out sources because we cannot access them, and we assume good faith of other editors until shown otherwise. Do you have any verifiable objection to these sources? Can you show that any of them have been misrepresented in the article? If not, your comments are just worthless speculation. SpinningSpark 16:48, 12 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

There are only 6 book sources with ISBNs, although I did miss the non-ISBNed ones. My note on lots of repeats referred to 1848 u Hrvatskoj by Jelena Boršak-Marijanović, used for a quarter of the citations on this article, which does not seem to be on Open Library. Perhaps you're right and I am jaded from too long in Balkan articles with regards to my faith in content forks created after edit warring elsewhere, but at any rate, I opened asking which sources should be conserved. Accepting the rest of my comment was given too blithely, that initial question is still needs an answer if the sources are going to be conserved. CMD (talk) 23:05, 19 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Randykitty (talk) 15:29, 18 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) 01:17, 26 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Zip Us In

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

No coverage in reliable sources, does not meet WP:GNG, WP:NCORP. Provided sources are all in tabloids, blogs, or otherwise unreliable or trivial coverage. I was unable to find anything better online, although I was able to find even more tabloid coverage. _signed,Rosguill ^talk 19:20, 3 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fashion-related deletion discussions. _signed,Rosguill ^talk 19:22, 3 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. _signed,Rosguill ^talk 19:22, 3 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. _signed,Rosguill ^talk 19:22, 3 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. _signed,Rosguill ^talk 19:22, 3 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 09:01, 11 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Randykitty (talk) 15:23, 18 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete The Southern Daily Echo is a reliable source; I'm not sure about Chat (magazine). These are more than trivial but not very substantial. Peter James (talk) 09:43, 19 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete While some of the sources are reliable, I don’t think there’s enough to reach the ‘significant’ threshold for GNG. Probably one of the best sources, the Southern Echo one, is really more about the person being honored than the clothing line, for instance. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs^(talk) 19:31, 25 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) 01:17, 26 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Marius Cornelis van Houten

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

Neither being an army officer nor a museum director qualifies this person under any subject specific guideline. The only reference provided is to a museum brochure. A Google News search turns up nothing, and a Google Books search turns up one mention in passing that he was involved with the idea of creating Interpol. This article may be a WP:MEMORIAL. A loose necktie (talk) 21:15, 3 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Netherlands-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 21:16, 3 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Museums and libraries-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 21:19, 3 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 09:01, 11 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Randykitty (talk) 15:22, 18 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. I couldn't find much either. The Dutch Wikipedia article is even less sourced. Clarityfiend (talk) 18:48, 18 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) 01:17, 26 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Lou Arab

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

Subject does not appear notable outside of connection with his wife, and notability does not carry. Deserves at most a brief mention in her article. This is also being heavily edited by the subject. JamesG5 (talk) 15:01, 18 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete and merge/redirect to Rachel Notley. Discussion about him revolves around his wife.Citing (talk) 16:08, 18 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 16:48, 18 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 16:49, 18 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Spouses of provincial premiers are not automatically accepted as independently notable just because they exist, because they do not have anything even approaching the same public role or status as the spouse of the Prime Minister — but the sources here are not coverage about him that establish his notability as a trade unionist, they're sources about Rachel Notley that passingly acknowledge his existence as her spouse. Notability is not inherited, so that's not how you establish a politician's spouse as notable enough for a Wikipedia article — in order to qualify for his own standalone biographical article independently of having his name mentioned in Notley's, he has to have received substantive and ongoing coverage about him accomplishing something notable in his own career independently of who he happens to be married to. We do not have, and are not going to have, articles about Ellie Horgan or Krista Moe or Esther Pallister or Karla Middlebrook Ford or Isabelle Brais or Marcia Higgs or Andrea McNeil or Duncan McIntosh or Sharon Ball either, because they're not the subjects of coverage that establishes their own standalone notability for their own accomplishments either. Bearcat (talk) 17:45, 18 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and merge. Stefka Bulgaria (talk) 18:44, 18 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. FWIW the subject does not consider himself notable and prefers not to have a Wikipedia article.Citing (talk) 22:38, 18 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I would say that it's worth a lot. Jmertel23 (talk) 14:53, 19 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as per WP:INVALIDBIO - not notable outside of relationship with his wife. Jmertel23 (talk) 14:53, 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 no consensus. -- Scott Burley (talk) 07:44, 26 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Karikku

