Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2019 April 30

Recent AfDs: Today Yesterday

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

< 29 April	1 May >

Guide to deletion

Purge server cache

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

The result was keep. RL0919 (talk) 02:25, 8 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Shallow Side

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

Fails WP:BAND, I can find no independent coverage in independent sources other than schedules and track listings and what not. funplussmart (talk) 22:38, 23 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 23:20, 23 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Alabama-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 23:20, 23 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 23:20, 23 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: well, they have an AllMusic biography [1] and have charted on one of the specialist Billboard charts [2], for starters... Richard3120 (talk) 23:57, 23 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Keep: per Richard3120, passes WP:MUSICBIO#2 Ceethekreator (talk) 15:49, 24 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MarginalCost (talk) 23:10, 30 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. A song charted, so despite the difficulties in finding in-depth coverage, the band is notable. If Billboard magazine reports that a bank charted, the band is notable. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 00:26, 1 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep the article needs a lot of work but as stated above they have coverage in reliable sources and have charted as verified by a reliable source so the article should be kept and improved IMHO Atlantic306 (talk) 22:13, 2 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. There are no sources cited on the page currently. I guess it fails WP:GNG as it is.Benleg4000 (talk) 14:43, 4 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Keep because it does pass the SNG (twice). I see no argument made that this is an exception to the idea that the SNG acts as a shortcut for GNG and so we can presume it notable here. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 19:27, 5 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep It's stubby, but Richard3120's sources demonstrate that the subject meets WP:NMUSIC. I've added the sources and an assertion about the charting.GirthSummit _(blether) 11:03, 6 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Billboard reported that the band charted, therefore it is notable. - Ret.Prof (talk) 14:13, 7 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep At the risk of repeating what has already been said, the fact that they charted affirms their notability. Capt. Milokan (talk) 20:35, 7 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus to delete at this time. The article subject falls within the letter of WP:NACTOR, which suggests that perhaps the criteria need to be tightened. bd2412 T 16:46, 8 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Michael Treanor

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

Former child star who only has 2 roles both in the same franchise (not including one extra uncredited role). Either delete or what I'm leaning on-a redirect to 3 Ninjas. Wgolf (talk) 22:53, 23 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment-I forgot to add-yes this was AFD before-BUT it was in 2008 when Wikipedia was MUCH more lenient at the time (it wasn't more strict till around 2012-2014 on these type of rules if I was to guess when) Wgolf (talk) 22:56, 23 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 23:19, 23 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 23:19, 23 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Martial arts-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 23:19, 23 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 23:19, 23 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete There's no demonstration of recent sourcing beyond "where are they now"-type articles, so no significant coverage of the person specifically. (The current article is also an unverified BLP and should probably be gutted if this AfD doesn't result in a delete.) Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs^(talk) 17:01, 30 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per WP:NACTOR #1 with significant roles in multiple films (two is technically multiple, and these films were widely reviewed in major publications, e.g. [3][4][5], therefore they are notable films). There are indeed sources - [6][7][8][9]. Hzh (talk) 22:25, 30 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MarginalCost (talk) 23:10, 30 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment-yes the films are notable but that is not why this is up-as I said his only credited roles was in one franchise. Wgolf (talk) 00:37, 1 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Why would being in only one franchise a reason for deletion? Do give the guideline that says that. As far as WP::NACTOR goes he qualifies. Hzh (talk) 00:55, 1 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to 3 Ninjas Appeared in 2 films lifetime, one of which grossed only $400,000 and was shown in 52 theaters (hardly a major film). I don't think that's enough to meet WP:NACTOR and I don't see that the GNG is met. A redirect seems best to me. Not notable as a martial artist.Sandals1 (talk) 15:16, 1 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Gross for films has got nothing to do with notability, and notability for the films can be determined by reviews in major publication, of which there are many (I have given a few, for example in New York Times and Los Angeles Times. See criteria for film notability WP:NFO. There are still coverage of the films and the actors in them within the last few years, which would demonstrate WP:GNG. Also please read WP:NACTOR #1, if you want to use an argument based on guideline, show how it fails that, and use only guideline that can support what you say. Hzh (talk) 15:33, 1 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Reviews are from LA Times, local paper in this case, and Variety (trade publication). Hard to call this a notable film. Even if you do, meeting an SNG creates a presumption of notability but not a guarantee--especially when there's a lack of significant independent coverage to meet the GNG. Being mentioned in reviews does not give such coverage nor does a brief mention in what the "3 ninjas" are up to now--"legend has it that he works in the financial services industry in Washington, D.C." When in doubt I default to the GNG. Show me he meets that and I'll happily change my vote to keep.Sandals1 (talk) 21:28, 1 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Given that the source wrote a few paragraphs on the person, that you called it "brief mention" suggests that your assessment is somewhat faulty, ditto describing LA Times as a local paper and Variety a trade publication. Kevin Thomas, a nationally known critic, reviewed both films for LA Times [10][11]. Read WP:NFO before you try to judge what is a notable film. There are many many more reviews for the films by the way, from Washington Post to Time Out London, a bit of research before an !vote would show that. Hzh (talk) 22:19, 1 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I take it that means you can't show me sources that this meets the GNG.Sandals1 (talk) 22:59, 1 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I have already given the links, and explained why he meets WP:NACTOR #1, and that the sources meet WP:GNG. I have already have to tell you the applicable guidelines, it is not for me to explain further, whether you accept it or not is entirely up to you. It is your responsibility to understand the notability criteria before you comment, and not to make comments like what the film grossed or that LA Times is a local paper etc. Hzh (talk) 23:20, 1 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Cited sources are not enough. Requires more. Benleg4000 (talk) 14:44, 4 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as passes WP:NACTOR with prominent roles in notable productions so needs to be included in the encyclopedia Atlantic306 (talk) 16:08, 4 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect Technically, I believe you can make a case for his appearing in two notable films (based on WP criteria (multiple reviews), not man in the street views), but the second one is a sequel of the first and would not be notable otherwise. I would say he's only notable for appearing in the 3 Ninjas and all other notability stems from that (WP:BLP1E). I believe Variety is a trade publication--it's labeled as such in its WP article and its own description--"The most trusted provider of news and information to the entertainment industry." Getting by on a technicality for a modern actor in the U.S. and failing to meet the GNG means I don't believe he meets the WP criteria for a standalone article (GNG is the standard), but I have no problems with a redirect to the one thing he's known for. Papaursa (talk) 23:41, 6 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep While his career in movies was limited, he did star in two popular films and that should pass the WP:NACTOR requirements. Capt. Milokan (talk) 20:37, 7 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think a $400,000 gross box office qualifies as a popular film (not even in top 200 for 1995), especially when the sequel he didn't appear in grossed $12 million. WP:NACTOR isn't a guarantee, merely a presumption of notability. I still don't see where WP:GNG is met. Papaursa (talk) 22:06, 7 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Can't you cite a guideline that says film gross or popularity are the defining criteria per for notability? Read WP:NFILM, and you'd see that what matters is that the films have been taken notice of by the critics, and you'd find that they had been reviewed by major film reviewers. Note also the films are mentioned long after the it was released, therefore satisfying another criterion of WP:NFO. Also if you want to argue that Variety is a trade magazine (it's actually read as a general entertainment magazine by the public, I've bought and read it before outside of US, and I'm not in the industry) there is no restriction against a trade magazine as a RS. It would be helpful to use actual guidelines for discussion rather than some criteria you came up with yourself. Hzh (talk) 10:04, 8 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I was responding to the editor who described the films as "popular"--that usually is based on attendance/box office. The sequel Treanor was in was reviewed only because the original film was a success (notability is not inherited). GNG is still WP's main notability criteria and it's not met, at least in my opinion. You, of course, are entitled to your opinion. Papaursa (talk) 14:39, 8 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

This sequel is actually the third in the series, so how is this reviewed only because the original one was a success? All films are judged independently notability-wise, if a film gets reviewed by well-known critics [12][13] (and there also recent reviews [14][15]), then it is considered notable, whether it is the second or third in the series is of no relevance, and nothing has been inherited (unless you misunderstand what that means). Hzh (talk) 15:10, 8 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. RL0919 (talk) 02:52, 8 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Nowell Khosla

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

Fails WP:CRIN, which states a player must have "...appeared as a player for an Associate team in a Twenty20 International match after 1 July 2018 in either a World T20 (men or women), Global Qualifier (men or women) or Regional Final (men only)". The matches he played in do not fall under these criteria. The article also claims he was the first captain of the Malta cricket team (itself not a reason for inclusion), but this is also incorrect - the first recorded captain is Michael Caruana in 1997. StickyWicket (talk) 21:21, 30 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Malta-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 04:01, 1 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Cricket-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 04:01, 1 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 04:01, 1 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Weak delete - there has been some recent coverage in news reports which is more than just a passing mention of his name or role: Hindustan Times, Times of Malta etc... Overall I don't think this is quite in depth enough to quite get to meet WP:GNG so I'm minded that we should probably delete the article for now. I might be persuaded that it should be kept if more sources emerged and I were pinged. Blue Square Thing (talk) 06:09, 3 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Weak delete, basically exactly what Blue Square Thing said. I have some concerns about how WP:CRIN works now though, that a player appearing in a domestic T20 in Ireland/Zimbabwe/Bangladesh for example would be considered intrinsically notable, but an international player has to prove their notability through WP:GNG. There is certainly more coverage for Khosla than there is for a lot of those sort of players. (Not a discussion for here, I appreciate, but this brought home to me how flawed CRIN now is. Harrias ^talk 08:54, 3 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. I think the current inclusion criteria still (and I think rightly so) takes into account that these are the exact some teams who competed at levels deemed non-notable by CRIN prior to the ICC decision to give all members IT20 status. So it follows roughly the same rule as ICC Trophy inclusion. The quality and coverage of the cricket hasn't improved with the awarding of IT20. Whereas the domestic teams in those countries are under the umbrella of a full member and the players are paid professionals. StickyWicket (talk) 13:16, 4 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
- Oh come on, international cricket in Zimbabwe is barely professional, let alone domestic cricket. Harrias ^talk 13:23, 4 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Still considerably higher level than China v Swaziland! StickyWicket (talk) 14:19, 4 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Poor sources. This fails WP:GNG Benleg4000 (talk) 14:46, 4 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Renaming is at editor discretion. RL0919 (talk) 02:56, 8 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Regiment University of the Free State

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

Lacks all notability. The name "Regiment University of the Free State" (title) or "Regiment University of the Orange Free State" (lead sentence) are never used. The actual name, "Regiment Universiteit Oranje-Vrystaat", is used in very few sources, associated with the military, or without real content[16]. Even in these sources, the info is restricted to one sentence ([17] page 27). Lacks all notability. Fram (talk) 11:39, 23 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

1. So change it to Regiment Universiteit Oranje-Vrystaat — Preceding unsigned comment added by 196.38.209.210 (talk) 11:44, 23 April 2019 (UTC) 2. The fact that little is known about a unit doesn't make it irrelevant, it is a open invitation by wikipedians to help investigate and add to the body of knowledge of said unit.[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of South Africa-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 12:36, 23 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 12:36, 23 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep and rename to Regiment Universiteit Oranje-Vrystaat. The current title is completely wrong (we don't translate for the sake of it), but major units meet WP:MILUNIT. -- Necrothesp (talk) 15:46, 24 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
- And how is this all-but-forgotten short-lived reserve unit a "major unit"? And more importantly, since when does an essay trump our notability guidelines? Fram (talk) 04:27, 25 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  - "Major unit" is a military designation referring to units of battalion or regiment size ("minor units" being company-sized or smaller and "formations" being brigade-sized or above). It has nothing to do with how well-known it is. -- Necrothesp (talk) 15:07, 25 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Its not an essay. Its an article about a military unit that actually existed Gbawden (talk) 06:51, 25 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
- WP:MILUNIT is an essay, the page up for AFD obviously isn't. But "it existed" is not a sufficient reason to have or keep an article. Fram (talk) 08:28, 25 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  - It's an essay, but is still an accepted notability standard for military articles and has been accepted as such at AfD for many years. -- Necrothesp (talk) 15:07, 25 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as an article that needs improvement, but that is about an actual military unit.E.M.Gregory (talk) 00:52, 30 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
- Why does everybody consider "actual military unit" as something that gives automatic notability, exempt from normal sourcing expectations? Fram (talk) 04:30, 30 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  - Because those of us who know something about military history appreciate that "major units" (see above) should be seen as notable. The article isn't unsourced. Therefore it is presumed notable. -- Necrothesp (talk) 08:09, 30 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    - That's an utter non-answer. A local consensus / argument fom authority ("those of us who know something about military history") doesn't trump the global consensus of WP:N. "The article isn't unsourced. Therefore it is presumed notable." is making a mockery of what "notable" means on enwiki. Fram (talk) 08:38, 30 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Sourcing [18], while thn, does exist.E.M.Gregory (talk) 19:17, 30 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
You basically seem to be arguing that WP:MILUNIT, which has always been held to be relevant at AfD, should be ignored in this case (or maybe all cases) because you don't agree with it. Notability is determined by common sense, precedent and discussion, not strict rules, and yes, that does include the contribution of editors who know what they're talking about. That's why we have AfDs and not just deletion without discussion based on a strict set of criteria. The article is not unsourced. It is about a regiment-sized unit. It should be held to be notable. -- Necrothesp (talk) 09:25, 1 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MBisanz ^talk 20:19, 30 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. A regiment can be very big or quite small. I think that a military unit made up of students and alumni from a single university would be relatively small, even during wartime. But that's just speculation on my part; if the South African military called it a regiment rather than a ROTC unit, then it’s a regiment. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 20:30, 30 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
- A regiment in Commonwealth terms (i.e. a battalion equivalent) averages about 500-700 people. -- Necrothesp (talk) 09:28, 1 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep with no objection to renaming as suggested by Necrothesp. Notable unit that meets WP:MILUNIT. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 20:28, 2 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and concur with possible renaming. Several independent sources exist, and the unit is notable per WP:MILUNIT

