Jump to content

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2019 March 30

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< 29 March 31 March >

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. Nomination has been withdrawn following improvements to the article. The weight of the discussion also indicates keep. AustralianRupert (talk) 08:49, 4 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Pavlos Kouroupis

[edit]
Pavlos Kouroupis (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Article is a completely unsourced stub and fails WP:V. The sole external link is not a reliable source. Subject fails WP:NSOLDIER and WP:ANYBIO. A WP:BEFORE search yielded some passing mentions of him on various websites, some of which appear to be near verbatum copies of our unsourced article. However none look to be enough to ring the WP:N bell. (Note: I am renominating this article on behalf of Davidgoodheart whose original nomination was malformed and failed to transclude properly.) Ad Orientem (talk) 23:41, 30 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Nomination Withdrawn based on dramatic improvements by Dr.K.. Great job! -Ad Orientem (talk) 01:58, 2 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Greece-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 06:28, 31 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 06:28, 31 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Cyprus-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 06:28, 31 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Doesn't pass NSOLDIER (Lt. col. commanded a battalion in action, died while doing so). In my, admittedly, limited BEFORE in Greek - I wasn't able to come up with much (though there are various hits). The grwiki is at the same state, more or less, as the enwiki here. Icewhiz (talk) 07:40, 31 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Following article improvement - heck he even passes NSOLDIER given his 2008 promotion to lt. General. Teaches me for trying to search in Greek. Icewhiz (talk) 07:00, 2 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Withdrawing vote and not adding a new one - initial reason for placing a vote was that the article was unsourced and appeared to be POV stub recycling anti-Turkish polemics and anti-Turkish and anti-Muslim sentiment. If this article is going to be around hopefully its sources will be from unbiased scholarship written by non-nationalistic academics. Resnjari (talk) 01:39, 4 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Well, that's a surprise. In any case, I find your withdrawal of the delete !vote an honourable thing to have done. Best regards. Dr. K. 04:51, 4 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Why the surprise? My delete vote was based on the reasons of two other editors. They no longer stand by them and I decided that a withdrawal and non vote instead was better on my part. Resnjari (talk) 06:08, 4 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
No argument on my side. Don't get me wrong, it was a pleasant surprise. I just thought that perhaps you would be more attached to your original position, despite the withdrawals. AfDs are sometimes this way. I am glad we have reached common ground. Dr. K. 06:26, 4 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
It was a common sense approach. Opposition for the sake of opposition is silly and petty. Resnjari (talk) 08:03, 4 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I agree, and I wanted to express my appreciation when I saw that you kept an open mind, although I should, perhaps, not have used the term "surprise", even in jest. Dr. K. 08:30, 4 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - as per reasons by @Icewiz and @Cinderella157. Ha, all of whom saw the article before the huge ongoing expansion and addition of sources. Why such a rush to delete this article? Dr. K. 06:23, 1 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • @Dr.K.:, I saw some of these sources in my BEFORE prior to my !vote. How much content (pages) do you have on our subject in this sources (some of which are available to me only in snippet)? How much content do you have disconnected from the 1974 events? I'll note that the suspected POWs at Bolu and Denizli (1995) would probably be better as a standalone (and seems our subject's connection to the added content is rather loose - he's suspected to be in the the suspected group). Icewhiz (talk) 06:31, 1 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • No, one of the sources mentions that the Kasimatis report states that he was one of the prisoners. As far as content disconnected from the 74 events, please see his life section which is substantial. As well, I have not yet started the description of his participation in the battle, which is very notable. Also, no pings please. There is no hurry, and I watch this page anyway. Dr. K. 06:39, 1 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Even if there are four sources giving non-trivial coverage, I am not convinced they established sufficient notability or coverage that could expand the article beyond what is essentially a trivial mention. I disagree. There is enough coverage in the RS to independently expand the article beyond the battle coverage and into a substantial biography. I intend to do so in the next few days. Dr. K. 04:19, 1 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Dr.K., I am open to being convinced. Ping me when you think you have something convincing. It should be both, be a "substantial biography" and establish notability. Regards, Cinderella157 (talk) 08:43, 1 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Well, Cinderella, will you join the party? Be careful though when you leave. Don't forget any shoe behind. :) Dr. K. 04:58, 4 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Revised position to now keep, though the references are pretty much all Greek to me. Regards, Cinderella157 (talk) 05:21, 4 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you very much Cinderella. It was very nice meeting you. As far as the sources, Google translate is not as bad as it used to be, and you are welcome to ask me anytime. Best regards. Dr. K. 06:03, 4 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
My comment re "all Greek to me" was jest. I take these in good faith as being suitable though with translation, I have found some knowledge of the language to be a great benefit. Well done, Cinderella157 (talk) 07:55, 4 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you again, I appreciate your good faith and encouragement. Also, nice to know you understand Greek. :) Dr. K. 08:30, 4 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Cinderella Thank you for joining our party, which is guaranteed to be a winner! And also thanks to Dr.K. for that generous invite as well! Dr.K. has really supplied some good sources and great reasons for keeping this article that are very convincing. What was once just a very short completely unsourced stub with so little to say has grown into a tremendous article full of information with sources. I also see that after the article's expansion that it's views have really gone way up as well! What a superb effort on the part of Dr.K.! Davidgoodheart (talk) 07:30, 4 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I have to thank you as well, David. Without your idea to put this article through AfD, this article wouldn't have gotten the help it needed from so many great editors, including yourself. AfD rarely works so nicely, but, when it does, it makes for a very nice day on wiki. :) Dr. K.^
  • Note Although I have withdrawn the nomination and now support Keeping the article, there are still outstanding Delete !votes. As long as that remains the case the discussion cannot be closed early. -Ad Orientem (talk) 02:01, 2 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • @Ad Orientem: Thank you very much, Ad Orientem, for your nice words and for your nice gesture of withdrawing the nomination. It is a great motivating factor for me coming from an editor and admin I greatly respect. Dr. K. 02:37, 2 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was redirect to Bergen County Executive. Ad Orientem (talk) 01:09, 7 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Dennis McNerney