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

Appears to fail WP:GNG and WP:ENT. Minimal sourcing, one is a YouTube video, another is an interview, and I find it difficult to take serious a source with the by-line of "Pinky Baby". I moved to draftspace awhile back and another account came in and appears to have intentionally gamed autoconfirm perm to copy/paste move this to article space again. Waggie (talk) 17:58, 3 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. Ceethekreator (talk) 18:01, 3 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Ceethekreator (talk) 18:01, 3 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Google News search shows several articles about the group that aren't listed as refs including some from Times of India, New Indian Express, Matrubhumi and Manorama, all of which are high-ranking outlets in India. Seems to satisfy GNG. --Rsrikanth05 (talk) 19:21, 3 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: I didn't note this in the deletion rationale, but I find it interesting that some of the sources seem remarkably similar. I would ask that folks look carefully at this. The words aren't the same, but the flow of the articles (specifically the Manorama article and the Madhyamam Daily article) seems very similar. I'm not sure what to make of this, and don't want to draw conclusions, but would like others to consider and form their own opinions. Waggie (talk) 19:43, 3 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - This appears to be a group notable only for YouTubing, and YouTubers are seldom notable unless (like the Logans) they have received significant coverage in mainstream sources, which this group has not. Robert McClenon (talk) 20:20, 4 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Question - Does the author of either this article or the draft have an affiliation or connection with the group? If so, read the conflict of interest policy and make the required declaration. Robert McClenon (talk) 20:20, 4 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - Submitting the same draft simultaneously from two accounts in two spaces appears to be, at best, an effort to game the system. The less favorable (but equally common) possibilities are either undisclosed paid editing or sockpuppetry. Robert McClenon (talk) 20:20, 4 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - I don't have any kind of relations with the group other than I watch their videos. Also, I don't have multiple Wiki accounts. User:991joseph is my only account. This group is quite popular in Kerala as their content language is Malayalam. And they have been covered through major (regional) newspapers. --Joseph 05:47, 5 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as a TOU violation and the fact that almost all of the sources lack the required depth. Regional only papers don't establish notability and a lot of the sources definitely fall under WP:CHURNALISM Praxidicae (talk) 18:29, 6 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Needs a bit more assessment of the sources, especially the potential ones mentioned by Rsrikanth05. In addition, I am not seeing a TOU violation here.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 06:01, 11 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - The sources don't provide an adequate level of depth as stated above. Additionally, I agree with Waggie's assessment that the flow of the articles is remarkably similar. May be worthy of an SPI regarding the multiple accounts. -- Dane ^talk 16:21, 12 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Still needs more assessment of possible sources, as noted by the previous relist.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Randykitty (talk) 14:47, 18 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. Seems like the notability claims are reasonably supported. Although a rewrite of the page is probably in order but not really the job of a deletion discussion. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 05:49, 26 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The Art of Massage

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

The principal reference for this book is the book itself. Other references discuss massage, not this particular book. Book does not appear to have genuine notability per WP:GNG. A loose necktie (talk) 22:47, 3 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 22:48, 3 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Michigan-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 22:51, 3 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment, The Art of Massage was published (1895) during the early development of massage therapy in the US (having been introduced in the 1870s?), there was also a number of editions, 4 for Its Physiological Effects(?), and 6 for A Practical Manual(?), so appears to have been reasonably well known, unfortunately, i have been unable to find any gsearch sources that discuss/review it, hopefully others will be more successful. Coolabahapple (talk) 12:07, 4 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

or maybe not Coolabahapple (talk) 04:19, 10 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 05:53, 11 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Draftify This may be a work of historic improtance in the development of the art. It does not seem like an encyclopedia article at present, and it needs more time for fixing than afd provides DGG ( talk ) 01:02, 13 April 2019 (UTC) . `[reply]
Keep, but agree this needs a rewrite. The book (series of books?) is frequently referenced in books and articles on Google Scholar about massage and the history of massage, and is historically significant:

Massage was part of mainstream medicine in the United States up through the 19th century and into the first part of the 20th century. For instance, J.H. Kellogg, a trained medical doctor, wrote an influential text, The Art of Massage in 1895 that continued to be utilized well into the 20th century.

There's an entire review article in Japanese.Citing (talk) 03:04, 18 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Randykitty (talk) 14:41, 18 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. In addition to my !vote above, please note that this page was created as part of the Wikipedia education program.Citing (talk) 22:36, 18 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. As well as the sources identified above there is coverage in books from reputable publishers here (click "view all") and here. Phil Bridger (talk) 11:41, 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 delete. Sandstein 20:43, 25 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Camila Marañón

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

Fails WP: GNG, has only won a national beauty pageant (see WP:1EVENT), failed to place at international level. No other significant achievement since. Fails WP:NMODEL. Dan arndt (talk) 10:24, 18 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Beauty pageants-related deletion discussions. Icewhiz (talk) 10:25, 18 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Ecuador-related deletion discussions. Icewhiz (talk) 10:25, 18 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Icewhiz (talk) 10:26, 18 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fashion-related deletion discussions. Icewhiz (talk) 10:26, 18 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete a non-notable beauty queen.John Pack Lambert (talk) 02:02, 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 20:42, 25 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Annika Grill

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

Fails WP: GNG, has only won a national beauty pageant (see WP:1EVENT), failed to place at international level. No other significant achievement since. Fails WP:NMODEL. Dan arndt (talk) 10:24, 18 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Icewhiz (talk) 10:26, 18 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Beauty pageants-related deletion discussions. Icewhiz (talk) 10:26, 18 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fashion-related deletion discussions. Icewhiz (talk) 10:26, 18 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Austria-related deletion discussions. Icewhiz (talk) 10:26, 18 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete not enough coverage of beauty title to show notability.John Pack Lambert (talk) 01:58, 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 20:42, 25 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Shivanthini Dharmasiri

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

Fails WP: GNG, has only won a national beauty pageant (see WP:1EVENT), failed to place at international level. No other significant achievement since. Fails WP:NMODEL. Dan arndt (talk) 10:21, 18 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Icewhiz (talk) 10:29, 18 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Beauty pageants-related deletion discussions. Icewhiz (talk) 10:29, 18 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fashion-related deletion discussions. Icewhiz (talk) 10:29, 18 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sri Lanka-related deletion discussions. Icewhiz (talk) 10:29, 18 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. Icewhiz (talk) 10:29, 18 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete a non-notable beauty pageant contestant.John Pack Lambert (talk) 02:36, 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 redirect to Miss Universe Sri Lanka#Titleholders. (non-admin closure) Jovanmilic97 (talk) 11:54, 25 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Jayathi De Silva