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. RL0919 (talk) 03:02, 8 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Indianapolis Capitols

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

This article was deleted by PROD a while back and then re-created without any rationale. The sources are lacking and the subject does not pass WP:GNG or any other notability guideline or policy I can find. Be sure not to confuse "CFL" as in Continental Football League with Canadian Football League (I have no assertion that either league is not notable, just that this team is not notable). Paul McDonald (talk) 18:32, 9 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note I found what I believe to be three incidental mentions here: Daily Advance.com; Windsor Star; and ESPN Radio. What do you think? Include these and save the article, or delete it? I'm still on delete but in fairness I could see others taking a different position.--Paul McDonald (talk) 18:38, 9 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of American football-related deletion discussions. Paul McDonald (talk) 18:40, 9 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. Icewhiz (talk) 19:37, 9 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Indiana-related deletion discussions. Icewhiz (talk) 19:37, 9 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. This team existed from 1968–69, so any potential sources that might be available here will very likely be offline. Do we know that a thorough WP:BEFORE search has been conducted here (including searching offline sources)? Ejgreen77 (talk) 03:58, 10 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
- I did not complete any offline searches, but I did review before reposting. The article was previously deleted and I completed as best a review as I could. I'd welcome being wrong if suitable sources can be found.--Paul McDonald (talk) 12:25, 10 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep nothing wrong with the sources currently in the article and a newspapers.com search shows [19] [20] and front page game coverage at the Indianapolis Star [21]. Clear WP:GNG pass, it's just that the articles are all historical now. SportingFlyer T·C 01:59, 14 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 04:11, 16 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep WP:NOTCLEANUP Lubbad85 (☎) 19:53, 16 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
- I agree that AFD is not for cleanup, but "cleanup" is not the deletion rationale. The article was previously deleted and then restored without providing a restoration reason. That's not cleanup. I also find the article doesn't pass WP:GNG, and no amount of editing can overcome a lack of notability. If you think that's "cleanup" at least provide some explanation.--Paul McDonald (talk) 22:35, 16 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Paul McDonald WP:ATD subject is WP:GNG - See Jacona's remarks and rationale below. Also no reason to delete WP:NOTPAPER Lubbad85 (☎) 21:13, 30 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

No, several reasons were given to delete. I understand you disagree and that's fine (and consensus may say that the reasons to keep outweigh the reasons to delete), but please don't say that no reason was given. That's not true.--Paul McDonald (talk) 21:39, 30 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Paul McDonald I meant no reason to delete a defunct football team because this is not a paper encyclopedia. Lubbad85 (☎) 22:35, 30 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, okay. Wikipedia is not about WP:EVERYTHING, there are notability standards for inclusion.--Paul McDonald (talk) 00:53, 1 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Paul McDonald Understood, but WP:CONSENSUS is this subject is GNG Lubbad85 (☎) 18:55, 1 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

That has yet to be determined. Consensus is not the same thing as popular vote.--Paul McDonald (talk) 19:05, 1 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 08:20, 23 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I don't see the notability of this team, and why it deserves a wikipedia article, all it has done in its two year lifespan is win a trophy in some (pardon my informal choice of wording) mediocre, not very notable, short lived American Football League, and then collapsed in on itself due to its lack of notability. The very reason why this article is being deleted is the exact same reason why the team died, because it became irrelevant. Sorry if that came off as harsh, but if you want an article of a team like that, you'll need valid and reliable sources. Cheesy McGee (talk) 12:28, 28 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Plenty of coverage to satisfy gng. I grabbed two quick clips at newspaperarchive.com that show, non-local WP:SIGCOV, one about them trying to sign O.J. Simpson, and another that discusses their winning the league. [22], [23]. There are a plethora of sources, literally thousands, if you are willing to look at sources that are before the internet age. Once you go to either newspapers.com or newspaperarchive.com, it should be instantly clear that this article meets gng.Jacona (talk) 15:16, 29 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MBisanz ^talk 20:17, 30 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per T, Jacona and Lubbad85 . — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mosaicberry (talk • contribs)
Keep The fact that the article was deleted as a PROD is a reflection on the incompetence of the administrator responsible for that action and not the subject, which is clearly notable enough to warrant coverage as late as 2018 [24] and citations in several books on football history [25] as well as the 1960s-era coverage found in the sources cited by Jacona. Really, we shouldn't be having this discussion about this article. Capt. Milokan (talk) 02:11, 4 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as appears to have sufficient coverage in reliable sources. Rubbish computer (Talk: Contribs) 10:47, 4 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Well, it seems like only the delete camp has gone into a detailed source analysis as to why the sources are inadequate - the keep camp isn't really making a case as to why any of the sources would meet WP:SIGCOV. If as stated it's correct that it's not even clear whether this saint is one person or many, that would be another argument against the sources being adequate. I am not seeing a notability guideline for saints, so GNG has to apply, and by the discussion this topic seems to fail GNG Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 07:59, 8 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Totapuri

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

Short article without much in the way of sourcing, and the few sources here now don't demonstrate much in the way of notability. Also, per the talkpage this seems to be fusing together the biographies of 3 entirely separate people. At the very least this is a candidate for TNT, it's pretty much irretrievable in its existing form, but even with what sources are here there's no significant case for this guy being especially notable. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 17:21, 22 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Hinduism-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 19:07, 22 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 19:08, 22 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Philosophy-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 19:09, 22 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - well, this is a short article but a properly cited one, with four independent reliable sources, which alone is normally enough for an immediate 'Keep'. Totapuri appears to be a venerated Hindu saint, and additional facts about his life are available. I'd also remind editors that Notability depends on the existence of sources in the world, not on how long or short an article is, and not on how many of the available sources may have been collected into an article. If we find his 300-year claimed lifetime difficult, then let us recall that Methuselah's reputed lifetime of 969 years in a very different tradition has been no obstruction to GA status; religious myths (if that is what we have here) are suitable topics for Wikipedia articles. At the very least, the material here is useful and reliable, and would make a good section ('Guru') in Ramakrishna, should consensus be to merge; but it seems to me that keeping is the clear option to recommend here. Chiswick Chap (talk) 09:50, 23 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
As a general note, being a Hindu saint is nowhere near the same claim of notability as in religions such as the Abrahamic traditions; despite the seeming similarity the two are quite different from each other. Also, as noted on the talkpage, it's not even clear all the few sources here are even talking about the same person. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 12:41, 23 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - multiple g-hits, and already sufficiently sourced to pass the GNG. schetm (talk) 17:47, 26 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
2 of the 4 sources (which isn't that much to start with) are passing mentions, and the external links are not at all RS. And I'm not sure about the ghits, though there may also be a language barrier here. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 21:44, 26 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete The sources in the article are mainly brief mentions, which fails WP:GNG, and experienced editors believe they belong to different people at that. This article is a permastub of junk status about an amalgamation of un-notable figures, and it was also created by a discredited sockpuppet editor. It's arguably a WP:HOAX, and needs to be deleted. Newshunter12 (talk) 23:23, 27 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete- I agree with the other editors that we can't actually confirm if all the sources are talking about the same person. We shouldn't have biographies of people whose identities are dubious. Reyk _YO! 08:14, 28 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - the article seems to have sufficient citations and notability, albeit requiring some improvements. --RaviC (talk) 01:24, 29 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - This article should be expanded. --Jinabi (talk) 8:36, April 29 2019 (UTC) — Jinabi (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

Jinabi has made few other contributions besides the contested article. -The Gnome (talk) 13:43, 30 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete this text created by a confirmed sockpuppet (see here), about a non notable subject. The sources are very weak: The Gospel of Sri Ramakrishna does not even mention the subject person, while in the article "The Question of the Importance of Samadhi in Modern and Classical Advaita Vedanta" the subject is name-dropped once, in passing, in a section about Ramakrishna. Same with the book Writers Philosophers and Religious Leaders. If after all the online and book searches this is the best we can come up with, I'm afraid the subject does not meet the verifiable notability requirements. -The Gnome (talk) 13:43, 30 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I think the article seems to have reliable citations and notability, but needs well improvements. -MA Javadi (talk) 15:26, 30 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MBisanz ^talk 20:08, 30 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per MA Javadi, RaviC, schetm and Chiswick Chap. Mosaicberry (talk • contribs) 21:37, 30 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I'm open to thinking I missed something, but could any of the keep voters explain why the current sources prove notability? None of the comments so far seem to rebut the concerns The Gnome raised above, they're basically ITEXISTS and argument by assertion. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 00:29, 1 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Malcolmxl5 (talk) 01:33, 8 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

List of longest-ruling non-royal national leaders since 1900

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

Starting with the dubiousness with the page title, I find the list to be WP:OR. Article says Castro ruled for "52 years, 101 days", which is not supported by the irrelevant source and enough sources state that Castro ruled only for 32 years.[26][27] The entry for Chiang Kai-shek is also WP:OR since it combines his rule of China and Taiwan and presents him as 2nd longest-ruling leader. Then there is a name like Muammar Gaddafi who was not even a head of state for his country but only colonel of his military. Éamon de Valera is claimed here to have ruled for "38 years" which cannot be supported by any sources. Kim Il-sung ranks at no.3 yet he is widely considered as the longest-serving ruler by reliable sources.[28][29]

Some names are better described as de facto rulers, which clearly fails to serve the purpose of the list that mainly tries to provide the list of longest-serving head of states. Given the lack of established criteria, it appears that anyone can be added whoever has been a politician for more than 20 years.

Sources similarly show the difference between descriptions for these leaders and the duration of their rule. Lists are generally for maintaining the non-disputed information or the information that reflects the main articles, but these lists are generally used by those editors in general who have failed to get their POV on the main article.

In simple words, this list is a WP:LISTCRUFT and WP:OR. desmay (talk) 18:33, 30 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 30. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 18:57, 30 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom and WP:LISTCRUFT and WP:OR as the concept of the list is dubious. ML^talk 08:14, 1 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as I agree with User:My Lord, the article of this list is uncertain due to WP:OR. Sheldybett (talk) 01:38, 2 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Delete - This is a fairly bizarre list article for Wikipedia, but if better sources were included, I think it would make a better article. Foxnpichu (talk) 20:39, 2 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per all. John M Wolfson (talk) 00:53, 3 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per previous. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:241:301:8ccf:dd39:56d6:6bf7:bd21 (talk) 16:22, 6 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. PROCEDURAL KEEP - AfD withdrawn by nominator in order to enable further consideration of a prior version of the article. Nom/Fano, please revert to the desired version of the article (non-admin closure) Nosebagbear (talk) 15:46, 2 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Nedim Jahić

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

No references and I haven't been able to verify any of it and most of the roles he supposedly played are played by other people. Naraht (talk) 18:21, 30 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 18:31, 30 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 18:31, 30 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bosnia and Herzegovina-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 18:32, 30 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of News media-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 18:32, 30 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 18:32, 30 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 18:32, 30 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 18:33, 30 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know the exact procedure here, but you might check if the overwritten person should be keept. See https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Nedim_Jahi%C4%87&oldid=890280586 Fano (talk) 02:52, 1 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Fano Great Catch! I formally withdraw my AFD and once that is done, will restore the article to the version that you have found. I'm not *completely* sure that the article meets Notability concerns, but at *minimum* that should be a separate AFD (simply based on which groups should be notified). Naraht (talk) 14:53, 1 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Malcolmxl5 (talk) 01:37, 8 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Raymann Rayy

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

Vanity page sourced by own website/YouTube and unreliable sources. Even though I've pushed it back to draft multiple times, the creator has insisted on pushing it into mainspace. I don't see where he is meeting WP:MUSICBIO at all or WP:ENT. The one Times of India article doesn't even mention his name. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 18:18, 30 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 18:19, 30 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 18:19, 30 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 18:20, 30 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: fails WP:GNG, WP:MUSICBIO and WP:CREATIVE. Could this be speedily deleted under WP:G11? Richard3120 (talk) 18:34, 30 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 18:35, 30 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 18:35, 30 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Most of the sources in the article are merely links to works made by the subject. All the rest which are possible reliable sources only mention the name in passing. Unless independent, reliable sources can be shown that discuss this subject extensively, there's nothing to use to write an article with. --Jayron 32 19:18, 30 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Not to mention WP:COI concerns arising to the fact that the article's pic was uploaded by a person with a similar name. FoxyGrampa75 (talk) 21:16, 30 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Nothing notable, and uses the word "famous" twice. David notMD (talk) 23:08, 30 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Lacks multiple, reliable sources, which appears to be about a non notable subject. THEFlint Shrubwood (talk) 00:14, 1 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Malcolmxl5 (talk) 01:39, 8 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

