Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2019 March 31

Recent AfDs: Today Yesterday

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

< 30 March	1 April >

Guide to deletion

Purge server cache

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

The result was merge to Fremantle Australia. Drmies (talk) 01:36, 7 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Crackerjack Productions edit

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

Non-notable defunct company; lacks significant coverage in independent reliable sources, failing WP:ORG / WP:GNG. The many series produced are themselves notable, but Australian division of larger company does not currently merit separate page. Only mentions of the company in news sources, not significant coverage. Moreover, 2002 lawsuit does not meet Wikipedia notability standards. -- Wikipedical (talk) 23:57, 31 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. Ceethekreator (talk) 00:14, 1 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Ceethekreator (talk) 00:14, 1 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. Ceethekreator (talk) 00:14, 1 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Merge and redirect to Fremantle Australia, its superceding organisation. Not notable in its own right but it is a likely search term and does deserve some due weight content. Aoziwe (talk) 11:33, 1 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Fremantle Australia, as per Aoziwe, the organisation it s non-notable in its own right, even the 2002 lawsuit which failing to meet the notability standards. Sheldybett (talk) 00:12, 2 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I can find some sources, but probably not enough to meet WP:ORGCRIT. I think that its founders, Mark and Carl Fennessy, probably are notable, with a long article about them in the Financial Review in 2017 [1], and other articles I found on Trove but haven't seen yet - in the Australasian Business Intelligence in 2010, 'Creative pair shine through at local launch' [2] and again in 2011 'Chance for brothers to shine overseas' [3]; in Inside Film: If in 2008, 'Take Two: Mark and Carl' [4]; and they're included in the Sydney Morning Herald 's 2015 'The Big 30: Australian television's power brokers, innovators and influencers' [5], etc. So, ideally I would probably say merge Crackerjack Productions to Mark and Carl Fennessy - when someone writes that article. Fremantle Australia is a possible merger target for now - although that article has been tagged for reliance on primary sources and being written like an ad for some years, and gives undue weight to Grundy. Having a section on Crackerjack in the Fremantle Australia article would probably help to balance it. (I haven't checked journal databases yet for Crackerjack Productions, so if I find more sources, I will come back.) RebeccaGreen (talk) 12:10, 2 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Merge and redirect to Fremantle Australia Sparebug (talk) 00:58, 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. Drmies (talk) 01:36, 7 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Professional Self-Care edit

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

This article should be deleted per WP:NOTESSAY as this article is structured like a personal essay. -KAP03(^{Talk • Contributions • Email}) 23:21, 31 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - as current content doesn't have any encyclopedic value, its more of a blog entry. QueerEcofeminist^{"cite! even if you fight"!!!} [they/them/their] 17:21, 1 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Health and fitness-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 01:56, 2 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, WP:NOTESSAY, looks like notes for a tutorial/presentation. Coolabahapple (talk) 02:01, 2 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - ,The article is not encyclopedic Alex-h (talk) 19:09, 2 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

Delete - Umm what?? Where to begin... It's written as though it is a brochure / pamphlet. Not at all encyclopedic. I'm not even sure what the topic is actually supposed to be? Not to mention the WP:TNT that would be required to salvage it even if the topic were notable. Jmertel23 (talk) 01:11, 4 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

delete agree with above reasons. Sparebug (talk) 01:00, 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. Note: "keep" a decade ago was already tenuous by current standards. Drmies (talk) 01:37, 7 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The Newtones edit

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

Student musical group that doesn't meet WP:BAND: highest award was regional semifinalist in student competitions per WP:MUSIC; one of a long list of student groups included on a Ben Folds album of student a capella. I can find no significant coverage of them online in WP:RS, and they're barely mentioned in a Google site search of their school's website. Flapjacktastic (talk) 08:24, 17 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Flapjacktastic (talk) 08:26, 17 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Massachusetts-related deletion discussions. Flapjacktastic (talk) 08:26, 17 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 13:25, 24 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, 78.26 _{(spin me / revolutions)} 22:43, 31 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete a non-notable high school band.John Pack Lambert (talk) 17:56, 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. Drmies (talk) 01:38, 7 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Monte J. Brough edit