[edit]
Dennis McNerney (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Fails WP:POLITICIAN, local politician that has only received significant coverage form local sources. Rusf10 (talk) 23:30, 30 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 06:29, 31 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of New Jersey-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 06:29, 31 March 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 LGBT culture in Portland, Oregon per WP:ATD and WP:CHEAP. Ad Orientem (talk) 01:13, 7 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Oregon Bears

[edit]
Oregon Bears (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

I became aware of this article while conducting research for another AfD debate. The article fails to assert notability. A quick check fails to establish notability to the burden of WP:GNG with depth of coverage and audience base satisfactory to WP:ORG. I don't support redirecting it. Since Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate source of anything and everything that is independently verifiable, the lack of notability should be a ground for deletion. Graywalls (talk) 21:46, 30 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Expanding my position in favor of deletion: This organization certainly fits the bill of Run of the mill. Anything that caters to a sub-culture or a special interest is notable among a small circle of people. This is common sense. A tune shop that specializes on one brand and caters to enthusiasts would have mentions in auto related magazines. It can be notable regional among enthusiasts of that brand... and locally notable in automotive circle in general. But in the grand scheme of things, those things are often "run of the mill". My article interests are things but I always take a step back and consider it from a non-local and unrelated people perspective. Although it might appear to those seeing AfDs as I'm choosing after the creator's articles, it just happens that a large number of questionable articles I come across are the ones created by him. I see it as absolutely absurd he's essentially trying to make an article on practically EVERY LGBT related organizations and businesses like gay bars and unfortunately, I'm frequently seeing more or less the same concern. Lack of GNG, NORG, AUD, MILL and so on. Graywalls (talk) 18:48, 3 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
You've already made your point re: notability of Oregon Bears. I'm the article creator and I've voted in favor of redirecting the article to the LGBT culture in Portland article, where mention of the group is entirely appropriate. The list on the LGBT culture talk page is more a list of topics to cover than a list of missing articles, so I'll update the section title. Meanwhile, you're still failing to argue why mention of the Oregon Bears is inappropriate at the LGBT culture article. I was trying to keep this discussion focused on the Oregon Bears, but this has bled into the LGBT culture article. All of this could have been avoided by simply redirecting the Oregon Bears page to the LGBT culture article, which I would have gladly done myself if you had just posted your concerns on the talk page. ---Another Believer (Talk) 19:02, 3 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
As a contextual preface, everyone of similar type run-of-the-mill articles that I've dealt with, that happened to be from you have been the same issue and you've been pushing for "it should be expanded" or "redirect to something". I've already quoted you the relevant phrase from the policy WP:FAILN. Spawning out a mass of articles about run of the mill places and leaning down against "Redirects are cheap" as a way of anchoring presence into Wikipedia goes against the spirit. Graywalls (talk) 19:34, 3 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Just because one could have done something that suites your desire better doesn't mean a thing. Per WP:FAILN, deletion is the proper action for clearly non-notable existence such as this organization. Graywalls (talk) 18:05, 2 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I was just explaining my edit, which you implied was inappropriate. ---Another Believer (Talk) 18:21, 2 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
This isn't a chapter of a parent organization. I think you are conflating Bear (gay culture) with an organization. The subject of the AfD is Oregon Bears, a Portland-based org. It makes more sense to redirect to LGBT culture in Portland, Oregon rather than a slang term. --Kbabej (talk) 16:45, 31 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I could have used a different examples. Some run of the mill non-notable local organizations like this one... or hypothetical companies like Jane Doe's kabobs or Cindy's Dry Cleaners shouldn't have their stand-alone article. Addressing these concerns by redirecting creates an expectation that any business or local groups can be inserted and expected to get a redirect at the minimum to category of creator's choice, thus leading to deterioration of Wikipedia by encouraging spamdexing. Graywalls (talk) 18:31, 1 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
You might review Wikipedia:Redirect#Purposes_of_redirects, which says, redirects are appropriate for "Sub-topics or other topics which are described or listed within a wider article". Since Oregon Bears are mentioned in the LGBT culture in Portland, Oregon article, a redirect is appropriate. ---Another Believer (Talk) 18:34, 1 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Agree to disagree. It's not appropriate to spawn out redirects for whatever non-notable business editors can think of. Graywalls (talk) 18:40, 1 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Graywalls, I didn't say creating redirects for "whatever non-notable businesses" was appropriate. You're putting words in my mouth. Please keep focus on Oregon Bears, specifically. ---Another Believer (Talk) 18:41, 1 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
An organization, such as Oregon Bears is an example of such a dime a dozen, non-notable, run of the mill, incorporated organizations. Graywalls (talk) 18:43, 1 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Graywalls, Mentioning the organization in the LGBT culture in Portland article is totally appropriate because there are sources describing the group in this context. Therefore, having a redirect send readers there is also appropriate. ---Another Believer (Talk) 18:45, 1 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • just to clarify, from the official page of the organization whose notability is being challenged, I am seeing "Oregon Bears is a category 501(c)(7) Social and Recreation Club." and "Oregon Bears, Inc. is a fraternal and social organization committed to fun and fundraising." So, it's quite possible that the subculture Bear (gay culture) is notable, but per No inherited notability policy, there's no such thing as presumptive notability passed down to organizations related to this subculture. Per No inherent notability, this organization fails to establish notability per WP:ORG and WP:GNG just like most obscure local businesses and "small garage" type existence. I don't think this specific organization is generally notable. I'm not finding compelling evidence that it is either. Despite this, since I fully expected Another Believer to object it, so, pursuant to WP:FAILN, I'm expected to process it through AfD. Graywalls (talk) 13:37, 2 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    There's no need to call me out when others clearly agree with my rationale. You've made your case that Oregon Bears may not be independently notable and qualify for a standalone article, but I'm not following how/why keeping mention of the group in other articles is inappropriate. ---Another Believer (Talk) 14:06, 2 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
"For articles on subjects that are clearly not notable, then deletion is usually the most appropriate response, although other options may help the community to preserve any useful material." from WP:FAILN. Clearly not notable, such as this organization whose presence is a trivial mention in the Portland Mercury which routinely publish things to do, and a trivial mention (a line item in a long list) on the city's special interest topic. There's not a single damn source showing any hint of notability. Graywalls (talk) 16:41, 2 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Again, you're making the argument there should not be a standalone article about the group. You're failing to explain why the group cannot be mentioned in the LGBT culture in Portland article. Once again, we're going in circles, so I'll let others wrap this up. ---Another Believer (Talk) 16:44, 2 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 06:34, 31 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Oregon-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 06:34, 31 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sexuality and gender-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 06:34, 31 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Graywalls (talk) 15:34, 5 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect Since we can redirect to only one article, LGBT culture in Portland, Oregon should be the target. If, on the other hand, it had been just the Oregon branch of a national organization, then there wouldn't be an appropriate redirect. I think some of the comments above may have failed to make that distinction. DGG ( talk ) 05:07, 2 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
comment on comment It didn't appear anyways until you added it after the AfD was created, thus possibly unduly influence other editors to perceive it differently.Graywalls (talk) 00:00, 3 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Is there a rule against adding mention of a topic to an appropriate article because the topic's article has been nominated for deletion? ---Another Believer (Talk) 00:02, 3 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I've added mention of Oregon Bears back, along with two citations, so editors can at least have the option of seeing how a redirect may be possible. I believe this is well within rules of Wikipedia. ---Another Believer (Talk) 19:12, 3 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