LatentView Analytics

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

Non notable company. Work of a paid editor. The only ref from an independent reliable source is the Financial Express, which happens to be a press release that seems to have been copied as is by an angry intern with 'Contact Us: Start the discussion' and the like, appearing in between the text - [30]. None of the other refs are about the company / or are not from independent reliable sources Jupitus Smart 17:07, 30 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. Jupitus Smart 17:08, 30 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. Jupitus Smart 17:08, 30 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Jupitus Smart 17:08, 30 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: as per nom. Csgir (talk) 07:49, 4 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, fails WP:GNG. Tinton5 (talk) 19:44, 6 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Closing this a few hours early. Consensus is clear and there is no realistic chance of it changing. Ad Orientem (talk) 16:29, 7 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Caroline Bittencourt

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

I am proposing deletion of this article because: Looking past the bad mistranslation that went on here (which I highly assume is a Google Translate problem), only says she did 2 jobs including Rede TV. That’s not a notable career. Before any of you get all uptight about it, yes Cavalli and Valentino are high fashion brands, but the sources given are dead links to unreliable sources and a reference to her former employer Oxygen Models, a primary source. If the only verification of it comes from a news report of death (Globo) how is there notability in that? I understand it’s tragic what happened to her, but there is only WP:MILL from Fox News out there at best. Fox News. I don’t think it even scratches BLP1E because there is so little out there. Trillfendi (talk) 16:42, 30 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 17:12, 30 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fashion-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 17:12, 30 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Brazil-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 17:12, 30 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 17:12, 30 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 17:13, 30 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Italy-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 17:13, 30 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 17:14, 30 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Per WP:GNG. Noted modelling career. Good references. Article needs some work, but are decent. BabbaQ (talk) 19:10, 30 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Noted modeling career for 2 jobs? That makes a career? Since when is the threshold that low. Trillfendi (talk) 21:54, 30 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

And the references (permanent dead links of http://www.revistaarqdesign.com.br/persona/caroline-bittencourt-2011-08-09 and http://www.thebrazilianpost.info/mulher/2392-caroline-bittencourt-uma-loira-com-formas-esculturais-.html), excluding Globo, are the exact opposite of good. Trillfendi (talk) 21:56, 30 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per BabbaQ. Mosaicberry (talk • contribs) 21:38, 30 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I recommend that readers judge the truthfulness of the nomination by looking at this Google search: [31]. Scroll down, click "next", and so forth. Bakazaka (talk) 22:29, 30 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

And there's a lie in routine coverage? Trillfendi (talk) 22:34, 30 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Out of all the routine coverage, Fox News is the only one that is even close to, dare I say it, a reliable source. That’s all I said. The Daily Caller is literally a right wing conspiracy theory website. Heavy.com wouldn’t be reliable if it begged. NY Post is a tabloid. Are we supposed to go with HotNewHipHop? They all say the same thing: model accidentally dies of drowning. Trillfendi (talk) 22:38, 30 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

An interesting case study in Google Personalized Search. Bakazaka (talk) 22:46, 30 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, notable person as well as disappearance. Davidgoodheart (talk) 06:02, 1 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
This search excludes news reports of her death. Phil Bridger (talk) 08:02, 1 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per WP:GNG. Nominator is confused between references (what is in the article) and sources (what has been written on the topic). For notability, the sources that are out there is what matters. If the article needs to be referenced better, use the refimprove template, not the AfD! gidonb (talk) 11:40, 1 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I’m not “confused”, I simply see no notability especially not in accidental death. But if you want to proliferate the article with a bunch of death reports that all say the same 2 things, no one is stopping you. Trillfendi (talk) 11:48, 1 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

So death by accident precludes notability? Then I'll AfD John Denver, James Dean, Grace Kelley, and Linda Lovelace! gidonb (talk) 12:15, 1 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Her notability wasn’t even there to begin with. You’re gonna compare that to a Grammy Award winner, cultural icon, Academy Award winner-turned-princess (?!), and one of the most famous porn stars ever? Insanity. Trillfendi (talk) 00:36, 2 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Like the others I mentioned, her notability is just fine. She passes the General Notability Guideline. Maybe also WP:ENT. Not sure about that. One needs to pass only one of the two. I also have a question for you: Until when are you are going to submit these baseless and chanceless AfDs, then argue with every participant? Your edits are way better than your nominations. gidonb (talk) 00:42, 2 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Just to illustrate: this is an example of a good AfD. Nominator had a strong case. Had done WP:BEFORE, wasn't confused, used the relevant standards, no desperate "hand waving". Did not need to argue with anyone. gidonb (talk) 00:47, 2 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per WP:ANYBIO as discussed by other users above. I added two more sources, one about her death and the other about her wedding. FYI- WP:MILL is an essay, not a guideline. Thsmi002 (talk) 01:52, 2 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

People throw essays around as if they’re policy anyway (they love OSE), I still think run of the mill coverage is useless that’s just why I said it. Trillfendi (talk) 02:00, 2 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. This AfD is already open since April 30 and all this while no case has been made for deletion. Per WP:NEXIST and the available sources, now also as references, it is clear that Caroline Bittencourt at the very least passes the WP:GNG. The nomination is clearly based in a WP:BEFORE failure. As a no-brainer, or as Thsmi002 puts it, WP:ANYBIO, this AfD gained absolutely no traction. The last reactions are from May 2. By now, isn't it time to close and move on?! BTW while this nomination and others failed, nominator did share that she would never withdraw a nomination. So no need to wait for that either... gidonb (talk) 04:20, 7 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Ultimately, on Wikipedia notability comes usually from the existence of third-party sources satisfying certain criteria (WP:SIGCOV) that discuss the subject, and based on the discussion here that is not the case for this article Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 07:53, 8 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Pimpleshwar Mahadev (Saldi)

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

No reliable sources. It seems that this Hindu temple is not notable. The article is possibly created by a devotee and includes a lot of irrelevant information. The article fails notability. Nizil (talk) 18:47, 22 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Hinduism-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 19:00, 22 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 19:00, 22 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Κeep. It needs tidying and sourcing. Significance comes from having a stream as the focus of the temple rather than the usual Shiva Lingam, and the unique Bili Patra Puja. The 50 acre campus points to a substantial complex of buildings, with many visiting pilgrims. Sources I can find in English are mostly to travel sites but there will be others in Gujurati. Mccapra (talk) 05:44, 29 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Notable. Agree with Mccapra. - Ret.Prof (talk)
Comment: The text, created by a couple of quite dedicated contributors, reads like pure original research. The Keep suggestions are difficult to understand, coming on as prersonal preferences more than anything. And all the cited sources are unadulterated from mentions of the temple. -The Gnome (talk)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Notability comes from in-depth coverage in reliable sources, not from size or "having a stream as the focus". Relisting in the hope that the discussion becomes more policy-based.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Randykitty (talk) 16:17, 30 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete—with the caveat that there may be some foreign language sources I cannot adequately interpret, there's absolutely nothing that demonstrates notability in English, and with my best attempt at searching for sources you get stuff like this, which all come from Indian Express Group papers but do not seem to stand up as rigorous coverage. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs^(talk) 16:43, 30 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I didn’t suggest that having a stream afforded notability. I suggested that this gave it particular significance. Mccapra (talk) 18:49, 30 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed. Still believe we should Keep. - Ret.Prof (talk) 15:47, 2 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - not enough references from independent reliable sources - doesn't meet WP:GNG - if the stream feature is unique, perhaps it deserves a mention in the Hindu temple article, but not notable enough for a stand-alone article - Epinoia (talk) 20:21, 6 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Lack of independent reliable sources to show notability. Having an unusual feature may be a reason that it should be notable, but that doesn't mean that it is. --RL0919 (talk) 03:08, 8 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. The keep camp has gone into more detail as to why WP:NBAND is met than the delete camp has in rebutting the keep claims Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 07:51, 8 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Treasure 13

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

We have a K-pop group here who have only released a promotional single. Doesn't meet NBAND; as for the GNG, the sourcing is from K-pop portals and various other celeb websites. Drmies (talk) 16:29, 22 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. CASSIOPEIA^(talk) 16:32, 22 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. CASSIOPEIA^(talk) 16:32, 22 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of South Korea-related deletion discussions. CASSIOPEIA^(talk) 16:32, 22 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. Icewhiz (talk) 16:37, 22 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: As far as I’m aware the group does fit the guidelines of WP:BAND as it states: “ … may be notable if they meet at least one of the following criteria”. The criteria they meet are:

1) Has been the subject of multiple, non-trivial, published works appearing in sources that are reliable, not self-published, and are independent of the musician or ensemble itself

A few of many sources where Treasure 13 have been the subject of multiple published works [32][33][34][35]

12) Has been a featured subject of a substantial broadcast segment across a national radio or TV network.

They've appeared on the show YG Treasure Box where on national TV their group was officially announced (on JTBC2). News of their group as “YG’s Next Boy Group – Treasure 13” had a segment on JTBC Newsroom and on MBC FM4U (their song has also been played there).

I would have further stated:

6) Is an ensemble that contains two or more independently notable musicians, or is a musician who has been a reasonably prominent member of two or more independently notable ensembles.

But at this stage there is only one member who is independently notable (Bang Ye-dam), but I mentioned it anyways to keep note of that there is an independently notable member in the group. Continuing on, under WP:GNG it states: “If a topic has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject, it is presumed to be suitable for a stand-alone article or list” - which they have (refer to citations above).

This now brings me to the second point that was mentioned that the citations on the page are “from K-pop portals and various other celeb websites” which is false as the references cite from South Korean News Websites such as: Osen, Star News, Donga, Naver and X Sports which are all reliable sources under WP:KO/RS.

Their single is officially listed under the KOMCA (can find it here [36] - type 미쳐가네 in 저작물명 (work name) then click search for it to show up). Their album’s release has already been confirmed by the company, furthermore their reality show which has been filmed is set to air on JTBC2.

Main point is from my standpoint they fit under two of the criteria listed in WP:BAND where it states they need to meet at least one (even if one criteria is argued as void, it still leaves with one which still remains true to "at least one") plus the sources are reliable as they’re from news sites not “kpop portals” nor “celeb websites” hence no problem with WP:GNG. They have a single and upcoming releases are confirmed by the company.

I would've understood if they weren't significantly covered, or if they had absolutely zero materials released but this isn't the case.

Extra Information: I’m aware social media accounts do not prove notability but it’s just for background knowledge that they’re already established and have had quite a lot of exposure in South Korea for them to have all their accounts verified:

Also as Naver People Search is a reliable source as per WP:KO/RS where only official artists are listed, you can view Treasure 13’s page here [37] Suugaapio (talk) 06:18, 25 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep for the following reasons above. If sources are the issue then going in to replace them are no biggie. I honestly would hate to see all the hard work that editor went to being taken away. Plus as stated above they do meet at least 2 of the guidelines to be considered notable.

Keep for further development as there will continue to be more guidelines they will fall under for notability. I’d also like to extend an invitation for other editors to take time to progress the article if possible rather than offering it up for deletion.