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

Per source searches, this subject is not in congruence with WP:BASIC. Some coverage exists, but not finding two sources that provide significant biographical coverage about the subject. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 12:47, 24 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 12:48, 24 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 12:48, 24 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Utah-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 12:48, 24 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, 78.26 _{(spin me / revolutions)} 22:43, 31 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Per Nom. There is just not enough notability. Just being a General authority or a member of the First Quorum of the Seventy, Second Quorum of the Seventy, or the President of the Seventy is not sufficient to garner enough attention in reliable independent sources for a stand alone article. Otr500 (talk) 10:58, 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. Note: a "keep" without evidence is not much help. Drmies (talk) 01:39, 7 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Vaughn J. Featherstone edit

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

Does not meet WP:BASIC, as per source searches. Not to be disrespectful, but the only real coverage found is about the subject's death, making this a WP:BLP1E situation as well. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 11:41, 24 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 11:42, 24 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 11:42, 24 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Utah-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 11:42, 24 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, 78.26 _{(spin me / revolutions)} 22:42, 31 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as per nomination.TH1980 (talk) 02:58, 1 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep While minimal coverage is available online, he was an important figure in the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints. Trevanbaxter (talk) 02:58, 1 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment – The minimal coverage available about the subject is why he does not qualify for an article. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 08:46, 1 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

If he was an important LDS figure, is there any more coverage of him? Say, in print? DS (talk) 17:11, 5 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Being an important figure in the Church, General authority, or even a First Quorum of the Seventy does not provide inherent notability. In fact, the sources, the Ensign and Deseret News, are both owned by the LDS making them Primary sources , that certainly would be questionable as far as NPOV is concerned. Otr500 (talk) 00:51, 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 soft delete. WP:REFUND applies. — JJMC89 (T·C) 02:07, 7 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Stephen W. Owen edit

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

Per due diligence WP:BEFORE searches, this subject does not meet WP:BASIC. Quotations, passing mentions and event announcements do not qualify notability, nor do the many primary sources in the article. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 11:35, 24 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 11:35, 24 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 11:36, 24 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Utah-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 11:36, 24 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, 78.26 _{(spin me / revolutions)} 22:42, 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 soft delete. WP:REFUND applies. — JJMC89 (T·C) 23:27, 7 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Lark in the Morning edit

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

Fails WP:NORG. Cannot find any reliable secondary sources to establish notability of subject. Rogermx (talk) 22:22, 31 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 01:50, 2 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 01:50, 2 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. ~ Amory (u • t • c) 09:08, 2 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. ~ Amory (u • t • c) 09:08, 2 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete on acccount of subject failing WP:NORG. Nothing in books, and almost no online hits aside from primary sources and the eponymous folk song. -The Gnome (talk) 09:57, 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. Drmies (talk) 01:41, 7 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Ryszard Praszkier edit

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

Promotional autobiography of an academic. Currently zero secondary sources. Does not appear to pass WP:NACADEMIC. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 22:15, 31 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 22:15, 31 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Doesn't appear to pass WP:PROF or WP:AUTHOR; Wikipedia is not a CV host. XOR'easter (talk) 14:39, 1 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Poland-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 01:47, 2 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Hungary-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 01:47, 2 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete references are supposed to be about a person, not by them.John Pack Lambert (talk) 05:04, 2 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. One co-authored book with 100+ cites. All other works at <20 cites. No awards or coverage by independent sources. PS. Note that his article will remain on Polish Wikipedia, as Polish Wikipedia's equivalent of PROF states that habilitation is generally sufficient for an academic bio to be notable. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 07:04, 2 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I cited an independent review of the co-authored book in this article but an editor using the name of the subject removed it, leaving the article with no citations to independent sources. I buggered if I'm going to look for further sources in these circumstances. Phil Bridger (talk) 17:49, 5 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 18:44, 5 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I couldn't really find anything to show where this specific Ryszard Praszkier is notable. He received one review, but this isn't enough by itself to establish notability. His work is occasionally cited, but not enough to where I'd say he could really establish notability per NPROF. To be honest, most of the time when I did pull up this name it was referring to Richard Prasquier, who was born the same year and was originally called Ryszard Praszkier before he changed his name. On that note, if/when this is deleted I would recommend turning this into a redirect to his article since it does seem like there are one or two places that do use his birth name. ReaderofthePack(formerly Tokyogirl79) (｡◕‿◕｡) 00:05, 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 keep. Drmies (talk) 01:42, 7 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Maggi Parker edit