comment So it seems like there's little to no disagreement that there's no merit to a stand alone article. Although I maintain my position in favor of a simple delete, if consensus comes to that there's a merit to redirecting, then delete and redirect would be a reasonable compromise. Graywalls (talk) 16:05, 5 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete. Ad Orientem (talk) 01:14, 7 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

List of Georgia Breweries, Wineries, and Distilleries

[edit]
List of Georgia Breweries, Wineries, and Distilleries (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

It only lists distilleries, and that's already covered by List of Georgia distilleries. There's also a List of breweries in Georgia (U.S. state), so there's no single redirect target. Clarityfiend (talk) 21:23, 30 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Food and drink-related deletion discussions. MarginalCost (talk) 21:24, 30 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. MarginalCost (talk) 21:24, 30 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Georgia (U.S. state)-related deletion discussions. MarginalCost (talk) 21:24, 30 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Food and drink-related deletion discussions. Icewhiz (talk) 21:24, 30 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. Icewhiz (talk) 21:24, 30 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the Article Rescue Squadron's list of content for rescue consideration. --Tryptofish (talk) 19:37, 3 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Wine-related deletion discussions. North America1000 19:26, 5 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Ad Orientem (talk) 01:14, 7 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Darya Andreichenko

[edit]
Darya Andreichenko (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

No evidence this person is currently notable, claims she won a championship are sourced to a questionable outlet but even if true, no evidence that win makes her notable under WP:NATHLETE and I don't think there's much of an argument for WP:NACADEMIC. Praxidicae (talk) 19:05, 23 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Kazakhstan-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 20:04, 23 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 20:04, 23 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 20:05, 23 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MarginalCost (talk) 21:21, 30 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep, this article is just barley acceptable of inclusion. Davidgoodheart (talk) 01:11, 31 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

um, want to explain how? Praxidicae (talk) 01:20, 31 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@Praxidicae: Because of the championships that she won, and that she is the first Kazakhstani, who received a grant of Bill Gates. Davidgoodheart (talk) 01:54, 31 March 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. Ad Orientem (talk) 01:15, 7 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Jordan Cushing

[edit]
Jordan Cushing (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Lacked independent sources since creation in August 2011. This seems to be a page about someone just doing their job albeit doing it well. There are directory entries and a range of credits but I can't find indepth coverage in RS and I can't find any relevant awards. Fails WP:BIO. Just Chilling (talk) 21:13, 30 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. MarginalCost (talk) 21:23, 30 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. Icewhiz (talk) 21:25, 30 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Ontario-related deletion discussions. Icewhiz (talk) 21:25, 30 March 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. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 03:48, 7 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

A. N. Radhakrishnan

[edit]
A. N. Radhakrishnan (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Fails WP:GNG, and WP:POLITICIAN. Akhiljaxxn (talk) 10:32, 23 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 10:44, 23 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 10:44, 23 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Being one of the six general secretaries of a political party's local organizing committee in one specific region is not an automatic WP:NPOL pass, and this features neither the substance nor the depth of sourcing needed to get him over WP:GNG in lieu.Akhiljaxxn (talk) 16:16, 25 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 21:11, 30 March 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. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 03:47, 7 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Jake Turx