This is not an attack on the nominated party but rather a future suggestion. When editing anything to do with K-Pop, you can run into nasty, rude editors that tend to shut you down rather than help me improve. Please help set the standard. Ohmyfifthharmony (talk) 10:34, 25 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Randykitty (talk) 16:09, 30 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Soft delete - WP:TOOSOON - if the group becomes notable in the future can refund, but right now does not meet WP:BAND, no notable recordings - Epinoia (talk) 04:09, 6 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. RL0919 (talk) 03:33, 8 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Bayilvan Ranganathan

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

Fails WP:ANYBIO and WP:NACTOR. Multiple fringe roles in movies and even then some of the films are B-grade stuff. For an interesting example, over Vetri_Kodi_Kattu, he appears as a bus ticket inspector and that's quite great, given that I was unable to determine any credit assigned to the subject in a majority of the films. ∯WBG^converse 16:09, 30 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 16:44, 30 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 16:44, 30 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 16:44, 30 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Fails WP:NACTOR and WP:GNG, as there is a lack of reliable sources regarding the subject. Jmertel23 (talk) 17:09, 30 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Don't Delete it Mr WBG, U doesnt knew about Bayilvan Ranganathan, he acted as a villain, supporting actor and as a well known comedian along with Vadivelu. Won Mr. Chennai, then was called as Bayilvan by Dr. Chief minister MGR. A stunt master too--Wiki tamil 100 (talk) 08:25, 1 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Very silly nomination because even tamil wikipedia refers him as one of the tamil comedians.^[1]
Delete - no reliable independent references - IMDB is not a reliable source - does not meet WP:ANYBIO or WP:NACTOR - Epinoia (talk) 03:57, 6 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

- Comment - the repeated pleas to keep the article suggest that there is an element of promotion at work WP:NOTPROMOTION, WP:SPIP - Epinoia (talk) 04:38, 7 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Then wikipedia isn't a reliable source ah. Correct! Tamil wikipedia speaks him as one of the best tamil comedian.--Wiki tamil 100 (talk) 04:41, 6 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - see WP:OTHERLANGS - not a compelling argument - Epinoia (talk) 14:18, 6 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

First he is an actor of the 80s and early 90s, now he isn't acting in any movies with major roles. But till u can find him as one of the best comedians in Tamil cinema among Tamil people. Medias only cover the uptodate info, forgets the other.--Wiki tamil 100 (talk) 04:17, 7 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Malcolmxl5 (talk) 01:41, 8 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Swiss Founders Fund

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

Created by user blocked as a sock, extremely thin references, just a couple of TechCrunch stories that mention them in passing and a local newspaper. Fails WP:NCORP. BubbaJoe123456 (talk) 14:17, 30 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 14:24, 30 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Switzerland-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 14:25, 30 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

delete promotional, and some sock puppets were involved. Graywalls (talk) 14:50, 30 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Rubbish computer (Talk: Contribs) 15:25, 30 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: A listing-type article whose creator (a now-blocked sock) removed a Prod notice on the basis of having added several listing references, but these were and remain insufficient for WP:CORPDEPTH. Mention of involvement in start-up funding is routine coverage and I am seeing nothing to indicate encyclopaedic notability has been attained. AllyD (talk) 15:58, 30 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, per all of the above. --Randykitty (talk) 16:00, 30 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete References fail to establish notability, topic fails NCORP and GNG. HighKing⁺⁺ 16:48, 7 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Seems like there is some uncontested coverage here Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 07:43, 8 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Kyteler's Inn

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

Business which does not meet the relevant notability criteria.

In terms of WP:ORG, there is no indication that this food and beverage business has been the "subject of significant coverage in multiple reliable secondary sources that are independent of the subject". Yes, there are the types of online reviews and self-published marketing materials that we might expect for a pub or other business of this type. But these are of the type that simply confirm that it exists rather than it is especially notable. The only "non-marketing/non-review" style source that I can find (of which the subject is the primary topic), is this 100-page summary - which appears to be a self-published work (doesn't have ISBN/etc), and which seems to have been written to coincide with it's 1980s opening/sale.

In terms of WP:GNG, the main claim to notability seems to be that the pub has been in operation on the site since the 14th century. And, while parts of the building (as much of the city of Kilkenny in which it sits) may be that old, the sources seem to suggest that the current building was "reconstructed" on the site in the mid-20th century, and so the connection with the original business is more marketing spiel than historically recorded fact.

The promotional overtones are also concerning. Guliolopez (talk) 13:08, 30 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Ireland-related deletion discussions. Guliolopez (talk) 13:14, 30 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. Guliolopez (talk) 13:14, 30 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, tentatively. "Established in 1324" is a really major claim to notability. The building in the article's photo looks really old, too. This kind of place is usually going to turn out to be accepted as notable. Is it a listed building, in fact, or has that not been determined? I think it perhaps best to tag the article for more sources, and revisit in a year's time. --Doncram (talk) 23:30, 2 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Response Hiya. On those two points:

RE: "Established in 1324"? No. There was no inn on this site in 1324. And certainly not one associated with the current business. Per the talk page discussion, and the author's own removal of the claim subsequently, the "1324" date is almost certainly a folkloric throw-back or a marketing invention. While there may have been an inn on the site some time from the mid/late 15th century, the date "1324" has no historical basis. Otherwise that a building is old does not make the business that occupies it notable. (Kilkenny is a medieval city. Dozens/hundreds of the buildings in the city date from the 13th, 14th and 15th centuries. That doesn't afford notability to the businesses that occupy those buildings and assert connections (for marketing reasons) with its previous occupants).
RE: "Listed"?. Yes. Together with at least 3 other addresses on Kieran Street, the building occupied by this business is afforded "protected structure" status under Irish law. As are hundreds of buildings on adjoining streets (including almost the entirety of High Street, John Street, Parliament Street, Patrick Street, and Rose Inn Street). Many of the protected structures are individual private houses. Other structures on the list include a half-dozen stand-alone cast-iron post-boxes, a set of steps, a drinking trough, and the building currently occupied by the 'Pound City' discount store. In short, large swathes of the streetscape of Kilkenny is afforded protection. And while protected status may contribute to notability, it doesn't automatically confer it. And is not 'inherited' (such that the business occupying the protected structure becomes notable). Cheers. Guliolopez (talk) 09:52, 3 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - just another pub in Ireland, of which there are many, this one is not notable at all. Spleodrach (talk) 20:18, 3 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

No searching done, no evidence about this one at all. Give this vote its appropriate weight. --Doncram (talk) 23:13, 6 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete My thinking aligns with Guliolopez's nomination and response to the keep vote above. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 19:40, 5 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Not informed at all, either. Give this vote its appropriate weight. --Doncram (talk) 23:13, 6 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: The brief description for the historic site "Kytelers Inn" on St. Kieran Street is:

Attached seven-bay single-storey over part-raised basement rubble stone house with dormer attic, c.1275, probably originally detached with single-bay single-storey return to east. Subsequently in use as inn, post-1449.

Sounds awfully darn significant to me. That is from KILKENNY CITY AND ENVIRONS RPS 2014, a PDF document.

I don't get the sarcasm above about post-boxes and so on. Is that merely rambling, entirely made up by the deletion nominator?!?? The other two listings on St. Kieran Street are:

Bollards Public House, 30-31 Kieran Street, "Terraced three-bay two-storey over basement house with dormer attic, built 1925, with pubfront to ground floor.
43 St. Kieran Street, "Detached three-bay two-storey house with dormer attic, c.1825. Renovated, c.1925, with some openings to ground floor remodelled to accommodate commercial use."

The Kyteler's Inn seems more signicant than those. Is the sarcasm supposed to be in general, that there may exist silly historic site listings??? Whatever, Kyteler's Inn seems rather significant. --Doncram (talk) 23:13, 6 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: You have got to be kidding me, to entirely dismiss the book entirely on the topic of Kytelers Inn's history?!? Titled "The Restoration of Kyteler's Inn and Its History", by Alice Kyteler, perhaps a descendant of Lady Alice Kyteler, born c.1280, associated with property? Maybe it doesn't have an ISBN, it is probably too erudite and specialized and legitimate, instead of being commercial! I think this is a pretty major indication that the local Kilkenny library archives will have it and a lot more. I haven't looked at other links in the deletion nomination, or otherwise searched. --Doncram (talk) 23:38, 6 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Actually the article does not seem very promotional, is not bad at all. The article appears to me to be written by someone NOT affiliated with the business, just a fan drawing from available website and some personal knowledge is my guess, just like Jimbo Wales writing about some restaurant in South Africa he visited. Certainly many legitimate historic sites do have current establishments such as B&B's or whatever occupying them, and it is appropriate to give at least an external link to the business. And a history page from the business's website can provide some information, as this business's history page does. Right, we don't include telephone numbers. Yes, it is fine to say that the business has gotten some awards, like here. I don't doubt the accuracy of the business's reporting of the awards it has received; they would be lambasted if they made false claims on their webpage. So that indicates there exists other coverage, from the award-giving reviewers, and so on, too. I see no problem with any of this. --Doncram (talk) 23:38, 6 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Reply Hiya. Thanks again for your notes and comments. I wouldn't typically feel the need to reply, but as you phrased several of them in the form of questions, I am happy to reply:

RE: the sarcasm [..] merely rambling, entirely made up by the deletion nominator?!??. Was there a hint of (attempted) humour on my part? Yup. Definitely. You got me :) Was I making anything up? Nope. Emphatically not. I was pointing out that, in the protected structures listing (which I had linked above prior to your own helpful re-linking and copy/pasting) there are many different types of structures listed. Some substantial. Some not. Is the building (in which the subject of this article plies its trade) more significant than some of the others in the listing? Yes. It certainly is. Certainly more significant than the post-boxes and early 20th century houses we've linked to. But, does its age/status confer notability on the business which currently occupies the building? Nope. I would contend that it does not. Which is why I opened this AfD discussion. To see if others agreed.
RE: perhaps a descendant of Lady Alice Kyteler, born c.1280, associated with property?. There is no indication that Alice Kyteler had any association with the business that is the subject of the article. Rather, it is interesting to me that the article on Alice Kyteler, first written in 2005, doesn't make (and has never made) any mention of her being an inn-keeper. Or having an association with the current business. Or the building it occupies. That's kinda funny I'd say? (Although perhaps in a different way).
RE: Comments on other editors contributions. Given that I was perhaps attempting a little humour (and can therefore perhaps accept some rebuke for my "rambling" "sarcasm"), I do not think it is entirely necessary for the notes from other contributors to be dismissed or diminished. As has been done. Typically, in my experience, AfD closers are more than capable of applying "appropriate weight" to contributions. Which, FYI, are not "votes".
RE: I haven't looked at other links in the deletion nomination, or otherwise searched. Maybe have a quick look when you get a chance. As you might note that those news articles suggest that the modern business is just that. A modern business. It will also make your suggestion (that the notes from other contributors should be given less/due weight because they haven't apparently done enough reading/searching) feel a little less like the pot calling the kettle names.
RE: awfully darn significant to me. Finally, and I'm sure this is just a perspective thing, but where I'm from (not too far from the building in question), everything is old :) Which is why the age of the building occupied by a business wouldn't seem enough to me. And why I looked for other indications of notability. Like books and the like. Of which the subject might be the main topic. And couldn't find any. Other than the pamphlet created by the people who bought/built the business. Otherwise, I guess, it's just a personal perspective. Which is probably based on what you/I are used to. Lots of stuff here is old. Including the post boxes :) And the pubs :) Not all of 'em warranting an article :) [Oh dear, I'm engaging in rambling sarcasm again, so I better stop now :) ] All the best.... Guliolopez (talk) 00:27, 7 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I am seeing a regular drumbeat of travel articles discussing the food, music and ambiance at this in papers from Australia, Canada and the U.S. in addition to Britain and Ireland (all the places the Irish emigrants went.) The Irish Times accepts the 1324 date and the witch, and covers it as a thriving pub and restaurant for sale in 1975. Added a descriptive bit from the NYTimes. If someone is still unpersuaded, ping me to come back and l comb more archives. But I do think the page is now well enough sourced to keep. E.M.Gregory (talk) 22:43, 7 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Query. "The Irish Times accepts the 1324 date and the witch". That's interesting. Can I ask where/when it does this? I ask as, per the above and the Alice Kyteler article, while sources which discuss the pub link it to Kyteler, none of the sources which discuss Kyteler link her to the pub. Or any pub. For example, in the many 'contemporary' historical, academic, and biographical texts which discuss Kyteler, none seem to refer to her as an inn-keeper. The only more modern source (of which Kytler is a major subject), that I can find and which makes a connection, simply asserts that "Today there is even a public house in the town which bears the name The Kyteler Inn and tourist companies sometimes include Kilkenny on their routes as a 'witch town'." Which would seem to demonstrate more of an apocryphal association rather than a historical one. My other issue is that the protected structure listing specifically notes that the place didn't become an inn until at least the 15th century. At least 100 years after Kyteler's death. Making the whole "Kyteler connection" at best questionable. So, if we are asserting notability on the basis of a connection to a historical figure, then I'm not seeing it (not least for INHERITORG reasons). Or, if we are asserting notability on the basis of age, then I'm not seeing that as reason enough. Or, if we are asserting notability on the basis of coverage in travel reviews and the like, then that just doesn't seem weighty enough. That being said, if you can help with sources that confirm, establish or "accept" a connection with Kyteler, then perhaps the best thing to do is to verify those sources, and consider a merge/redirect. Guliolopez (talk) 00:04, 8 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I do wish you would have read the page before commenting. For example, revised the text so that it is now sourced to show the the witch is said to have lived in a house on this site, that there is a surviving medieval foundation/lower floor, and that it is recorded as an inn at a specific date in the 1600s. As I said, I think it clearly passes [WP:SIGCOV]]. Although, of course, it can be improved. And, yeah, somebody is running a restaurant pub there and, yeah, the page was started by a new account editing on tourist attractions. Could it be PROMO - yes. Do sources support notability - yes.E.M.Gregory (talk) 00:55, 8 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Please look at the page, where, as I said, I have added sources. The Irish Times story is behind a paywall, and is an image, so I cannot copypaste the text. (I was being facetious, I suspect the Times was too when they described her as a witch.) Typing out some snippets: "Kytelers Inn ) pictured below) once the home of the medieval witch Dane Alice Kyteller..." and "The interesting stone building originating form 1324". There is enough here to establish notability. But I suspect that better searching would discover reliable sources like official historical surveys, that date the lower part of the building reliably. A simple gBooks search Kyteler's Inn brings up a number of sources (not including guidebooks) on this building. E.M.Gregory (talk) 00:49, 8 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. I've since also addressed some of the "better source" tagging requests myself. Among other copyedits. While I'm still not entirely convinced on the date or notability (to the extent that I would retract/self-close this AfD), I am more than happy to accept the resulting consensus. Which is, of course, the purpose of these things. To establish a consensus. And to act (or otherwise) on it. And is, of course, why I opened this thread in the first place. To follow-on from the PROD tag which another editor had added. And to see what others thought. Thanks again for your own thoughts/etc. Have a good one! Guliolopez (talk) 01:14, 8 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I have the advantage of easy access to really good news archives. A very quick way to tell that something is worth searching further. Cheers.E.M.Gregory (talk) 01:29, 8 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note to closing editor. Upgrading page now please don't close it until I finish. thanks.E.M.Gregory (talk) 01:11, 8 May 2019 (UTC) Finished, thanks.E.M.Gregory (talk) 01:29, 8 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, as we would do with any other important building on a national heritage list. If it's reputed to be the oldest pub building in the town, that certainly makes it more important than the occasional bench or trough. The nomination is flawed from the start, because even when it was nominated the article was about the building, not a business. Sionk (talk) 07:17, 8 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect to Jamie's Elsewhere. RL0919 (talk) 03:31, 8 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