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

Actress whose sole credit was on Hawaii 5-0. Now she did appear in a in several episodes, so if not a delete, a redirect to Hawaii Five-O (1968 TV series) would be the best. (I think actually a redirect be better then a delete) Wgolf (talk) 21:40, 31 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Ceethekreator (talk) 22:09, 31 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Ceethekreator (talk) 22:09, 31 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. Ceethekreator (talk) 22:09, 31 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. Ceethekreator (talk) 22:09, 31 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of New Hampshire-related deletion discussions. Ceethekreator (talk) 22:09, 31 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Hawaii Five-O (1968 TV series)#Characters where she gets a mention. How did an unsourced (except imdb) BLP article survive 12 years, with personal info about her life added by an IP in 2011? PamD 12:19, 1 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete a few appearances in one TV show does not make someone notable.John Pack Lambert (talk) 04:47, 2 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep She meets WP:GNG with significant coverage about her: in 1968, by Dick Kleiner of the NEA, 'Meet Maggi Parker - Sharp Lady Makes the Most of Life', eg published in the Philadelphia Daily News [6]; by Bert Darr in the Honolulu Advertiser, 'Pretty Maggi Parker - A Schoolmarm Prefers TV' [7]; by Marilyn Beck in the Baltimore Sun, 'Gal Friday in Paradise' [8]; in 1969, by Michele Bujold in the Nashua Telegraph, 'Former Area Teacher Stars on TV' [9]; and in TV Guide, Jan 18, 1969, 'She'll Act Anywhere ... As Long as It's in Hawaii', republished in The Hawaii Five-O Newsletter [10]; plus other shorter articles. These long articles provide information such as her birth name (Marjorie Parker), her father's name, where she studied, where she taught, etc, so the article can be expanded and referenced to reliable, independent sources. RebeccaGreen (talk) 13:46, 2 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per RebeccaGreen. But article needs some serious work. -- Willthacheerleader18 (talk) 18:27, 4 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as per the multiple references to significant reliable sources coverage identified above so that WP:GNG is passed independently of WP:NACTOR Atlantic306 (talk) 21:46, 6 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Comment-the problem mainly is how the article was for just one role, looks like she might be notable though. Well I can't withdraw it. (Though I was more leaning for just a redirect). Wgolf (talk) 01:05, 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 redirect to List of English cricketers (1826–1840). Ad Orientem (talk) 01:02, 8 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hillingston (English cricketer) edit

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

I suppose technically this might meet WP:NOTCRICKET since it claims he appeared in one first-class match; however, name is unknown, dates of birth and death are unknown, where he's from is unknown, his handedness is unknown, and his bowling style is unknown. I don't see any value in keeping this article. Schazjmd (talk) 21:00, 31 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Ceethekreator (talk) 22:12, 31 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. Ceethekreator (talk) 22:12, 31 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Cricket-related deletion discussions. Ceethekreator (talk) 22:12, 31 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. Ceethekreator (talk) 22:12, 31 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Impossible to verify such person existed. The only reference is to a subscription only site. Ajf773 (talk) 22:17, 31 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to List of English cricketers (1826–1840) with a note added to that page that he played in one match for the A-K side. This is per the discussion at Talk:Chitty (cricketer) and subsequent AfD such as Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/J. James (1814 cricketer).