[edit]
AfDs for this article:
Jake Turx (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Delete per WP:1E and WP:BIO. The subject received a lot of media coverage for what happened to him at President Trump's first press conference in 2017. We have now had 2 years to see if he has any notability beyond that, and the answer is no. A possible claim to notability, being the first Hasidic Jew to become a member of the White House press corps, is sourced to a vimeo video. The page is now tagged with a laundry list of issues, most prominent among them the issue of notability. The subject himself has contributed unsourced biographical details to the page. I have tried to find sources for notability, without success. Yoninah (talk) 18:53, 16 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Journalism-related deletion discussions. Yoninah (talk) 19:01, 16 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Washington, D.C.-related deletion discussions. Yoninah (talk) 19:01, 16 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Judaism-related deletion discussions. Yoninah (talk) 19:01, 16 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
We went over this before. This is being nominated again by the same editor after an unsuccessful attempt before.
All that was discussed last time still is relative. At the time there was no consensus on deletion, I don’t see why now should be different. I don’t see the necessity of going thru the same process again just because… why not.
Link to the previous AfD for this article. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Jake_Turx Bloger (talk) 05:41, 17 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
The fact that the subject is using this page as a vehicle for self-promotion is a problem. I have tried to dig up coverage to satisfy the notability requirement and keep him here, but without success. Yoninah (talk) 11:57, 17 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I don’t know what you mean “the subject is using this page as a vehicle for self-promotion”, and if you have proof of this, and even if you do how this violates Wikipedia.
We have gone over this, and the fact that he is the first Hasidic Jew to hold this position in noteworthy.
There are numerus pages on Wikipedia for White house correspondence with equal or less notability, and this page has now been here for a couple of years, no harm has come and none should come from keeping the page.Bloger (talk) 18:36, 17 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 03:15, 23 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 21:11, 30 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. I agree to Northamerica1000, please let the page in question alive. Thanks.
  • Strong Keep Yes, someone with the username Turx Jake on his 2nd edit here tried to link Turx's personal email in the article. While unprofessional, and defying the rules and etiquette (not unlike that press conference incident), it's not a reason to throw the baby out with the bathwater. While more sourcing would be nice, the article was written and survived a previous Afd based on what's already there. Other issues can be resolved with copyedits. This list has many unlinked names on it, and that's because just being a WH correspondent, especially for an obscure publication like Ami, or even being the author of some obscure book, generally wouldn't pass GNG. If Trump's response to the question had been WP:MILL, we would have had a MILL subject, but instead we now have Turx forever seared into our memories with that train wreck of an exchange. The acrimonious tone of the response, directed at an Orthodox person, served to highlight Trump's awkward situation of enjoying support from both Orthodox Jews and the Alt-right, the latter accused of fomenting some of the antisemitism Turx asked the president about. StonyBrook (talk) 00:14, 3 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • @StonyBrook: So are you saying that he's notable for a one-time event? The most important argument for notability is his being the first Hasidic Jew to become a member of the White House press corps, but that fact has been basically unsourced for two years. Yoninah (talk) 21:07, 4 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • He is known for more than just that one event. He is also a White House correspondent with lots of political exposure, and with other mentions in the press. But mostly I am arguing that Turx isn't a run-of-the-mill journalist, with the Hasidic thing definitely adding to that quirkiness. If the reporter who had asked the question had been someone more vanilla, for all we know the president's response would have been more balanced – and forgotten. It was the 'Turxiness' of Turx in my opinion that led to the incident more than the incident leads to Turx, much the same as it would have been if a Black Hebrew Israelite reporter with a Twitter handle emblazoned on his headdress had asked Trump what his administration was planning to do in response to the Shooting of Antwon Rose Jr. Therefore I don't even think it's correct to replace the article with something like Jake Turx press conference incident. It is well enough left alone as it is. StonyBrook (talk) 19:15, 5 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Definitely Keep He is definitely not using it for self-promotion. I am familiar with his work, and as far as I know he is only interested in accuracy. Even if he did edit it himself, he is only doing so to give more information about himself for those curious about his background and how he ended up in the White House press corps. Please keep this page - I also have a hunch he may show up in the news again, as he may still go on to even greater things than he has been doing in the past — Preceding unsigned comment added by 38.105.204.148 (talk) 19:58, 4 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. North America1000 19:28, 5 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Looks like a textbook example of WP:1E. Subject has no claim to encyclopedic notability beyond the much discussed incident. He wrote a book but as far as I can tell does not meet WP:NAUTHOR. Being a member of the White House Press Corps does not confer notability. The pro-Keep comments above are unimpressive and seem to be going into contortions to avoid addressing the issue in the light of WP:PAG. I would encourage the reviewing admin to keep NOTAVOTE in mind when closing this discussion. -Ad Orientem (talk) 01:27, 7 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Ad Orientem (talk) 01:34, 7 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Buddy Tudor

[edit]
Buddy Tudor (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Fails WP:GNG and being a friend and contributor to a former governor doesn't pass WP:NPOL. The sources used in this article are an entry into a self-published biographical dictionary (1); government records that prove that Tudor has died (2); two local newspaper obituaries (3 & 4); a book that mentions a scandal that Tudor was involved in but he is not the primary focus (5); original research in the form of a personal letter that is quoted in said book (6); and campaign donor records. GPL93 (talk) 19:19, 30 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. Icewhiz (talk) 20:00, 30 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. Icewhiz (talk) 20:00, 30 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Louisiana-related deletion discussions. Icewhiz (talk) 20:00, 30 March 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 St. Thomas, Ontario#Education. There's a clear, policy based, consensus to RD. The only Delete !vote isn't based upon policy. (non-admin closure) Dusti*Let's talk!* 08:09, 6 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

St. Thomas Community Christian School

[edit]
St. Thomas Community Christian School (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Non-notable school lacking significant independent coverage in reliable sources. Meatsgains(talk) 19:18, 30 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 20:01, 30 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 20:01, 30 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 20:01, 30 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Ontario-related deletion discussions. North America1000 19:30, 5 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. I am invoking NOTAVOTE here and discounting several fairly obvious sock votes. The WP:PAG based weight of the discussion clearly comes down in favor of deletion. Ad Orientem (talk) 01:36, 7 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

E._Michael_Jones

[edit]
AfDs for this article:
E._Michael_Jones (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

This article lacks reliable sources, 3 of the 6 sources are by the page subject himself, while the other 3 are not major to the article subject. Another reason for the nomination is the notability of the subject. Swil999 (talk) 18:29, 30 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 20:01, 30 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Pennsylvania-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 20:02, 30 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. Icewhiz (talk) 20:02, 30 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. Icewhiz (talk) 20:02, 30 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Indiana-related deletion discussions. Icewhiz (talk) 20:02, 30 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Judaism-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 20:03, 30 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Germany-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 20:03, 30 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • KEEP The "discussion" !? on this page is reason enough NOT to delete the page.

Recommendations for improvement are always welcome, BUT vandalization, ideologue censorship, ignorance, personal prejudice, disagreement with the subject, are NOT.