They Said a Storm Was Coming

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

No WP:RS to establish WP:GNG or WP:NALBUM. No results in a google news, books, scholar, or One Search. Significant original research. Theredproject (talk) 13:05, 30 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. CASSIOPEIA^(talk) 13:20, 30 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. CASSIOPEIA^(talk) 13:20, 30 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect (to Jamie's Elsewhere) - there are a couple of marginal sources around the place, but none that had a sufficiently reliable set-up for me to go "here, see these". In any case, certainly not enough to get the multiple needed for WP:NALBUM. Nosebagbear (talk) 16:01, 2 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Jamie's Elsewhere - not notable enough for a stand alone article - Epinoia (talk) 03:24, 6 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect to Jamie's Elsewhere. RL0919 (talk) 03:31, 8 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Guidebook for Sinners Turned Saints

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

No WP:RS to establish WP:GNG or WP:NALBUM. No results in a google news, books, scholar, or One Search. Significant original research. Theredproject (talk) 13:04, 30 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. CASSIOPEIA^(talk) 13:19, 30 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. CASSIOPEIA^(talk) 13:19, 30 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Delete I was able to find an un-rated AllMusic review (which is rare, as they are usually only rated or rated and reviewed) and an Under the Gun review, although the latter is listed as unreliable at Wikipedia:WikiProject Albums/Sources. Walter Görlitz (talk) 01:01, 4 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Jamie's Elsewhere - not notable enough for a stand alone article - although the Jamie's Elsewhere article could be nominated for deletion due to lack of independent reliable sources and lack of general notability - Epinoia (talk) 03:22, 6 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Malcolmxl5 (talk) 01:45, 8 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Dark Ascension (film)

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

Non notable film. Film lacks coverage in independent reliable sources. Just a few reproductions of routine casting announcements, reproduction of PR is not independent. If you believe download sites this film was released. If that happened no one noticed. No sign of any reviews anywhere. If you believe imdb this film no longer exists. Can't check their official site because it no longer exists, it said earlier this year "coming soon" [38] duffbeerforme (talk) 11:44, 30 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 11:47, 30 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 11:47, 30 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Note that this article as previously at Welcome to Purgatory which was also nominated for deletion by the nom of this AfD. I have to believe that the film was never made and/or released, if it's true that BRIAN BLESSED was in the cast, but his IMDB entry shows nothing for either title. I'll drop a note at WT:FILM for furher input. Thanks. Lugnuts ^{Fire Walk with Me} 12:15, 30 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Not to place too much stock in IMDB, but the fact that is doesn't mention a release, coupled with the fact that there is no verification of the actors that were "in" it, makes me think this is a non-notable, unreleased movie, and doesn't merit a page of its own. Balon Greyjoy (talk) 13:26, 30 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete If this much trouble is being had establishing that the film even exists, then it definitely fails WP:MOVIE.--Phospheros (talk) 15:04, 30 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete What Phospheros said. BubbaJoe123456 (talk) 16:57, 30 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Phospheros. Betty Logan (talk) 22:08, 30 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Fails WP:GNG Germcrow (talk) 06:07, 2 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Considering the kind of cast it has one would have assumed it would have gotten reviews and coverage, but like other have said it seems like it was never actually made.★Trekker (talk) 23:46, 6 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. — JJMC89 (T·C) 04:19, 8 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Xanthochroid

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

Blimey, you'd think this band was as big as Metallica or something. Massive Vanity piece for Non notable band. "Awards" are not major. Claim charting is not GOODCHARTS. Lacks coverage in independent reliable sources. Article is bombarded with multiple sources but none are independent reliable sources with any depth of coverage of the band. Lot's of blogsites, youtube and facebook and similar non notable sources. duffbeerforme (talk) 11:43, 30 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

It's a weak point of wiki, that if one person hasn't heard of a wiki article subject. It can quickly be put on the deletion block. There are many of us, we can take care of the stated problems with the article. naninnewetuah (talk) 21:39, 01 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 11:44, 30 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 11:45, 30 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 11:45, 30 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Keep. This seems to pass WP:GNG but requires a clear re-write to suit WP:NPOV Germcrow (talk) 06:06, 2 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
- WP:VAGUEWAVE. Seems? How does it pass. duffbeerforme (talk) 01:14, 4 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Enough sources to scale through WP:GNG Laosilika (talk) 17:33, 3 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
- WP:VAGUEWAVE. Which sources are good? duffbeerforme (talk) 01:14, 4 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Germcrow, Laosilika... duffbeerforme is right – there might well be a lot of references in the article, but not one of the 62 citations passes WP:RS. The links to the band's own Facebook and YouTube sites are not independent and fail WP:RSSELF, as do the various metal blogs. The only site which would be considered reliable is Sputnikmusic, but the review on this site is from a user, not a member of staff, so it's not usable either. We'd be happy to rewrite it, but without any acceptable sources, it's going to be impossible to do so. Richard3120 (talk) 01:33, 4 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Delete - does not meet WP:BAND - no notable recordings - most of the references are to YouTube and Facebook, not to reliable independent sources - blatantly promotional article - some sections lack any citations - Epinoia (talk) 03:13, 6 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete this non-notable band.PE65000 (talk) 11:26, 6 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - The article is an attempt to promote the band and make them appear notable by overwhelming the reader with lots of citations, but as others have noted above the sources are uniformly unreliable. They have been noticed by a few vanity blogs and they actually have one reliable album review: ([39]). But all other sources found are either bare directory entries or self-published social media. Existence does not prove notability. ---DOOMSDAYER520 (Talk|Contribs) 16:24, 7 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - The article is an attempt to promote the band and make them appear notable by overwhelming the reader with lots of citations, but as others have noted above the sources are uniformly unreliable. They have been noticed by a few vanity blogs and they actually have one reliable album review: ([40]). But all other sources found are either bare directory entries or self-published social media. Existence does not prove notability. ---DOOMSDAYER520 (Talk|Contribs) 16:24, 7 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Independent band and focus on metal music so citations will be outlets that are less known to general public. It passes WP:GNG and has been re-written to suit WP:NPOV ParinazF (talk)

Yes, it's true that they won't get coverage in mainstream music outlets, but the metal blogs you have left in the article still don't pass the GNG requirement of "significant coverage in reliable sources", because none of them pass WP:RS. Richard3120 (talk) 23:05, 7 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Based on the discussion, it seems like the only sources available are not independent, not reliable or too trivial to establish that GNG is met. The interview for example based on E.M.Gregory's comments appears to be mainly about a different topic, with little contradictions offered here Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 07:32, 8 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Lynn Richardson (financial expert)

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

Over the top Promotion for Non notable individual. Lacks coverage in independent reliable sources. Article is bombarded with multiple sources, mostly primary, but none are independent reliable sources with any depth of coverage of this person. PR is not independent. Quotes from her are not coverage about her. Probable UPE. duffbeerforme (talk) 11:35, 30 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Finance-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 11:49, 30 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 11:49, 30 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Illinois-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 11:49, 30 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 11:50, 30 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 11:50, 30 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep it needs editing like no ones business but the subject does appear to be notable. Simply being biased and over the top promotional isn’t grounds for deletion if WP:GNG is met and there appear to be at least a half dozen reliable ones among the 64 sources. Horse Eye Jack (talk) 18:06, 30 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. Thsmi002 (talk) 12:11, 1 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete scores of sources, but they all seem to be PRIMARY, or press releases, or announcements that she is speaking on some panel or show. If she's notable, there should be profiles of her. Delete as PROMO. However, If someone can find 3 solid pieces of WP:SIGCOV, please ping me and I will reconsider.E.M.Gregory (talk) 19:49, 1 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete For now, at least. The attempts at notability are grasping for straws going off the sources given. Trillfendi (talk) 23:12, 1 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep. Look encyclopedic but requires proper rewrite to suit neutral point of view. Germcrow (talk) 06:09, 2 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

User:Germcrow, User talk:Horse Eye Jack, would you be willing top point out 3 or 4 WP:RS that qualify as WP:SIGCOV. Thank you.E.M.Gregory (talk) 20:22, 2 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I’m not going to click on each of the links because I don’t have the time but www.njtvonline.org/news/uncategorized/newark-pastor-host-inaugural-business-expo-women-color-mc-lyte-keynote/ (2018), Jet Magazine (November 2007), and NPR (2013) are reliable sources that cover more than a decade. www.foxla.com/good-day-la/240289694-video, alruckershow.com/guest/dr-lynn-richardson/, and www.blackenterprise.com/sistahs-in-business-expo/ all seem to indicate that she is well known and regarded as an expert within her field. Horse Eye Jack (talk) 21:02, 2 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I removed entire sections of speeches and seminars sourced only to the org. sponsoring the event. Have not yet culled the section about her media appearences (2nd paragraph of "Career"), although it contains stuff like an appearance on some show sourced to a page called Welcome to Lynn Richardson’s W.E.A.L.T.H. University - this is classic PROMO. The sources you cite are interviews she gave offering financial advice. Did you find and interviews about her? Your link to [41] is PRIMARY, a notice on the website of an organization about Richardson appearing at an event that org sponsored. I note that subhead "Personal life" has no sources at all. The books have almost no sources - can anyone find book reviews or WP:RS about her books? The NPR interview is about a scholarship she co-founded with a notable rap artist, "Here to tell us more about the Hip Hop Sisters is its president Lynn Richardson. Lynn, welcome." Richardson then talks briefly about the scholarship. JET ran a snippet bio in an issue in which she had written a piece on financial advice. These potted author bios (usually written by the writer herself) are PRIMARY. This is NOT WP:SIGCOV. E.M.Gregory (talk) 12:49, 3 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

the interview on a local fox affiliate is a usable source [42] It's about a book she co-authored with MC Lyte. As is the brief mention on a N.J. station [43] There is also a bit of coverage about the scholarship she established with MC Lyte. What we lack is the kind of WP:SIGCOV that passs WP:GNG.E.M.Gregory (talk) 13:53, 3 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

For me radio interviews are significant coverage especially when the interview is with a state broadcaster like NPR, I see no reason to favor other forms of media over radio. Being interviewed about an organization one is the president of isn’t exactly a trivial mention either, I’m confused as to why you think the quote "Here to tell us more about the Hip Hop Sisters is its president Lynn Richardson. Lynn, welcome.” proves the coverage is trivial rather than significant. I also feel like WP:NOTCLEANUP is relevant now that we’ve established that some of the sources are WP:RS. Horse Eye Jack (talk) 19:00, 3 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Because a.) the interview is not about her,it's just her and a student promoting a new scholarship she co-founded with a donor. and b.) the scholarship appears to have been active for exactly one-year, at least, I am not seeing coverage beyond that year. and c.) it was generous of MC Lyte to donate a scholarship, and Richardson got press by promoting it, but it is not enough to carry her past WP:GNG.E.M.Gregory (talk) 20:51, 3 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note that page creator User talk:Amandadoyle543 is currently under discussion at Wikipedia:Conflict of interest/Noticeboard regarding a possible conflict of interest. After this AfD began, Amandadoyle543 removed large swaths of material form the page [44].E.M.Gregory (talk) 14:06, 3 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep Some good sources out there. But needs moreLaosilika (talk) 17:35, 3 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Which sources are you seeing that meet WP:SIGCOV? Note that being interviewed by a journalist ≠ notability. She fails WP:BASIC; we can't even find sources to source her place of residence, education, or occupational history - or sources to show that her consulting business as passing WP:ORG, or that her books pass WP:NBOOK. She is a has given interviews - so does my accountant, who has a column in a couple of local papers. Fails WP:BASIC].E.M.Gregory (talk) 20:51, 3 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Still hunting for notability, I took a look at the "Awards" section. The Chicago Defender, a venerable black newspaper, selects 2 - 3 dozen excellent black women to honour every year with its Women of Excellence award. (Chicago is a big city with lots of excellent black women.) One year they honoured Richardson [45]. Being one of a sizeable group of women honoured by a local newspaper in a particular year ≠ notability. Please ping me if somebody finds WP:SIGCOV.E.M.Gregory (talk) 21:08, 3 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - does not meet WP:ANYBIO - no significant contribution - article seems promotional - not notable - Epinoia (talk) 03:00, 6 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Malcolmxl5 (talk) 01:47, 8 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Catriona Toop