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

Fails WP: GNG, has only won a national beauty pageant (see WP:1EVENT), failed to place at international level. No other significant achievement since. Fails WP:NMODEL. Dan arndt (talk) 10:18, 18 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Icewhiz (talk) 10:31, 18 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Beauty pageants-related deletion discussions. Icewhiz (talk) 10:31, 18 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fashion-related deletion discussions. Icewhiz (talk) 10:31, 18 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. Icewhiz (talk) 10:31, 18 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sri Lanka-related deletion discussions. Icewhiz (talk) 10:31, 18 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Miss Universe Sri Lanka#Titleholders ~~Delete~~ -- agree per proposer, although I am willing to consider arguments that there are enough independent sources to justify her inclusion in Wikipedia. Most of the others in this pageant do not have articles, so it suggests to me her position is not sufficient to have an article. I gave a similar vote on another AfD of a contestant from same country, and sent another to AfD. Probably either all of these should stay, or all should go (unless some are more notable for other reasons). --David Tornheim (talk) 08:32, 19 April 2019 (UTC)[revised 09:06, 19 April 2019 (UTC)][reply]
Delete a non-notable beauty queen.John Pack Lambert (talk) 02:15, 20 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
redirect Already listed among Miss Universe contestants, but don't see notability for her own article.Sandals1 (talk) 18:46, 22 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 20:42, 25 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Rochelle Correa

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

Fails WP: GNG, has only won a national beauty pageant (see WP:1EVENT), failed to place at international level. No other significant achievement since. Fails WP:NMODEL. Dan arndt (talk) 10:18, 18 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Icewhiz (talk) 10:31, 18 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Beauty pageants-related deletion discussions. Icewhiz (talk) 10:31, 18 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Aviation-related deletion discussions. Icewhiz (talk) 10:31, 18 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sri Lanka-related deletion discussions. Icewhiz (talk) 10:31, 18 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete a non-notable beauty queen.John Pack Lambert (talk) 02:29, 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 20:41, 25 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Brian Barney

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

Non-notable actor/director. Have not found any RS about him. Natg 19 (talk) 00:43, 11 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Natg 19 (talk) 00:44, 11 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Natg 19 (talk) 00:44, 11 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Natg 19 (talk) 00:44, 11 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 06:22, 11 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 06:22, 11 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Theatre-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 06:23, 11 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 06:23, 11 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of New Hampshire-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 06:23, 11 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 10:03, 18 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. No reliable sources to be found anywhere. Doesn't meet WP:Notability. Toby Hynde (talk) 10:12, 18 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Also could not find the WP:RS to justify keeping. MidwestSalamander (talk) 13:32, 18 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 redirect to Arquette family. (non-admin closure) Jovanmilic97 (talk) 11:52, 25 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Richmond Arquette

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

Non-notable actor. He is related to a family of actors and seems to have some small film roles, but nothing major. Notability is not inherited. Natg 19 (talk) 00:21, 11 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Natg 19 (talk) 00:21, 11 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Natg 19 (talk) 00:21, 11 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Natg 19 (talk) 00:22, 11 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. If there is no consensus to keep the article, it would be preferable to redirect the page to Arquette family rather than delete it outright. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 01:57, 11 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 06:24, 11 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Russia-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 06:24, 11 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 06:24, 11 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 10:03, 18 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect would be more appropriate than deleting. If the subject (in his further life) does more work which makes him notable, the redirection can be removed and a separate page can be created. Exploreandwrite (talk) 12:46, 23 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. Seems relatively clear from the views here that this player is not notable yet. Two editors said draftify. I am happy to restore this to a draft space if either, or any, editor wishes to take it. Fenix down (talk) 15:17, 25 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Ali Reghba

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

Footballer who fails WP:GNG and WP:NFOOTY

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Ireland-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 08:34, 10 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Germany-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 08:34, 10 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 08:34, 10 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 08:34, 10 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions.CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 08:37, 10 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - fails WP:GNG and WP:NFOOTBALL. Giant Snowman 09:01, 10 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Draftify feels like a WP:TOOSOON. SportingFlyer T·C 23:39, 12 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, B dash (talk) 06:09, 18 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Draftify – Doesn't meet NFOOTY and not quite there yet with GNG. Although there is more-than-average coverage, it's still mostly routine transfer and game reports. The one exception I found is this local news profile (but it's local). This profile is significant in length, but not from an RS. It seems likely he will receive more coverage once he starts playing and may become notable, as he is clearly a potential prospect. Leviv ich 02:15, 21 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 redirect to Enterprise marketing management. (non-admin closure) Jovanmilic97 (talk) 11:53, 25 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Marketing operations management