The notariety, interest, disagreement, agreement, regarding the subject surpass wiki USER INTEREST requirements. Wiki USERS want INFORMATION on this subject, author, his history, list of works, and they DO NOT want THEIR wiki search on THIS subject turning up VOID (or wiki users will go elsewhere).

Bots, hot head Ignoramuses, ideologues are always on the prowl on wikepedia vandalizing or putting up for DISCUSSION or DELETION some page they personally have an axe to grind on it.

WIKI Policy does NOT allow this since the whole point of wiki is to make AVAILABLE to ALL USERS OF THE INTETNET ANYWHERE WORLDWIDE

  • QUICK *** ACCESS *** TO INFO

on ALL persons, places, things of ANY note or interest or influence.

I'm CERTAIN this subject's page gets more views and hits than most. Certainly more than most obscure molecular formulas of questionable accuracy that wiki supports and a handful of users need!

While I personally don't agree with every opinion or position of this pundit, the subject keeps the interest and sparks the thought of MANY on ALL sides, including peers, intellectuals, persons of notable fame, infamy, or wannabees that don't come close to the talent of this subject.

The subject's wide range of interesting subjects, including but not limited to, investigations and background research on Medjagorje's history and recent years of New Age hysteria, or his participation on the Samuel Francis Conference panel, would themselves mark the subject for INCLUSION IN WIKI PAGES, and the rant below on Nietzsche does a disservice to Nietzsche. By the same specious arguments, we might be forced to waste time and discussion on a wiki NIETZSCHE PAGE DELETION and that would be every bit as ABSURD, foolish and irresponsible.

Improve the page? YES.

Delete it? NO.

Startarrant (talk) 17:21, 2 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Please see Arguments to avoid in deletion discussions. Thank you. XOR'easter (talk) 18:41, 2 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Also, please do not edit the comments of others, as you did here. XOR'easter (talk) 18:53, 2 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
A bold assumption that these are different users --mfb (talk) 02:34, 3 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete The article mentions a couple flash-in-the-pan incidents, the coverage of which is insufficient for the GNG. I suspected that he might be notable per WP:AUTHOR, but I can't really substantiate the claim that his "collective body of work" is seen as "significant or well-known" in serious circles. Going to JSTOR, we find only a few reviews, and they sound like this:
Dionysos Rising does not approach the bar of serious scholarship. Countless relevant scholarly sources are absent from the bibliography, and most contradict Jones's thesis. Repeatedly, Jones's key claims are not borne out by the evidence, even when he elects to refer to them, usually with highly questionable, nonacademic, poorly researched, and rarely documented texts. [...] Jones's Nietzsche chapter is a perfect example of how not to do history. [...] Though this review is limited to questions surrounding Nietzsche, the careful reader will find that similar problems plague all four chapters of the work and the underlying thesis. For the reasons outlined here and numerous others, Dionysos Rising cannot be recommended as scholarly reading, but comes highly recommended for its entertainment value, and its ability to exhibit the weaknesses inherent in any history of ideas assuming at the outset that "biology is destiny." If the work accomplishes anything, it is this: it fulfills Nietzsche's great fear ("I know my destiny. Someday my name will be associated with something terrible").
And this:
This is one of the worst books I have ever read, at least of the academic variety. It would probably be more accurate to say of the purportedly academic variety, since Jones's book rests on what looks to be a remarkably thin evidentiary base. Whole chapters unfold with footnotes to only three or four secondary sources. Certain astonishing assertions aren't footnoted at all. I've never seen an allegedly scholarly book quite like it. [...] In his own idiosyncratic way, Jones is a mirror image of the arrogant elites that his unnecessarily long book excoriates.
The only review I could find that wasn't actively disdainful addressed The Angel and the Machine as just one of three recent books on Hawthorne. And even it says that Jones's writing "suffers inexcusably from being utterly oblivious to scholarship of the past fifteen or twenty years." I don't think the scholarly evaluation of Jones's books, such as they are, rises to the bar that WP:AUTHOR sets. On the other hand, if these few scattered reviews are considered to pass that bar, then reflecting their content properly per NPOV would require a serious rewrite of the page, to WP:TNT levels. Let's delete the page and move on with our lives. XOR'easter (talk) 15:09, 2 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete wrote some stuff no one seems to care about (apart from suspiciously new accounts/IPs and one user with a potential COI) - at least based on the current article. --mfb (talk) 02:34, 3 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment It looks like Jones may have connections with antisemetic organizations and may have cited a holocaust denier. Not sure what the context was, it could have been critically, but based on his youtube channel some videos seem to have antisemetic tones - are there any specific policies regarding this? https://www.adl.org/sites/default/files/documents/assets/pdf/combating-hate/E-Michael-Jones.pdf https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCqu-4AY-501xV5iCtt7dMKQ/videos Swil999 (talk) 19:44, 3 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Political views aren't taken into account when it comes to notability. There are plenty of articles on people who are notable entirely do to their activism on certain issues, including more controversial subjects such as anti-semitism. Its about whether or not the subject has proven through reliable sources to meet the threshold of WP:GNG. Best, GPL93 (talk) 22:19, 3 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. Randykitty (talk) 18:46, 6 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

S v De Oliveira

[edit]
S v De Oliveira (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

On the face of the article, I see nothing that makes this case notable. At the moment, it is cited only to primary sources. There is no secondary commentary about the case, nothing to indicate why it is significant. Bbb23 (talk) 17:53, 30 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of South Africa-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 17:55, 30 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Law-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 17:55, 30 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete with Comments: None-notable per nom. An average criminal law appeals case, with primary sources only, that apparently involves living people so is held to a higher standard. Even if there were local sources this would not rise to the level of notability unless there was significant regional or national coverage and I could not find that on a search. Otr500 (talk)
Comments: There have been some mixed signals with some articles but the fact that there are only primary sources, the case did not set a legal precedent, bring up constitutional issues, or involve the Supreme Court of South Africa, as well as not having independent coverage, it fails to pass GNG or BLP guidelines. Otr500 (talk) 12:38, 5 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Crime-related deletion discussions. North America1000 19:32, 5 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - Not notable in terms of anything unique. Nor is it a case with extensive coverage from what I can tell. If someone recreates this in the future and adds better extensive sources I will !vote differently.BabbaQ (talk) 07:00, 6 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. Randykitty (talk) 18:37, 6 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Tatkatho Shwe Yi Win