AfDs for this article:

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

Promotion for Non notable bit part actress. Does not have multiple significant roles in notable productions. Lacks coverage in independent reliable sources. Article is bombarded with multiple sources but none are independent reliable sources with any depth of coverage of the actress. (Bird on a Wire is a Rotisserie, not a reliable source [46]). Probable UPE. duffbeerforme (talk) 11:32, 30 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 11:54, 30 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 11:54, 30 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 11:54, 30 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 11:54, 30 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of New Zealand-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 11:55, 30 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Scotland-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 11:55, 30 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete There's no substance to any of the sources and there is very little online about the subject. Fails WP:GNG quite badly. Schwede 66 09:21, 1 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Clearly fails WP:NACTOR by the looks of it. Sheldybett (talk) 08:34, 2 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Has not "had significant roles in multiple television shows". One at a big stretch, but not enough. (Dushan Jugum (talk) 09:03, 2 May 2019 (UTC)).[reply]
Delete Per nom. it appears it lacks enough notability 17:32, 3 May 2019 (UTC)Laosilika (talk)

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. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 03:08, 8 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Popular beat combo

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

Non-notable term, not subject to significant coverage in any of the listed sources. Much of the article is original research. Amisom (talk) 10:46, 30 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 10:58, 30 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 10:58, 30 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

keep We have broadsheet coverage in the Guardian and the Telegraph. We had a live use of it in the BBC (but you keep removing that citation). It's rife in Private Eye, and the fact that such uses aren't specifically cited as yet is a need to add citations (and they're widespread in the Eye), not to delete the whole article. You keep claiming "Much of the article is original research.", but haven't stated what.
I can understand why non-UK editors might be unfamiliar with this term because it is a local joke and very likely unknown outside the UK, but that's no reason either. Andy Dingley (talk) 11:46, 30 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
What "broadsheet coverage"? None of it is about the term. None of it discusses the term directly and in detail. There are examples of the term being used by the media, but that just goes to prove that it exists, not that it's notable. See also WP:NOT#DICT. Amisom (talk) 15:27, 30 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep There is a topic here but it needs work to generalise it, per WP:BROAD. For example, I have a friend who was never seen Star Wars and so doesn't know much about it while, today, I heard an interview with a young woman who didn't know about The (other) Avengers. The general concept might be called being out of touch but notice that this currently directs to a track that I have never heard of. Commonplace concepts like this should be properly covered by the world's greatest encyclopedia. Andrew D. (talk) 17:53, 30 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
They shoudl only be covered if they're notable... Amisom (talk) 18:06, 30 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Call it an idiom, a meme, a trope... it is the job of an encyclopedia to record and explain it. --Mervyn (talk) 07:15, 1 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
No, it isn't. WP:IINFO and WP:N. Really basic stuff here. Amisom (talk) 08:27, 1 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep WP:GNG seems established here Laosilika (talk) 17:42, 3 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@Laosilika: Which sources contain "significant coverage" of the term? As it stands your vote is classsic WP:ITSNOTABLE. Amisom (talk) 12:24, 4 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - not a notable phrase - the Derivation section has an uncited origin in a 1960s courtroom and there is a seemingly unrelated reference to Lady Chatterley's Lover - and the lead contains a link to a disambiguation page - but content aside, this topic is definitely trivial and non-notable - Epinoia (talk) 02:47, 6 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I've known the term for at least 50 years, but didn't know until today that the origin is probably an urban legend. That is useful and encyclopaedic information, well supported by the sources. The comparison with the Lady Chatterley trial is in one of the sources. Links to DAB pages are no reason to delete (if it were, I could nominate 4,806 articles, which is today's count). I cannot see any WP:OR This nomination strikes me as WP:IDONTLIKEIT. Narky Blert (talk) 10:31, 6 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@Narky Blert: Which if the sources listed in the article contain significant coverage of the term? Ie which of them explore the term "directly and in detail"? Ready when you are. Amisom (talk) 10:33, 6 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Seems like consensus is in favour of removing everything Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 19:49, 7 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Tom Barbalet

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

This person does not appear to be notable. The article is sourced entirely to his own podcast and other projects and I can find no evidence that the outside world has really taken notice. The fluffy padding content about his vacations, teenage programming hobby, and name-drops of famous people are a dead giveaway of non-notability.

I am also nominating the following related pages because they are all part of a walled garden of Barbalet's non-notable projects:

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

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

Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL Reyk _YO! 10:36, 30 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 10:59, 30 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 10:59, 30 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Language-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 11:00, 30 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Video games-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 11:00, 30 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Fails WP:GNG and is clearly a puff piece. He "spent time with Wozniak" - dead giveaway. Skirts⁸⁹ 11:13, 30 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I have found and added several articles as references. I will check for more, and also for evidence about whether he meets an WP:SNG. The article needs a lot of editing. RebeccaGreen (talk) 14:53, 30 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete/merge together Does not appear to be notable with substantive sources but should otherwise be combined since the four are certainly not notable separately. Reywas92^Talk 15:50, 30 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete all. Fails GNG, promotional tone that relies heavily on primary sources. – Broccoli & Coffee ^{(Oh hai)} 05:54, 3 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Not much sources cited here Laosilika (talk) 17:44, 3 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete all. Per nom. Promotion of non-notable topics. --mikeu ^talk 14:29, 4 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy keep. (non-admin closure) Lepricavark (talk) 04:23, 3 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Gertrud Schiller

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

I have read this article over, but am not able to determine what, if anything, makes this individual notable by Wikipedia's terms. Doesn't appear to meet WP:GNG nor WP:NBIO. A loose necktie (talk) 09:52, 30 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Germany-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 09:56, 30 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 09:56, 30 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 09:57, 30 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 09:57, 30 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 09:57, 30 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: I simply looked at her being cited in important articles, such as iconography. Why not tell interested readers who she is, a writer of reliable sources? - I will look deeper later. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 11:33, 30 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, my English isn't the best. In the Iconography Article stood Schiller, Gunter in the bibliography and that's wrong. Probably someone read Schiller,G and imagined the Gunter. So I thought it would be a good idea to translate the German article into English so that the English-speaking world would know who Schiller,G is. OnnoS (talk) 13:35, 30 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Keep A really stupid nomination! As the lead says, she is the author of what remains (after almost 50 years) the standard work on an important branch of art history, published in Germany, London and New York. I can't imagine how high her citation index is, but look how many WP articles cite her as a ref! She was also on two "missing articles" lists, and is listed in the very selective Dictionary of Art Historians, virtually a guarantee of notability for an art historian (most of them with WP articles aren't in there). The article is the poor translation of her one on German WP, but it will be improved. Looking at the contributions of A loose necktie he seems to do many unjustified speedies/Afd noms. User:CAPTAIN RAJU, this should be added to the visual arts list, please - I never know how to do this. The article needs proper refs of course; there are plenty of reviews and obituaries, even just in English. Johnbod (talk) 12:20, 30 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
- Let's refrain from judgmental remarks, please. XOR'easter (talk) 16:20, 30 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletion discussions. XOR'easter (talk) 15:58, 30 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Meets WP:PROF in the typical way that a scholar of the humanities does. In addition to the above points, her Ikonographie der christlichen Kunst has been reviewed in profusion: [47][48][49][50][51][52][53], after which I stopped counting. This more than clears the bar for notability per WP:AUTHOR. It's also been cited in excess of a thousand times, once you add up the different editions, printings, translations, etc. XOR'easter (talk) 16:12, 30 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Easily passes WP:PROF. --Tataral (talk) 17:19, 30 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. The page needs to be developed, yes, but there is no question about the fact that the subject of the article is notable. Passes WP:PROF. There are many books, essays as well as Wikipedia articles that cite her work. Netherzone (talk) 18:25, 30 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. https://books.google.de/books?id=76u8CgAAQBAJ&pg=PA120&dq=Schiller,+Gertrud.+Iconography+of+Christian+Art+standard+work&hl=de&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwjpvdSMz_jhAhVRiqQKHVSICQwQ6AEISDAE#v=onepage&q=Schiller%2C%20Gertrud.%20Iconography%20of%20Christian%20Art%20standard%20work&f=false

https://books.google.de/books?id=1v5o2uw0GJAC&pg=PA92&dq=Schiller,+Gertrud.+Iconography+of+Christian+Art+standard+work&hl=de&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwjpvdSMz_jhAhVRiqQKHVSICQwQ6AEIZTAI#v=onepage&q=Schiller%2C%20Gertrud.%20Iconography%20of%20Christian%20Art%20standard%20work&f=false

... and more

https://www.google.com/search?hl=de&tbm=bks&ei=qKrIXJ7lI4_ewALurrnYAg&q=Schiller%2C+Gertrud.+Iconography+of+Christian+Art+standard+work&oq=Schiller%2C+Gertrud.+Iconography+of+Christian+Art+standard+work&gs_l=psy-ab.3...4126.4925.0.5251.5.5.0.0.0.0.80.361.5.5.0....0...1c.1.64.psy-ab..0.0.0....0.deOWVVAxY2w

cited as standard work OnnoS (talk) 20:12, 30 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per evidence cited by others. I am convinced that she meets WP:PROF. In my experience translating from de to enwiki, just looking at de content for notability is really not enough. Though one of the larger wikipedias, de is a much smaller community with far fewer articles. There is a real chance that an article subject (including this one) is actually 'more' notable than de would make it seem. Prometheus720 (talk) 21:07, 30 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per all those above. Mosaicberry (talk • contribs) 21:40, 30 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep -- if she really did produce a "standard work", she is certainly notable. Peterkingiron (talk) 15:34, 1 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Schiller's work has been described as a "standard reference work" in "The practice of the Bible in the Middle Ages : production, reception & performance in Western Christianity" (New York: Columbia University Press 2011) by Susan Boynton, Diane J Reilly. And as a "standard work" in other books and journals easily found online. Netherzone (talk) 17:53, 1 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep and hope for improvement.E.M.Gregory (talk) 19:40, 1 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Mary Mark Ockerbloom (talk) 22:27, 1 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep noted historian, pages take awhile to improve sometimes, and that is okay. It doesn't need to be perfect.--Epiphyllumlover (talk) 04:55, 2 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

Tian Pengfei

The result was speedy keep. Nomination withdrawn. (non-admin closure) Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 08:30, 7 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

No significant achievements, 90% of sources are simple rankings, the rest talk about the subject only in passing. Strainu (talk) 09:44, 30 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Games-related deletion discussions. CASSIOPEIA^(talk) 09:46, 30 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of China-related deletion discussions. CASSIOPEIA^(talk) 09:46, 30 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Keep - Clear failure of WP:BEFORE. 1 2 3 4 5 . . . I could go on but I think the point is made. The TL;DR version is the guy is a professional snooker player with wins against Ronnie O'Sullivan won the 2010 Beijing International Challenge and who was part of a big scandal in 2006 - easily meets WP:SPORTSPERSON let alone WP:BASIC. FOARP (talk) 12:45, 30 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
- That's not a speedy keep criterion. Reyk roaming (talk) 17:34, 30 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  - WP:SNOW then. FOARP (talk) 19:30, 30 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Natg 19 (talk) 16:50, 30 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. Natg 19 (talk) 16:53, 30 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

SNOW keep - One of the most ridiculous deletion nominations I've ever seen. Clearly meets WP:ATHLETE. It's been a very long standing notion that cue sport players that are professional are notable (I may even request this to be added to the Athlete above); and Tiang just reached the world championship finals. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 11:48, 1 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I disagree that the article meets criteria from WP:ATHLETE. There is no specific criteria for snooker and that means it must meet WP:GNG. The sources, both those in the article and those mentioned here, cover mostly a single event in this guy's carrier or are simply not reliable per en.wp policy. From the list given by FOARP, only 1 and 3 could be considered as reliable and speaking mainly about the subject. Strainu (talk) 17:22, 1 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Just to be clear here: you're saying that there are two sources that you think are WP:RS and constitute WP:SIGCOV? And you're still proposing deletion because . . . . FOARP (talk) 15:11, 2 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

You may or may not be a fan of WP:ATHLETE, but someone who has played as a professional on the main tour of snooker (about 100 players at any one time), let alone reached the last 32 in the ongoing world championship, pretty clearly at least matches the standards used for other sports there. This may seem like a minor sport to you, but it's not in China (which has over 18% of the world's population), the UK and a few other countries. Phil Bridger (talk) 18:37, 1 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Indeed, he clearly passes NATHLETE, but a quick WP:BEFORE search would find he's got plenty of sources that talk about him. [54]. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 19:09, 1 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Phil Bridger, could you give an example of a sport with comparable inclusion criteria that you have in mind? The main individual sports there have requirements like participating in the Olympics or being in the final rounds of other major competitions (e.g. having fought for world title in boxing). I believe the most promising result w.r.t. implicit notability are the Asian Games, but the performance there has been at the team level.