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

Listing this per Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2019 April 3. The previous AfD was speedy closed, but per DRV this is being relisted. My listing here is purely administrative; I am neutral. -- RoySmith (talk) 23:33, 10 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 06:28, 11 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. 07:11, 11 April 2019 (UTC) Djm-leighpark (talk) 07:11, 11 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Advertising-related deletion discussions. 07:11, 11 April 2019 (UTC) Djm-leighpark (talk) 07:11, 11 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. 07:11, 11 April 2019 (UTC) Djm-leighpark (talk) 07:11, 11 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: As nom. of previously terminated AfD transferring nomination statement from that AfD as a !vote delete to balance neutral nom. above as result of DRV: Marketing WP:NEOLOGISM that the community seems to indicate it does not wish to accommodate. Sourcing is poor to non-existent which leads to WP:POV, WP:NOTESSAY and other concerns though that is not to say the sourcing is not fixable.. The article bundled at the previous AfD is now proceeding independently at AfD. Djm-leighpark (talk) 07:06, 11 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Enterprise marketing management, of which it a part. Like marketing resource management (MRM), marketing operations management, I think more commonly called marketing operations, is a part of the larger topic of enterprise marketing management (EMM), and so a merge there is a natural alternative to deletion. As noted in its AFD, with books devoted to it, EMM looks notable, so that article should be sticking around. --{{u|Mark viking}} {Talk} 17:26, 11 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: My delete !vote above stands both for merge and redirect, but for merge I would caution due to poor sourcing at or soon after article creation there is perhaps some risk, albeit unproven, of a copy violation from some source X (that others may have copied from also) so may I humbly suggest peoples propose redirect (with suitable sourced target preparation) in preference to merge in this instance unless having a great desire to merge. Thankyou. Djm-leighpark (talk) 17:41, 11 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
There is always a risk of copyvio in WP articles. If you have good evidence of a copyvio, please put it forward, so that we can delete the offending content. --{{u|Mark viking}} {Talk} 18:16, 11 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I have no such evidence. If I obtain such evidence I may present it. However the risk here may be high. (review the DRV). I'd merely suggest given the current state of sourcing (The existing reference is about MPM, and the source recovered from 2005 possibly does not cover that much, it may seem more prudent to re-write content from sources on the target rather than WP:COPYMERGE and a problem emerging later. But its anyone's choice whether to suggest a merge or a redirect. Thankyou. Djm-leighpark (talk) 19:13, 11 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Enterprise marketing management. Poor sourcing fails WP:V, may not be content which can be merged. ––Redditaddict69 ^(talk) ^(contribs) 04:19, 18 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, B dash (talk) 06:07, 18 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

COMMENT With no votes supporting keep, why was this relisted? Sufficient arguments were provided for Merge/Redirect and Delete. There is a clear consensus against keeping this. ––Redditaddict69 ^(talk) ^(contribs) 03:30, 21 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. -- Scott Burley (talk) 04:08, 25 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Viewplex

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

Relies on a Single Independent Site (Yahoo) which is a self-published press release. Bishal Shrestha (talk) 03:58, 18 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete The Yahoo reference is actually a press release published by PR Newswire which is worthless for establishing notability. Some of the other "refererences" are faked up links to other Wikipedia articles, which are also worthless for establishing notability. Others are promotional websites. No evidence of genuine notability. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 04:29, 18 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 04:47, 18 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 04:47, 18 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 04:47, 18 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 04:47, 18 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I cannot find references that would establish notability. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 04:48, 18 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Smells like a promotional page to me. creffett (talk) 15:02, 18 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Not even close to meeting notability. Could likely be speedied. --CNMall41 (talk) 03:37, 20 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and salt. The one who paid for this article, and the one who took their money, should be embarrassed ☆ Bri (talk) 01:08, 22 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 soft delete. WP:REFUND applies. -- Scott (talk) 02:44, 25 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Ajana Path