He is also listed on CricInfo, but there is no additional information. Searches in likely spots - Wisden, The Times archive, alumni. camb. etc... show up nothing at all. So ultimately we have a surname and an appearance on a single scorecard and nothing else. In those circumstances I think it's extremely unlikely that we'll ever be able to build a biography of any kind or to show the sorts of sourcing required to meet standards. If research ever finds anything on him then we can reverse the redirect. Blue Square Thing (talk) 08:48, 1 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Just to add that nobody with this surname appears in any GB censuses of the 19th century. You can assume this is either a non-de-plume or a scorecard error for good measure Topcardi (talk) 18:30, 1 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - in a perfect world, there would be lists of players for all first-class teams - including those without county names and those from outside England. Assuming we are planning to pick and choose articles out of thin air in spite of citable secondary source material, there would be an article for List of A to K cricketers and capacity for a redirect. Barton (A to K cricketer) and Beauclerk (A to K cricketer) also played in this match. Otherwise we may just as well make "Doesn't have a first-name listed" an official inclusion criterion.

In the meantime, while we are busy looking up lesser first-class cricketers from the 19th century, there are still dozens of Test cricketers with no secondary sources listed - let alone those who do. Bobo . 00:14, 2 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment, is he mentioned in the bible of cricketer? if not, then this should be deleted. Coolabahapple (talk) 01:43, 2 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to List of English cricketers (1826–1840), but retain categories please! (see below comment). StickyWicket (talk) 14:21, 7 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. I've been tending to redirect these to lists/team pages, while leaving categories so they still appear on the team category page, though I'm unsure if this is allowed. I'm mainly keeping the categories for my side-project of recording actual numbers for first-class teams in England, with the loss of categories making this a difficult task! StickyWicket (talk) 14:21, 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. Drmies (talk) 01:42, 7 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

D A Huerta1408 edit

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

Fails WP:N. Jeffrey Beall (talk) 20:40, 31 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - cannot find any notable sources and fails WP:BASIC. D A Huerta1408 seems to have created the article for themselves. Meszzy² (talk) 22:12, 31 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Ceethekreator (talk) 22:14, 31 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. Ceethekreator (talk) 22:14, 31 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Kansas-related deletion discussions. Ceethekreator (talk) 22:14, 31 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Delete seems promotional. One request: if the decision is to keep, please move it to an appropriate name and not the original editor’s handle. MensanDeltiologist (talk) 22:22, 31 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete Wikipedia is not a free web hosting server for self-promotion. Promotional in nature and violates WP:ADV and WP:COI of course, but the sources to the article are nowhere near the independent third party references we require. This article then, in my view, violates the policy WP:BLP and should be deleted at once.--Paul McDonald (talk) 01:36, 1 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete- promotional article about himself [username], doesn't pass WP:SINGER or WP:N. ___CAPTAIN MEDUSAtalk 18:22, 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. Drmies (talk) 01:43, 7 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Barry Dugan edit

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

Non-notable county politician, fails WP:NPOL Rusf10 (talk) 19:42, 31 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. Ceethekreator (talk) 22:16, 31 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of New Jersey-related deletion discussions. Ceethekreator (talk) 22:16, 31 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete a non-notable local politician. We seem to have way too many of these articles on New Jersey politicians.John Pack Lambert (talk) 18:28, 1 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete part of a walled garden of non-notable local NJ politicians. Legacypac (talk) 05:04, 2 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Serving on a county board of freeholders is not a role that automatically passes WP:NPOL, but the amount of coverage shown here is not even close to enough to get him over WP:GNG in lieu. Bearcat (talk) 21:25, 2 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Fails NPOL, fails gngJacona (talk) 17:04, 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. Drmies (talk) 01:43, 7 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Ashley Bennett edit