[edit]
Tatkatho Shwe Yi Win (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

No indicia of encyclopedic notability on the face of the article, and three of the four links provided as references appear to return errors. The fourth provides no in-depth coverage of the article subject. bd2412 T 16:29, 30 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. MT TrainTalk 16:56, 30 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Myanmar-related deletion discussions. MT TrainTalk 16:56, 30 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Randykitty (talk) 18:34, 6 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The Owl Journal

[edit]
The Owl Journal (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Student journal with no evidence of notability, tagged for notability in 2010. TSventon (talk) 16:21, 30 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Journalism-related deletion discussions. TSventon (talk) 16:21, 30 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 17:04, 30 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. IntoThinAir (talk) 18:03, 30 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as per nomination.TH1980 (talk) 02:59, 1 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Some more detail. The magazine appears to be defunct as the link to its website was tagged as dead in 2018. The article is a stub of only four sentences plus an info box. The article creator claimed to be the magazine's web editor on the article talk page. I have posted article deletion messages on the talk pages of the two main authors, although they have not edited Wikipedia recently. The first five pages of a WP:BEFORE internet search for Owl Journal Oxford yield nothing relevant to the magazine, except the Wikipedia article, a Wikipedia mirror and a link to the magazine's website on the Oxford page of thestudentroom.co.uk.TSventon (talk) 14:40, 1 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete doubtful it was ever notable Aloneinthewild (talk) 17:19, 4 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) Dusti*Let's talk!* 08:10, 6 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Continental union

[edit]
Continental union (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Poorly sourced, seems to be a "hub" article for information about supranational unions that happen to coincide with continents (which are a relative concept anyway). A Google search reveals very few reliable sources for the term "continental union". Qzekrom 💬 theythem 16:17, 30 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. MT TrainTalk 16:57, 30 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bilateral relations-related deletion discussions. MT TrainTalk 16:58, 30 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep A notable geographic/political sciencey term. See scholarly sources such as [1] SportingFlyer T·C 20:44, 30 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: Used within journalism, e.g. Reuters. Used in scholarly sources, e.g. article from the Brooklyn Journal of International Law and the aforementioned article. Most interestingly, the term was also used widely during early proposals for a North American Union as early as 1861 (when Stephen A. Douglas wrote his article about union with Cuba, Mexico, and Central American states that was only published posthumously) with the following sources that could certainly be used to flesh out a history section both in this article and in the NAU article:
    • Douglas, Stephen A. (1889). Cutts, James Madison (ed.). An American continental commercial union or alliance. Washington, D.C.: T. McGill & co., printers. (Cornell Library link)
    • Continental Union Club (1891). Canada's future! : political union with the U.S. desirable : a plain argument for the consideration of thoughtful Canadians. ISBN 0665034326.(Cornell Library link)
    • Continental Union Association of Ontario (1893). Continental union; a short study of its economic side. Toronto: Hunter, Rose. (Cornell Library link)
    • Glen, Francis Wayland (1893). Continental union versus reciprocity. ISBN 066501466X. (Cornell Library link)
Even if the article itself might not have the breadth and depth of the usage of the term/concept, the term/concept itself is very much notable. — MarkH21 (talk) 08:49, 31 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note @Sheldybett: Although I agree that it should be kept, I wouldn’t say that continental union is a geographical feature if you’re using WP:NGEOGRAPHY (note the N). — MarkH21 (talk) 17:30, 4 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note @Path slopu: Although I agree that it should be kept, I wouldn’t say that continental union is a single organization. — MarkH21 (talk) 17:30, 4 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. WP is not for posting CVs, we have LinkedIn for that. Randykitty (talk) 18:32, 6 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Sultan Mahmood (social scientist)

[edit]
Sultan Mahmood (social scientist) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Not notable: fails WP:GNG and WP:PROF. AhmadLX (talk) 15:45, 30 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 16:05, 30 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 16:05, 30 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 16:05, 30 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Social science-related deletion discussions. IntoThinAir (talk) 18:04, 30 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Notability is not inherit. The Professor test mentions independent sources several times. The "Specific criteria notes" #1 includes: "Simply having authored a large number of published academic works is not considered sufficient to satisfy Criterion 1". From what I have "not found", also considering the large amount of needless and unsourced material, the subject fails the professor test so would have problems satisfying GNG. Otr500 (talk) 14:04, 5 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Randykitty (talk) 18:19, 6 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Bubby Lyons

[edit]
Bubby Lyons (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Fails WP:NPOL. Small town interim Mayor who's only coverage comes from the scandal that caused the mayor he replaced to resign. GPL93 (talk) 14:36, 30 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 15:03, 30 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Louisiana-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 15:03, 30 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 15:04, 30 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was no consensus. Randykitty (talk) 18:17, 6 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Dhvani Bhanushali

[edit]
Dhvani Bhanushali (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

This article is not meeting Notability guidelines as well as continued editing by just joined users or ip's seeming to have a link with same person. Please consider it for Deletion

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 11:35, 23 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fashion-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 11:36, 23 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 11:36, 23 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 11:36, 23 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Agree Note:

This article time to time gets edited by users who just joined to edit the content edited by us, adding unreferenced information. As this article was once deleted too , with issues like Notability, paid promotion this article should be removed and protected to not get re made unless the content is notable to be added or should be completely edited by admins.