Lee Vilenski, the results on Google News have the same problems as the ones currently in the article: very little detail. Sections about the 2011/2012, 2012/2013, 2014/2015 and 2016/2017 seasons are exclusively written based on primary sources (tournament results and rankings) and the Google News result do not offer more to go on. Ignoring the ones that only mention Pengfei in passing (e.g. something like this), only a few remain and taken all together, they don't meet the requirements set forth by WP:GNG and WP:SPORTCRIT.--Strainu (talk) 13:42, 2 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Try WP:NTENNIS criterion 3 or WP:NGOLF criterion 6. In snooker terms competing in last 32 of the world championship (the main, televised, level of the event) is a much more significant achievement than competing at the Asian Games, and snooker is not yet an Olympic sport, although I believe there are proposals in that direction. Phil Bridger (talk) 14:40, 2 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Literally WP:NFOOTY. Professional football players are considered reliable ad hock. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 14:42, 2 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I tried to stick to individual sports in my examples, but yes, I agree with you. WP:NFOOTY gives a notability pass to a few thousand currently playing people in England alone, so the worldwide figure probably approaches six figures, as opposed to the 100 or so people on the main professional snooker tour. Phil Bridger (talk) 15:16, 2 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Football has definitely a different level of coverage that justifies the very broad inclusion criteria - no matter how you put it, snooker is nowhere near as popular, even in China. I do agree with the examples that Phil Bridger gave, and I withdraw my proposal. Thanks for taking the time to discuss this--Strainu (talk) 14:58, 6 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep and 147 trouts for the nominator. The Rambling Man (talk) 21:23, 1 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
keep Clearly meets WP:ATHLETE.--MA Javadi (talk) 19:39, 5 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Keep clearly notable per everyone above. -Zanhe (talk) 08:19, 6 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 03:07, 8 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Gail Werbin

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

Fails WP:BIO. Her film career consists of two editing jobs which got very little attention (as in, one sentence in one book, and otherwise just passing mentions). Het football career seems to have been short-lived and fairly unremarkable as well. Fram (talk) 09:23, 30 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. CASSIOPEIA^(talk) 09:34, 30 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. CASSIOPEIA^(talk) 09:34, 30 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Kansas-related deletion discussions. CASSIOPEIA^(talk) 09:34, 30 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Fails WP:GNG and WP:NFOOTBALL. - Funky Snack (Talk) 09:44, 30 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 09:54, 30 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 09:54, 30 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 09:54, 30 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I can see there is no claim of notablity per WP:NFOOTBALL. Sheldybett (talk) 08:32, 2 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep the 1973 Los Angeles Times feature piece is plainly non-trivial coverage, in my opinion subject passes WP:BIO. WP:NFOOTBALL isn’t relevant because this person played American Football not association football please at least read the page before voting delete, yikes. Horse Eye Jack (talk) 21:36, 2 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Is there another source that shows she meets WP:GNG? One source is not enough and I don't believe she meets any other notability criteria. Papaursa (talk) 23:16, 6 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment She swam before she played football, and there are some sources for that. I'll add them, and the extra info from them (year of birth, father's name, high school, etc). There may be enough to meet WP:ANYBIO. RebeccaGreen (talk) 04:00, 7 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 19:48, 7 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Caroline Woodruff

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

Non-notable presenter, with very little information. No reliable sources. - Funky Snack (Talk) 09:10, 30 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. CASSIOPEIA^(talk) 09:17, 30 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. CASSIOPEIA^(talk) 09:17, 30 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 09:55, 30 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 09:55, 30 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 09:55, 30 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete No evidence of notability found in a search. Just to show how lacking she is in notability, I found more independent coverage for a bartender with the same name than her. Hzh (talk) 12:33, 5 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - does not meet WP:ENTERTAINER - Epinoia (talk) 02:21, 6 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. GNG appears to be met, and it should be noted that notability is not temporary, so the status of his current duties is irrelevant. 78.26 _{(spin me / revolutions)} 15:40, 7 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Andrew Peach

AfDs for this article:

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

Page nominated for deletion previously, but article remains questionable. This page does seem a little bit like a CV for a local radio presenter. Upon research, there's no record of Peach reading news on BBC Radio 2 anymore. I'm not sure about World Service. A lot of links point towards BBC programme pages (most of which are no longer available) which I'm always wary about. My suggestion is a redirect / merge to BBC Radio Berkshire. Previous deletion discussion is here. Although most suggested delete, it was kept. The argument remains. - Funky Snack (Talk) 08:47, 30 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Radio-related deletion discussions. Ceethekreator (talk) 09:02, 30 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. Ceethekreator (talk) 09:02, 30 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Passes WP:GNG, no record on BBC Radio 2 doesn't mean it completely removes the person's notability. Also, from the previous nomination, two were deletes and one of them was just a POV delete (and the editor has been blocked since). --qedk (t 桜 c) 21:15, 30 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I can confirm via a close and reliable source that Peach no longer reads the news for BBC Radio 2. His primary base is BBC Radio Berkshire weekday mornings. I'm no Wikipedia expert but I would support a merge or re-direct to BBC Radio Berkshire. I don't feel the sources listed on the article for Andrew are reliable and most mention BBC Radio Berkshire rather than him personally.

This isn't done on who knows who. As I said when I created the AfD, this page remains questionable. I, personally, can't find any information Peach reading for BBC Radio 2 anymore. This is done on consensus. As for your "support", it could be that the result is merging / re-directing this page with BBC Berkshire. - Funky Snack (Talk) 16:29, 3 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. A shortlisting for the ARIAS, a Frank Gillard Awards gold medal, and quite a number of Radio Academy Awards nominations suggest notability to me - each one of these individually would not mean he's notable, but taken together I believe they do. In addition, WP:GNG is met, just, with the Guardian piece and a couple of other secondary sources. Whether he is still a news reader for Radio 2 is irrelevant, as notability is not temporary. --bonadea contributions talk 12:57, 5 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

UTC)

Delete. Local radio presenter only notable to those probably in the broadcast area of BBC Radio Berkshire. Many local radio presenters have done 25+ years. Do they deserve an article too? I, for one, haven’t heard him on BBC Radio 2. I think this is bigged up by the subject, so I say delete or redirect to BBC Radio Berkshire! 2A00:23C7:3106:6F00:3857:A3EF:842C:DD14 (talk) 19:11, 6 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. To be honest, just because you haven't heard him read the news on Radio 2 doesn't necessarily mean he's not working there anymore. However, the fact there is no reference anywhere mentioning this does bring the article into disarray. I have done more digging and still can't find anything about this. Regarding the comment from bonadea, the nominations are for the show, yes ... but it does't mean the article on Peach should be stand alone. There's nothing stopping a merge/re-direct to BBC Radio Berkshire as this is his primary base. - Funky Snack (Talk) 08:06, 7 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect to Fallujah (band). Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 03:05, 8 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Nomadic (Fallujah EP)

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

This article does not appear to satisfy WP:NALBUM / WP:NMUSIC. AllMusic does have a listing for this EP, however, it has not been reviewed and merely proves the EP's existence (ie not a hoax). I would boldly redirect to the artist (Fallujah), however, the coverage of this topic there would probably result in the redirect ending up at RfD and it does not appear notable enough for a merger with the artist. TheSandDoctor ^Talk 08:28, 30 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. TheSandDoctor ^Talk 08:28, 30 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 08:46, 30 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I can see a few of reviews - e.g. [55][56] and one Metalwani (which is blacklisted as a source), however, I'm doubtful if they qualify as RS. Hzh (talk) 13:01, 5 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Fallujah (band) - not notable enough for stand alone article - Epinoia (talk) 02:12, 6 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect to The Giraffes (Brooklyn band). Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 03:04, 8 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Tales of the Black Whistle

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

Article about a non-notable unreleased soundtrack from a non-notable film (which shares the same name; to be clear: article is strictly about the soundtrack). Per WP:NMUSIC, unreleased albums are rarely notable. This does not satisfy WP:FUTUREALBUM / WP:NMUSIC / WP:GNG. TheSandDoctor ^Talk 08:13, 30 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. TheSandDoctor ^Talk 08:14, 30 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 08:47, 30 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to The Giraffes (Brooklyn band) (which is probably an article that should be up for deletion) - Epinoia (talk) 02:09, 6 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect per Epinoia. -- RoySmith (talk) 01:54, 8 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. 78.26 _{(spin me / revolutions)} 15:34, 7 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Tonight: Live

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

Did not chart and does not appear to satisfy WP:NALBUM. There is a short AllMusic review of the album, but NALBUM criterion #1 ("multiple, non-trivial, published works") is not satisfied by this and no criteria appear to apply in this case. I would have boldly redirected it to the artist (Take 6), however, feel the coverage within the latter of this album is insufficient and would probably land itself at RfD if redirected. TheSandDoctor ^Talk 08:04, 30 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. TheSandDoctor ^Talk 08:05, 30 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 08:48, 30 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - does not meet WP:NALBUM - Epinoia (talk) 03:50, 5 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. 78.26 _{(spin me / revolutions)} 15:34, 7 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Center of Gravity (festival)

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

Semi-advertorialized article, tagged for referencing and writing problems for eight years without significant improvement, about an annual event not properly sourced as notable per our inclusion criteria for events. Right across the board, this is referenced entirely to community hyperlocals rather than major media -- so while they'd be fine for supplementary verification of stray facts if there were at least some evidence of coverage in better sources too, they're not in and of themselves enough to get it over WP:GNG if they are the best sources anybody can actually find. Bearcat (talk) 01:14, 23 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. Kpg jhp jm 02:31, 23 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. Kpg jhp jm 02:31, 23 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. Kpg jhp jm 02:31, 23 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of British Columbia-related deletion discussions. Kpg jhp jm 02:31, 23 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, clearly a notable enough event attracting large numbers, not without controversy (a lot of the recent news coverage has been about a death at the 2018 event). Sure, the article needs clean-up. Sionk (talk) 04:52, 23 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Passes WP:GNG. It's also an annual event capable of generating news. Germcrow (talk) 12:31, 26 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, -- Scott Burley (talk) 08:04, 30 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Conditional Keep The festival looks to be ongoing and legitimate. If they can come up with some varied sourcing I would think this would pass. I agree the article sourcing needs work but I would bet through TV and printed press there is enough sources to meet notability. ScienceAdvisor (talk) 09:47, 30 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - a local festival, but continuously growing over the years with more prominent acts, so notablilty is increasing - Epinoia (talk) 03:47, 5 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Fenix down (talk) 08:32, 7 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

2012 Piala Belia

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

This reasonably fails the WP:N critera as their no is reliable sources for this page to exist. Matt294069 (talk) 06:21, 30 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 06:28, 30 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 06:28, 30 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Malaysia-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 06:56, 30 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Giant Snowman 09:17, 30 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - no evidence of notability. Giant Snowman 09:18, 30 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - does not meet WP:NSPORTS - Epinoia (talk) 01:44, 6 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Rlendog (talk) 13:57, 7 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Dávid Szappanos

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

Subject fails WP:Hockey. Similar situation with the recently nominated Ákos Kiss. MOL Liga/Erste Liga does not count for criteria #2 and he doesn't appear to have played in any world championship in senior level for Hungary let alone in the top pool, which is a requirement to pass #5. Tay87 (talk) 19:04, 22 April 2019 (UTC) Tay87 (talk) 19:04, 22 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 19:54, 22 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Ice hockey-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 19:55, 22 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Hungary-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 19:58, 22 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) 05:11, 30 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

delete Fails WP:NHOCKEY and the GNG. Playing on junior national teams does not show notability.Sandals1 (talk) 16:31, 1 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails WP:NHOCKEY. -DJSasso (talk) 13:42, 3 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per all of the above. Deadman137 (talk) 20:54, 6 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. 78.26 _{(spin me / revolutions)} 15:33, 7 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

List of songs recorded by Sithara Krishnakumar

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

I tagged this as a speedy A10 however, it was reverted and disputed. The first paragraph is a word for word copy/paste from Sithara (singer) and the discography is located Sithara_(singer)#Discography. I see no plausible reason to have two separate articles and I'm not really seeing the point of a redirect. Dusti ^{*Let's talk!*} 04:58, 30 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 07:07, 30 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 07:07, 30 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 07:07, 30 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 07:08, 30 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - agree, covered in discography, no need for separate article - Epinoia (talk) 01:34, 6 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. -- Scott Burley (talk) 02:57, 7 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Mighty (card game)