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

Non-notable county politician, fails WP:NPOL]. Exclusively local coverage with the exception of a brief mention in an article about the women's march. Rusf10 (talk) 19:41, 31 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. Ceethekreator (talk) 22:17, 31 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of New Jersey-related deletion discussions. Ceethekreator (talk) 22:17, 31 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Fails WP:NPOL. Seems like a WP:BIO1E situation. Best, GPL93 (talk) 13:47, 1 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 01:38, 2 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Serving on a county board of freeholders is not a role that automatically passes WP:NPOL, but the amount of coverage shown here is not enough to make her a special case of greater notability than most other freeholders. Three represent a momentary WP:BLP1E blip for the human interest aspect of her initial election to office, two are just glancing namechecks of her existence in articles that aren't about her to any non-trivial degree, and the last is just a videoclip of her speaking. This is not enough sourcing to get a county freeholder into Wikipedia. Bearcat (talk) 21:24, 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 keep. Drmies (talk) 01:44, 7 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Lucio Fernandez edit

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

Non-notable local politician, does not pass WP:NPOL nor does he pass WP:ENT as the awards he has won are not notable. Coverage is limited to local sources. Rusf10 (talk) 19:37, 31 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. Ceethekreator (talk) 22:21, 31 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of New Jersey-related deletion discussions. Ceethekreator (talk) 22:21, 31 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The subject has received significant press coverage, as indicated by the 41 citations of secondary, reliable sources in the article, which means that he meets both WP:NPOL and WP:GNG. Nightscream (talk) 00:04, 1 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

All politicians receive local press coverage. 41 citations from local newspapers doesn't really mean much.--Rusf10 (talk) 02:21, 1 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Entertainer, artist, author, singer, actor, dancer, playwright, screenwriter, producer and film director.Djflem (talk) 09:45, 1 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Not notable for any of those things. We have a guideline, its WP:ENT--Rusf10 (talk) 14:20, 1 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Theatre-related deletion discussions. Enos733 (talk) 16:10, 2 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. Enos733 (talk) 16:10, 2 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I think the question here is whether the subject passes WP:ENT for their overall work and creative work. The subject has one notable nomination (going toward WP:ANYBIO) and has a nice profile in NJ.com from 2010. As a creative professional, the subject is the author of several plays. While I found several profiles of the subject in NJ and NY media organizations, I was not able to find anything that goes beyond local coverage. --Enos733 (talk) 16:36, 2 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. GNG is not just counting up the footnotes and keeping anything that passes some arbitrary number: it also takes into account factors like the depth of coverage that each source represents, the geographic range of where the sources are coming from, and the context of what the sources are covering him for. Any local political figure, for example, is simply and routinely expected to be able to show some local media coverage — but local political figures are not all automatically accepted as notable, so showing the existence of some local media coverage is not a "get out of WP:NPOL free" card in and of itself. And local creatives are also pretty routinely expected to get some coverage in the local media too, so it takes more than just the expected local media coverage to get them over WP:CREATIVE too — some of the arts awards could be notability claims if the coverage of him in that context were going above and beyond the purely local, but none of them are so "inherently" notable as to guarantee him an article just because his local newspaper gave him some "local guy does stuff" human interest coverage. To be notable for either of those things, his reliable source coverage would have to expand considerably beyond just Union City/Hudson County (and I mean more considerably than just the other side of the Hudson River, to boot, so the two Broadway World cites aren't the magic ticket either.) But every single source here that's even attempting to go any further than spitting distance from Union City is a primary source or a blog. This may look like enough volume, but it isn't enough range or depth or context, to get a figure of "local to a single city" notability into an international encyclopedia. Bearcat (talk) 21:08, 2 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep In addition to the 40+ references in the article (just a couple include [11], [12] ), there are others not in the article that demonstrate WP:GNG including Cuban Top 10, Wall Street Journal. There are also many Spanish language sources for instance [13]. There are plenty of trashy articles of questionable notability, especially in the US state of New Jersey. This one isn't one of them.Jacona (talk) 12:22, 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. Drmies (talk) 01:44, 7 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Gary Blackmer edit