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

Available sources do not come anywhere close to WP:GNG. While the article claims that several actors with lengthy Wikipedia articles worked on the film, most of those actors have breathtakingly long filmographies, making me not terribly eager to confer notability to the film simply because the actors were in it. _signed,Rosguill ^talk 01:38, 18 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. _signed,Rosguill ^talk 01:39, 18 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. _signed,Rosguill ^talk 01:39, 18 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. The "keep" opinions do not address what matters for notability: sources. Sandstein 06:07, 20 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Adrian John

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

Not notable with sources not providing enough information. Phil Bridger (talk) 14:57, 12 April 2019 (UTC) on behalf of User:132.185.161.125 - I myself am neutral for the moment.[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Radio-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 15:24, 12 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 15:24, 12 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 15:24, 12 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 15:24, 12 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Adrian John has worked in UK radio for nearly 40 years, including many years at Radio 1. This alone more than satisfies any notability criteria. Rillington (talk) 15:18, 14 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Notable UK radio presenter, passes WP:GNG and WP:BIO. This is Paul (talk) 18:30, 14 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Difficult. Although he presented programmes at BBC Radio 1, there's not much in the way of reliable references and sources. Keep if more sources can be provided. UK Wiki User (talk) 07:54, 15 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
- I've now added an additional reference. Rillington (talk) 13:06, 15 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Natg 19 (talk) 01:20, 18 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Delete - Whilst this guy ought to be notable, the references to support notability just aren't there, or at least I was not able to find them in my WP:BEFORE. Daily Mail is not an RS, and the two other citations are a BBC listing (not independent source on this particular subject, and not significant coverage since it is a bare listing of his name against a program) and a Radio Today article that mentions his name in passing (and hence is not significant coverage). I could easily switch if better sourcing were found. FOARP (talk) 08:48, 18 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I would argue that someone who has 40 years of experience as a DJ/presenter, including seven years at Radio 1, is notable. Rillington (talk) 16:05, 19 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, it does seem inconceivable that someone who presented a daily show on Radio 1 for seven years, in the pre-web pre-streaming era when the station had an audience of millions, would not have attracted significant coverage in independent reliable sources at the time. It seems that we would need someone to look in newspaper and magazine archives for the 1980s to unearth such sources. Phil Bridger (talk) 16:51, 19 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. This is my opinion at the moment due to the lack of reliable sources. There's not much that comes up when I search for him online. Although he worked for Radio 1, there's nothing that says all radio presenters need to have an article. As FOARP says above, if more sources can be added, I'll easily be persuaded to change my mind. Sorry y'all. Toby Hynde (talk) 10:06, 18 April 2019 (UTC) — Toby Hynde (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

Pardon my suspicion, but it seems odd that a brand new editor should first create a user page that is a copy of another user's, and then immediately go on to support that other editor in five deletion discussions about radio presenters. What is going on? Phil Bridger (talk) 11:04, 18 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I beg your pardon? I have an interest in the media and have been watching a number of discussions including this one. Yes - I've just taken it upon myself to join Wikipedia and don't want you to accuse me of something that I haven't done. If you've noticed, I'm mid-way through taking part in other discussions! Toby Hynde (talk) 11:13, 18 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. Consensus is to keep this article (non-admin closure) Kpg jhp jm 02:19, 25 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Repudiation (marriage)