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

Non-notable card game. I've played this game before, but there aren't any RS on it. Natg 19 (talk) 02:48, 30 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Games-related deletion discussions. Natg 19 (talk) 02:48, 30 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Natg 19 (talk) 02:48, 30 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Lack of reliable sources that support notability. --MrClog (talk) 09:17, 30 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - The article itself is nothing but a "How To" guide, and there are no sources out there that I can find that would help the article ever become anything more than that. Aside from a handful of sites just listing the rules, I've only come across a few peoples' personal sites talking about having played the game, which are not valid reliable sources, and a brief entry on Board Game Geek that does little more than prove its existence. There are not enough in depth, secondary sources to pass the WP:GNG. 15:42, 30 April 2019 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Rorshacma (talk • contribs) 15:42, 30 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 (SNOW) Experienced editors are unanimously saying Keep. There appears to be no support for this proposed deletion. Victuallers (talk) 08:57, 30 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Ana Achúcarro

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

Fails against WP:NPROF, WP:ANYBIO and WP:GNG. The sources are WP:ROUTINE coverage of a WP:Run-of-the-mill academic - and mostly self-published (likely blurbs written by the subject) or primary sources. There are no independent, reliable, secondary sources which provide a rationale for notability. The article is written like a CV or resume. There are only two non-disambiguation incoming article-space links, neither of which is reliably sourced or show relevance. Since the article's creator has removed cleanup tags, I take it to mean they think this article is ready to be fully-evaluated here. -- Netoholic @ 02:40, 30 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 03:59, 30 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 03:59, 30 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Spain-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 04:00, 30 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 04:01, 30 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 04:01, 30 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the Article Rescue Squadron's list of content for rescue consideration. Andrew D. (talk) 08:52, 30 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy keep. Did you know that women academics are twice as likely to be nominated for deletion as you would expect from the proportion of women among Wikipedia biographies? This seems to be a case in point. She has huge citation counts, easily passing WP:PROF#C1, and is a member of Academia Europaea, passing #C3. The source in the article from the NWO (the Dutch scientific funding agency) with her name in the title is in-depth, reliable, and independent, so that nomination claim is false too. This, this, and this also look like usable sources. Bad nomination. —David Eppstein (talk) 05:25, 30 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep – I typed "Ana Achucarro" into Google Scholar and the first result was a paper she wrote with 1,000+ cites, the next one is 330+, the next is 280+, etc. Mendeley reports 3,250+ citations and an h-index of 26 (is that good?). The sources David posts above look like they could be WP:SIGCOV, and then reading that she is a Member of the Academia Europaea [57] (by invitation only and follows a rigorous peer review selection process) seems to clinch it. Leviv ich 06:22, 30 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Citation counts in are relation to the work... the science... NOT the person. They do not show that this person is notable to an encyclopedic level. The 1000 citation count work in particular was completed in 1986 - prior to her PhD completion. The co-author was her mentor Paul Townsend (its often the case that a student is given first-billing on publications in order to jump-start their scholarly careers). Its no indication of this person's notability - its routine. -- Netoholic @ 07:03, 30 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
That's all true, take those 1,000 citations out, and there are still 2,250 left (per Mendeley). How many are needed to meet NPROF 1 (or are any number of citations enough)? (That's not a rhetorical question: I have little experience arguing NPROF 1 at AfDs. But I am drafting a BLP where one of the notability claims is that the subject is one of the most-cited scholars in her field, so I'm curious what people think about that.) Leviv ich 07:06, 30 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The correct GS search string is author:a-achucarro. Your search missed at least "Super p-branes", Phys Lett B 1987, 346 cites. —David Eppstein (talk) 07:12, 30 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

What about the €2.3 million grant she was recently awarded? https://www.d-itp.nl/shared-content/news/news/2014/00/2014-fom-vrije-programmas.html There’s no way you can attribute that to her supervisor > 30 years ago. Jesswade88 (talk) 07:16, 30 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Levivich: What exact number of citations makes someone automatically notable for "significant impact"? IF you're considering what number is correct, you're performing WP:OR. It should be secondary sources that point out their high citation counts or other evidence... not Wikipedian opinion. -- Netoholic @ 07:43, 30 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I don't see grounds for speedy (though it may WP:SNOW) unless nom withdraws. Agree with nominator on the contents of the article and that sourcing of this article, in terms of WP:BLPPRIMARY and RS issues, leaves a lot to be desired (hint - sometimes less is more - using a few high-quality refs is better than a large number of low-quality ones). However, the subject clearly passes WP:NACADEMIC(1) - per google scholar (not you need to search without the diacritic ú as many papers only have u - and you get significant less results than ú) - our subject has a h-index of around 26. Her two top cited papers (on which she is the first named author) have 1,087 and 333 citations respectively - this has her comfortably passing NPROF which is one of the very few SNGs that actually overrides GNG (which she possibly does not pass per my very quick check - Eppstein's links above seem to be interviews with the subject herself - which do not establish SIGCOV - however this is all moot given NPROF(1)). Icewhiz (talk) 06:28, 30 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@Icewhiz: It is WP:OR for a Wikipedian to use citation counts to establish whether a person satisfies WP:NACADEMIC#1 for "significant impact in their scholarly discipline, broadly construed, as demonstrated by independent reliable sources". Secondary sources are what should telling us if they have made a "significant impact", not some arbitrary citation count we think should prove it. -- Netoholic @ 07:23, 30 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
We routinely evaluate PROF#1 by citations. She also possibly passes PROF#3 by being a member of Member of the Academia Europaea as Eppstein points out - which requires less editoral judgement than PROF#1. It is also clear she holds (and held) fairly senior academic appointments (though not a chair - so not sufficient by itself). As WP:NACADEMIC is presently construed, secondary sources are not required and primary sources (e.g. published journal papers (a RS) and citations thereof (in other RSes) are sufficient for establishing notability under PROF. This notability guideline may or may not be misguided (I personally, am much more concerned with WP:NFOOTY at the moment - for which I'm trying to raise the bar) - however the place to argue that is elsewhere. Icewhiz (talk) 07:37, 30 April 2019 (UTC
It would be redundant for WP:NACADEMIC to specifically call for secondary sources, since WP:SCHOLARSHIP, WP:GNG, and Wikipedia:No original research already says to base articles on secondary sources. IF we can't find any independent, reliable sources, no matter now many citations or namedrops they have, its not demonstrated notability. -- Netoholic @ 08:33, 30 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
keep I made this page. She’s highly cited and holds a professorship at an impressive university. There are fewer biographies written about her to cite as she is a woman and european, but the sources here are sufficient, and, as mentioned above, she’s an invited member of a selective learned society. Jesswade88 (talk) 06:33, 30 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
keep Her works are highly cited, it passed NACADEMIC#1. Do note, academics do not have a lot of IS to generated WP:SIGCOV like other BLP especially those of in the field entertainment or sports. CASSIOPEIA^(talk) 07:29, 30 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
If she is highly-cited, finding a secondary source that says that should be trivially easy. Wikipedian's deciding some arbitrary threshold of citations is WP:OR. -- Netoholic @ 08:05, 30 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep In addition to the good points made by others, note that WP:ROUTINE relates to events not people and WP:Run-of-the-mill is an essay and so is just opinion with no significant force. The nomination is therefore reaching, contrary to WP:FORCEDINTERPRET. Andrew D. (talk) 08:33, 30 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I agree with David Eppstein that this is a bad nomination, for the reasons he gives. --NSH001 (talk) 08:50, 30 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 without prejudice to starting a new article with the same title -- Scott Burley (talk) 02:45, 7 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

American prisoners of war

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

The content of this article does not match the title, and it is to be doubted whether we need an article that merely confirms that there are no extant American POWs.

1. There is, for all I know, an article to be written on the subject of American POWs. This is not it, and pretty much none of the content here is it.

2. There is not, so far as I can see, call for an article entitled "There are no American POWs right now", which is the subject matter of this article.

To the extent there is any useful content in this article, I suspect it would be more usefully found in Prisoner of war.

In conclusion: I can see no justification for this article title nor content and think the best course of action is deletion. Tagishsimon (talk) 02:34, 30 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Prisoner of war —Rutebega (talk) 03:55, 30 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. MrClog (talk) 08:40, 30 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. MrClog (talk) 08:40, 30 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete without prejudice to starting a new article with the same title - really the current content of this article seems to be about the Vietnam War POW/MIA issue, but as a title it seems inappropriate for this. I think a new article could be started about US POWs in general (not American, as this is ambiguous given that this is also the name of the continent), either as a full article or as a disambiguation page with links to the different articles about US POWs in Vietnam, Korea, WW2 etc. As it stands, though, there is no clear redirect for this page-title. Prisoners of War seems inappropriate since it is not specific to American POWs and not a plausible search term for someone looking for that page. FOARP (talk) 12:27, 30 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete but allow recreation per FOARP. This provides nothing over Prisoner of war and U.S. prisoners of war during the Vietnam War. Reywas92^Talk 22:27, 3 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. -- Scott Burley (talk) 02:40, 7 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Great Learning (Company)

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

Creator of article (and only contributor) deleted PROD without improving article. So here we are. Original deletion rationale was and remains: "A few passing mentions, no in depth coverage as required. Fails WP:ORGCRIT and should be deleted accordingly." ☆ Bri (talk) 01:27, 23 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. ☆ Bri (talk) 02:07, 23 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Kpg jhp jm 02:32, 23 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 03:50, 23 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Weak delete. Seems to fail WP:GNG. Requires more refs. Germcrow (talk) 12:32, 26 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. The company is notable in education sector but is not extensively covered by media.--PicasaPicaso (talk) 09:22, 27 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

What makes you say it is notable? You contested the PROD but again/still have not given a reason. ☆ Bri (talk) 01:20, 28 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Bri (talk), few of my known friends have studied through it. While it does not enough credibility online due to their willingness to grow through word of mouth, they are really popular in India and they has been changing lives. This is the reason why they have won awards and why their programmes are rank in top three position as given in the sources. I have been trying to contribute to Wikipedia in the best ways possible and I understand that Wikipedia needs enough sources to sustain a page, but considering the kind the of revolutionising programmes introduced by them, I suppose they deserve a page. I have tried to follow most of the rules of Wikipedia but your are the admin. I request you to please consider keeping it.PicasaPicaso (talk) 12:07, 28 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

"They are changing lives", "They deserve to have a page" and stuff like that sounds like WP:ATA#Arguments without arguments to me. But *shrug* I'm sure the closing admin will know what to do. BTW, I am not an admin and even if I were, would not be closing this. ☆ Bri (talk) 16:13, 28 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Kpg jhp jm 01:51, 30 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - not enough coverage to meet the notability guidelines. --MrClog (talk) 09:13, 30 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - see very little evidence of notability. One of the sources is a company press release, another is just a passing mention in an article about IT training in general. BubbaJoe123456 (talk) 16:04, 30 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Just another company wanting to get on to Wiki. No references about the company per-se. Jupitus Smart 16:37, 30 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - WP:PROMO, obviously. This is another company that wants to be on Wikipedia, but doesn't have the sources to actually be here. Tosi | he/him | ^t/_c 16:08, 1 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. -- Scott Burley (talk) 02:37, 7 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Adarsh Vidya Niketan Secondary School

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

not fulfilling requirements for WP:ORGSIG QueerEcofeminist^{"cite! even if you fight"!!!} [they/them/their] 14:31, 29 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. QueerEcofeminist^{"cite! even if you fight"!!!} [they/them/their] 14:32, 29 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Nepal-related deletion discussions. QueerEcofeminist^{"cite! even if you fight"!!!} [they/them/their] 14:32, 29 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - There seem to quite some sources when doing a Google search (including some news articles). Meets the notability guidelines. --MrClog (talk) 09:09, 30 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Seems to pass WP:GNG Germcrow (talk) 10:48, 1 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Notable with reliable sources. --SalmanZ (talk) 23:20, 3 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

^ https://ta.wikipedia.org/wiki/%E0%AE%A4%E0%AE%AE%E0%AE%BF%E0%AE%B4%E0%AF%8D%E0%AE%A4%E0%AF%8D_%E0%AE%A4%E0%AE%BF%E0%AE%B0%E0%AF%88%E0%AE%AA%E0%AF%8D%E0%AE%AA%E0%AE%9F%E0%AE%A4%E0%AF%8D%E0%AE%A4%E0%AE%BF%E0%AE%B2%E0%AF%8D_%E0%AE%A8%E0%AE%95%E0%AF%88%E0%AE%9A%E0%AF%8D%E0%AE%9A%E0%AF%81%E0%AE%B5%E0%AF%88

[1] ttps://ta.wikipedia.org/wiki/%E0%AE%A4%E0%AE%AE%E0%AE%BF%E0%AE%B4%E0%AF%8D%E0%AE%A4%E0%AF%8D_%E0%AE%A4%E0%AE%BF%E0%AE%B0%E0%AF%88%E0%AE%AA%E0%AF%8D%E0%AE%AA%E0%AE%9F%E0%AE%A4%E0%AF%8D%E0%AE%A4%E0%AE%BF%E0%AE%B2%E0%AF%8D_%E0%AE%A8%E0%AE%95%E0%AF%88%E0%AE%9A%E0%AF%8D%E0%AE%9A%E0%AF%81%E0%AE%B5%E0%AF%88

[1]