That's why added the tag for deletion

Thank you,

Yours fellow Wikipedian Manupriy Ahluwalia 17:37, 24 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Jovanmilic97 (talk) 14:25, 30 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Randykitty (talk) 18:13, 6 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Leon Gary

[edit]
Leon Gary (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Fails WP:NPOL and WP:GNG. The sources used in this article are obits (only one of which is his), primary sources, government records, original research such as genealogy.com searches, and local newspaper articles (only one of which is actually about him). GPL93 (talk) 14:22, 30 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Louisiana-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 15:04, 30 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 15:04, 30 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 15:04, 30 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Randykitty (talk) 18:13, 6 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Winx Club (disambiguation)

[edit]
Winx Club (disambiguation) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Not an ambiguous title, since there is only one topic by this name (the TV show). Some entries (the three movies, based on the TV episodes) were recently added, but they do not apply, as the title "Winx Club" would never be used on its own for them. Hammill Ten (talk) 14:03, 30 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Italy-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 14:18, 30 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 14:18, 30 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 14:18, 30 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Disambiguations-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 14:18, 30 March 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 Bruiser (TV series). Anything sourced that is worth merging is available from the article history. Randykitty (talk) 18:11, 6 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Do you do poison?

[edit]
Do you do poison? (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

There are no secondary sources in the article, nor can I find any. Though I'm a huge fan of this recurring sketch, Bruiser is a little-known sketch show even among fans of the genre and this sketch is no different. 2 million views on YouTube (not a huge amount anyway) is not how we measure notability, unfortunately, and in particular I've had to remove the link as it's a copyright violation and Wikipedia cannot include links to copyvios.

To be notable, the sketch would have to have been discussed in reliable secondary sources (e.g. newspaper reviews). The article doesn't present any (reddit is not reliable; YouTubers are not professional reviewers; the BBC link is a primary source) and I cannot find any. — Bilorv (he/him) (talk) 13:30, 30 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. — Bilorv (he/him) (talk) 13:31, 30 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. — Bilorv (he/him) (talk) 13:31, 30 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. — Bilorv (he/him) (talk) 13:31, 30 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Either redirect to Bruiser (TV series) as it could be a viable search term or just delete altogether. I agree with the nominator that it fails WP:GNG due to lack of coverage from reliable, secondary sources. Aoba47 (talk) 16:44, 30 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Why would you delete it? There is so much useless content on Wikipedia anyway which is less important than this? That article took me three hours to make, and I'd get really annoyed if it got deleted. That's the porblem with Wikipedia. It's supposed to be a community thing but whenever people try to make articles to help they just get deleted. I'm a teenager, unlike most typical Wikipedia editors (white christian men from America/Canada, 35+), and I don't know why I would have an account unless I wanted to represent my grossly underrepresented age demographic. Anyway, why would you want to delete it? It's not like you need to. It's not like Wikipedia is running out of space! Leavepuckgackle1998 P.S even if you did delete it someone would recreate it (talk) 00:31, 31 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    Hi Leavepuckgackle1998! I understand your frustration, but Wikipedia has notability policies because we are an encyclopedia, not a collection of all information. I appreciate that you want to help but there are better ways in which you can do this. To take one, Bruiser (TV series) has just a one-sentence Reception section—can you find any newspaper reviews of the show and add a couple of quotes from them into the Reception section, adding the newspaper review URL as a reference? Alternatively, if you want to create an article and you're a Mitchell and Webb fan then I notice that Robert Webb's autobiography How Not to Be a Boy doesn't have an article yet. If you can find two newspaper reviews of the book (hint: you can) then the subject meets #1 of our notability criteria for books and thus we can have an article on it. I empathise that Wikipedia is very difficult to navigate and understand at first and there is a big learning curve but you can leave me a message at my talk page or ask a volunteer at the Teahouse for any questions you have. Thanks! — Bilorv (he/him) (talk) 01:30, 31 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • I would recommend reading the general notability guideline to better understand what makes an article have enough notability for a separate page. It mostly boils down to the question of whether or not a topic has received significant coverage from reliable, third-party sources. If you would like to defend the notability for this particular article, then feel free to either post sources here and incorporate them into the article. Wikipedia is a community and I hope you continue to edit on here in the future. And by the way, I may be an American male, but I am under the age of 35 and not a religious person at all so that stereotype is not entirely true lol. Aoba47 (talk) 01:35, 31 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Please reconsider this. There is no (or very little) actual need to delete this article. I respect your opinions, but I think there's just as much reason as there is on both sides to keep it. It is not like Wikipedia is running out of space. Delete some articles about episodes of the office, or MWWS murders or modern family or Inside No.9 if you really have to, I don't know, but please, keep this up here, or if you don't think it's not up to scratch, help improve it like the experienced editors you are. Leavepuckgackle1998 (talk) 11:06, 5 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete. Randykitty (talk) 18:07, 6 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

On Edge

[edit]
On Edge (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Article about an unsigned, shortlived high school band, presumably written by the band's founder and guitarist. Fails WP:BAND, delete per WP:DEL8. Sam Sailor 12:41, 30 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Sam Sailor 12:43, 30 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Massachusetts-related deletion discussions. Sam Sailor 12:43, 30 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 14:20, 30 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Randykitty (talk) 18:00, 6 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Lists of scientists whose names are used as SI units and non SI units

[edit]
Lists of scientists whose names are used as SI units and non SI units (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Redundant page which only contains two lists which are stated in the page's name.The73 (talk)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 14:19, 30 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 14:19, 30 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Warning: complex argument incoming.
Lists of scientists whose names are used as SI units and non SI units is a list containing two other lists:
I propose Lists of scientists whose names are used as SI units and non SI units be renamed List of scientists whose names are used as units.
Then, merge the content from the two aforementioned sub-lists into List of scientists whose names are used as units and redirect them both to it.
I don't see the reason to fork the two lists out, quite frankly.
So, I guess a complex merge is my !vote.
SITH (talk) 15:26, 30 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, followed either by merge of the two affected articles as suggested above, or interlinking them with hatnotes. While there is easily enough material to exist as two separate articles, it's not actually essential; one article with two subsections would do the job just fine. If two articles are wanted, they can reference each other clearly by a number of available means (including just a prominent WL in the lede). This somewhat awkward mini-dab is needed in neither case. --Elmidae (talk · contribs) 16:37, 30 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete and then support merge. No reason to separate the two lists. Reywas92Talk 05:46, 31 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete this article. Support merge suggestion by nominator. Ajf773 (talk) 08:24, 31 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Disambiguations-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 07:33, 1 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was soft delete. WP:REFUND applies. Randykitty (talk) 17:54, 6 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