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

This article may have been intended as a disambiguation page, but it would not qualify as one. It discusses two meanings of marital repudiation: one about Babylonian dowry law, and the other about the Islamic talaq process. Only the talaq meaning is notable. Since we already have in-depth content on talaq elsewhere and an article on Babylonian law, we should delete this article as a dictionary definition. — Mr. Guye (talk) (contribs) 00:32, 18 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Islam-related deletion discussions. — Mr. Guye (talk) (contribs) 00:33, 18 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Middle East-related deletion discussions. — Mr. Guye (talk) (contribs) 00:39, 18 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Law-related deletion discussions. — Mr. Guye (talk) (contribs) 00:40, 18 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Disambiguations-related deletion discussions. — Mr. Guye (talk) (contribs) 00:40, 18 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Social science-related deletion discussions. — Mr. Guye (talk) (contribs) 00:41, 18 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sexuality and gender-related deletion discussions. — Mr. Guye (talk) (contribs) 00:41, 18 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. — Mr. Guye (talk) (contribs) 00:42, 18 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Babylonian divorce law is not my favorite subject, but if scholars have written about it at length, then it is notable. The references to it in a book originally published in 1913, for ezample, and in this Google Scholar search, suggest that the topic is notable even if no Wkipedia editor has bothered to write an article specifically about the topic. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 04:22, 18 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Roman law distinguished repudiation and divorce – see here. Andrew D. (talk) 09:15, 18 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Eastmain and Andrew D.. Mosaicberry (talk) 11:57, 18 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep appears well sourced, extends beyond the repudiation in Islamic law. FOARP (talk) 11:59, 18 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I've also added India. Clarityfiend (talk) 19:01, 18 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. As a concept spanning many cultures this should not be a disambig but a proper article. I've added a cite to the article about Roman law, more reliable (and modern) than the one already given here. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 06:47, 21 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and expand is the consensus. Bearian (talk) 20:07, 23 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. -- Scott Burley (talk) 02:49, 25 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Metawar

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

Fails WP:NALBUM. Not yet released, and the sources only say about the release, but not about independent reviews. GeoffreyT2000 (talk) 00:21, 18 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Article should remain up as it meets the Wikipedia policy criteria outlined for Unreleased material, WP:NALBUM: "...an album should not have an independent article until its title, track listing and release date have all been publicly confirmed by the artist or their record label." Century Media Records is a major label and is a division of Sony and they have confirmed the title, track listing, release date, and art. In addition, the first single has been released alongside a major music video.

The album also meets Wikipedia's General Notability Guideline WP:GNG as multiple independent sources have covered the album, including major media outlets such as: Revolver Magazine; Consequence of Sound; Metal Injection; Blabbermouth; and Loudwire, all of which have been cited on the band page and the Metawar page.

Wikipedia's guidelines and policy do not require an album to be released or reviewed and the Metawar article meets all of the relevant criteria listed on the Notability (music) page. Wweedmark (talk) 00:37, 18 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 04:48, 18 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 04:48, 18 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Sourcing below meets the WP:GNG. They are reliable sources per WP:RSMUSIC.

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) 01:35, 25 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Marily Mojica

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

GNG and WP:ARTIST fail. Notability here is very minor. Article contains many sources, the vast majority of which are either event announcements, not independent or trivial. The Washington Post is just name check. An external search returned zero sources from the web, news or books. ThatMontrealIP (talk) 00:03, 18 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Artists-related deletion discussions. ~ Amory (u • t • c) 03:31, 18 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. ~ Amory (u • t • c) 03:31, 18 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletion discussions. ~ Amory (u • t • c) 03:31, 18 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Puerto Rico-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 04:56, 18 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 04:56, 18 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Washington, D.C.-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 04:56, 18 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Coverage appears to be exclusively in local press. El Tiempo Latino might be a solid source as a publication of the Washington Post, but coverage is limited to mention of her name in a list of twenty-six. The leaflet for a discussion at the Silver Spring Town Center has extended coverage of her, but it's in the first person, so not independent. I don't see, and can't find, any evidence of the one-person exhibitions in museums or institutions, or of works held in notable collections, that would indicate that she should have a page here. Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 11:07, 18 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as I also could not find significant coverage. MidwestSalamander (talk) 14:17, 18 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete due to lack of sustained coverage in independent reliable sources. -Lopifalko (talk) 15:13, 18 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.