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

Fails WP:NPOL, appointed head of a division within the Oregon Secretary of State's office. A search didn't really turn up any coverage that would establish WP:GNG GPL93 (talk) 19:26, 31 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. Ceethekreator (talk) 23:22, 31 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Oregon-related deletion discussions. Ceethekreator (talk) 23:22, 31 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete divisions chiefs of state offices are just plain not notable.John Pack Lambert (talk) 04:31, 2 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. "Head of the Audits Division of the Oregon Secretary of State's office" is not a role that confers an automatic WP:NPOL pass, but this is not referenced anything like well enough to get him over WP:GNG in lieu. Bearcat (talk) 20:52, 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 delete. Drmies (talk) 01:44, 7 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Fariborz Pakseresht edit

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

Doesn't appear to pass WP:NPOL or WP:GNG. Appointed head of a state agency who's only real coverage is either related more towards the Oregon Department of Human Services than the subject himself or about him replacing the previous DHS director. GPL93 (talk) 19:24, 31 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. Ceethekreator (talk) 09:19, 1 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Oregon-related deletion discussions. Ceethekreator (talk) 09:19, 1 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Heading the Oregon Department of Human Services could get him an article if he could be referenced well enough to clear WP:GNG, but it is not "inherently" notable enough to entitle him to an article that relies entirely on primary sources and glancing namechecks of his existence in coverage of other people. Bearcat (talk) 17:53, 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 soft delete. WP:REFUND applies. — JJMC89 (T·C) 23:26, 7 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Norby Telecom edit

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

Does not appear to meet WP:CORPDEPTH. SITH (talk) 19:20, 31 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. Ceethekreator (talk) 23:29, 31 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Ceethekreator (talk) 23:29, 31 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Europe-related deletion discussions. Ceethekreator (talk) 23:29, 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 delete. Drmies (talk) 01:45, 7 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Franklin Darmadi edit

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

Film director I have tried to find info for. So far has just done 2 films (last one was over 10 years ago), only one even has a Wikipedia page. If he continued directing he might be notable. But so far I can't find it. Wgolf (talk) 19:18, 31 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Cannot find any sources on him so it looks like he fails WP:BASIC. Meszzy² (talk) 21:38, 31 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Ceethekreator (talk) 22:19, 31 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. Ceethekreator (talk) 22:19, 31 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Indonesia-related deletion discussions. Ceethekreator (talk) 22:19, 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. Drmies (talk) 01:45, 7 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Rohit Verma edit

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

For a purported fashion designer, article is more focused on TV and film appearances which generally appear minor. Sourcing is limited at best, with no really strong sources demonstrating notability. I'm not seeing how WP:NACTOR or WP:GNG is being met, even after some searching. Ravensfire (talk) 19:07, 31 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Ravensfire (talk) 19:08, 31 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Ravensfire (talk) 19:08, 31 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sexuality and gender-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 09:47, 1 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 09:48, 1 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fashion-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 09:48, 1 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete a non-notable fashion designer.John Pack Lambert (talk) 05:03, 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 delete. Drmies (talk) 01:46, 7 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Conor Hearn edit