European Students Conference

[edit]
European Students Conference (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Non-notable student conference. A Gnews search throws up few entries, most of them on sites which explicitly republish press releases. BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 10:47, 30 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 11:40, 30 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 11:40, 30 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Germany-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 11:40, 30 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 07:22, 1 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. Randykitty (talk) 17:53, 6 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Sammy Lunn

[edit]
Sammy Lunn (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Lunn fails WP:NFOOTBALL having never played in a FPL or senior international football. He also fails WP:GNG. Dougal18 (talk) 08:25, 30 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Ceethekreator (talk) 09:11, 30 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. Ceethekreator (talk) 09:11, 30 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. Ceethekreator (talk) 09:11, 30 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Ireland-related deletion discussions. Ceethekreator (talk) 09:11, 30 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Northern Ireland-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 10:35, 30 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions.CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 10:35, 30 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was soft delete. WP:REFUND applies. North America1000 09:15, 6 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Merjen Ishangulyyeva

[edit]
Merjen Ishangulyyeva (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Fails WP:NSPORTS and WP:GNG. Ymblanter (talk) 07:54, 30 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Kazakhstan-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 08:07, 30 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 08:07, 30 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 08:07, 30 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Central Asia-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 08:07, 30 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Randykitty (talk) 17:01, 6 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

William Mackenzie Davidson

[edit]
William Mackenzie Davidson (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Mayor of a town of 1,000 people fails WP:NPOL, no further assertion of notability Reywas92Talk 06:31, 30 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 06:34, 30 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Louisiana-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 06:34, 30 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Mississippi-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 06:36, 30 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 06:36, 30 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Randykitty (talk) 17:00, 6 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

J. H. Netterville

[edit]
J. H. Netterville (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Unclear what the assertion of notability even is. No substantive independent sources to pass GNG Reywas92Talk 06:26, 30 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. CASSIOPEIA(talk) 06:28, 30 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Louisiana-related deletion discussions. CASSIOPEIA(talk) 06:28, 30 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Mississippi-related deletion discussions. CASSIOPEIA(talk) 06:28, 30 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 08:15, 30 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Randykitty (talk) 16:57, 6 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Edwin G. Preis

[edit]
Edwin G. Preis (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Mayor of town of 1,000 people fails WP:NPOL. Family-written obituary is not valid source to pass GNG Reywas92Talk 06:19, 30 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 06:25, 30 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Louisiana-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 06:25, 30 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 06:25, 30 March 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. TheSandDoctor Talk 06:42, 6 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Mike Nerren

[edit]
AfDs for this article:
Mike Nerren (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Non-notable local judge who fails WP:NPOL. Pinging non-banned, non-IP voters in last AFD @WilliamJE: @Power~enwiki: @Mike Christie: Reywas92Talk 05:59, 30 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Law-related deletion discussions. CASSIOPEIA(talk) 06:26, 30 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Louisiana-related deletion discussions. CASSIOPEIA(talk) 06:26, 30 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 06:27, 30 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was soft delete. WP:REFUND applies. Randykitty (talk) 16:56, 6 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Imsai Arasan 24th Pulikecei

[edit]
Imsai Arasan 24th Pulikecei (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

The project got shelved mid-way through shoot (https://newstodaynet.com/index.php/2019/03/06/vadivelu-to-act-in-horror-comedy-pei-mama/). Kailash29792 (talk) 03:27, 30 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. Sheldybett (talk) 03:50, 30 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Sheldybett (talk) 03:50, 30 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Randykitty (talk) 16:54, 6 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Cuts Plus Two

[edit]
Cuts Plus Two (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Fails WP:NMUSIC. No indepth coverage in RS. Just Chilling (talk) 01:22, 30 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Sheldybett (talk) 03:52, 30 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. Sheldybett (talk) 03:52, 30 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. Sheldybett (talk) 03:52, 30 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Randykitty (talk) 16:53, 6 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Drishya Raghunath

[edit]
Drishya Raghunath (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Actress who falls under too soon (if ever), so far just 2 roles and that is it, not sure how big either role is either. Wgolf (talk) 00:41, 23 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 00:42, 23 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 00:42, 23 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 00:43, 23 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 00:45, 23 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Not much notable, only few mentions in the news. total three movies QueerEcofeminist "cite! even if you fight"!!! [they/them/their] 17:01, 23 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Natg 19 (talk) 00:52, 30 March 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. ~ Amory (u • t • c) 09:46, 6 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Upfiring

[edit]


Upfiring (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Cryptocurrency that's not notable. Їис́єӏ (talk) 00:37, 30 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 06:27, 30 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 06:28, 30 March 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. After being relisted once and garnering a handful of comments, the clear consensus is that she is notable. Willthacheerleader18 also makes a good point. (non-admin closure) Dusti*Let's talk!* 08:14, 6 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Margaret Sarfo

[edit]
Margaret Sarfo (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Two obituaries (from her employer) and a passing mention ("The rest are..."); WP:BEFORE run on both names, "Margaret Sarfo" and "Peggy Oppong", nothing but social media, sales sites & her employer's obituary - not notable. Cabayi (talk) 19:37, 23 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. Cabayi (talk) 19:38, 23 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Ghana-related deletion discussions. Cabayi (talk) 19:38, 23 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 08:17, 25 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Natg 19 (talk) 00:33, 30 March 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.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Log/2019_March_30&oldid=1142613476"