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

A 30-year-old player with 6 WP:NFOOTY games and no coverage to satisfy WP:GNG. Conor Hearn (SW) played 6 games in 2013 in the third-tier USL Pro. Search results return routine game reports. Leviv ich 19:01, 31 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Leviv ich 19:02, 31 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. Leviv ich 19:02, 31 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Leviv ich 19:02, 31 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. Leviv ich 19:02, 31 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Leviv ich 19:06, 31 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Nom consulted me prior to nomination. Per his LinkedIn (which doesn't quite match Soccerway in terms of date brackets) was in Orange Country soccer club concurrent to being a high school coach, and has since retired (from 2016 at least).[14] Per Soccerway played in 6 games. A few passing mentions in match reports (which by themselves - are fairly hard to come by for this team in 2013). NFOOTY merely creates a presumption of notability, however in this case the subjects quite clearly does not meet GNG. Absent independent, reliable, in-depth sources this should be deleted. Icewhiz (talk) 06:23, 1 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - fails WP:GNG; technically meets WP:NFOOTBALL, but there is past consensus at AFD that failing GNG is more important. Giant Snowman 07:49, 1 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Article about footballer who made a few appearances in the third level of US soccer but is not the subject of significant coverage in reliable sources. I found a handful of match reports and a signing announcement - nothing more than a name-drop. Jogurney (talk) 15:08, 1 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete It is high time we started deleting articles on people who clearly fail the GNG.John Pack Lambert (talk) 04:23, 2 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Fails "Basic criteria" ("A person is presumed to be notable if they have been the subject of multiple published non-trivial secondary sources which are reliable, intellectually independent, and independent of the subject.") of Wikipedia:Notability (sports) so obviously would fail WP:GNG. WP:NFOOTBALL appears (or is sometimes argued) to give a lessor notability requirement, with a presumption (presumed notable) but #1 states: "The notability of these is accepted as they would have received significant coverage as outlined above in the general notability criteria.", If this does not hold up to scrutiny then it would defer to the general notability criteria so is not in conflict. WP:SPORTSPERSON (Wikipedia:Notability (people) states: "...so is likely to have received significant coverage in reliable secondary sources that are independent of the subject.". A "presumption" does not equate to inherent or even de facto notability (both a form of intrinsic notability), but still relies on the availability of significant coverage, and I can't see anyone legitimately arguing this to mean "no" or even "one" source. I feel it is hard not to run afoul of What Wikipedia is not (a policy) and Neutral point of view (also a policy and part of the Five pillars) if we settle for anything less than "worthy of notice". Otr500 (talk) 06:02, 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. Drmies (talk) 01:47, 7 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Michael Earman edit

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

A 32-year-old player with 4 WP:NFOOTY games and no coverage to satisfy WP:GNG. Michael Earman (SW) played 4 games in 2012 in the third-tier USL Pro league for 68 minutes total. Search results return routine game reports and brief mentions. Leviv ich 19:00, 31 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Leviv ich 19:01, 31 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. Leviv ich 19:01, 31 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Leviv ich 19:01, 31 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of North Carolina-related deletion discussions. Leviv ich 19:01, 31 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Ohio-related deletion discussions. Leviv ich 19:01, 31 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Leviv ich 19:06, 31 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Consulted by nom prior to nomination. Single season, in which he made 4 sub appearances (68 minutes total),[15] for the Dayton Dutch Lions (avg. attendance 699). Per his LinkedIn page following this season he changed professions to brewing.[16] While he does have a passing mention here (mere namedrop in a list), and a few bits of coverage on his college play, he is not even close to passing GNG. NFOOTY merely creates a presumption of notability, which in this case is rather clearly not met. Icewhiz (talk) 06:10, 1 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - fails WP:GNG; technically meets WP:NFOOTBALL, but barely, and there is past consensus at AFD that that is insufficient. Giant Snowman 07:48, 1 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per failure to meet GNG. Nothing beyond pretty trivial mentions on searching for sources. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs^(talk) 19:14, 3 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Article about non-notable footballer who made a handful of substitute's appearances for a second-tier US soccer club. Online coverage is routine and doesn't indicate the article can pass the GNG. Jogurney (talk) 14:35, 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. Drmies (talk) 01:47, 7 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Lewis Howes edit

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

questionable sourcing, does not meet notability threshold BodegaBiscuit (talk) 18:56, 31 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. Ceethekreator (talk) 09:24, 1 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. Ceethekreator (talk) 09:24, 1 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. Ceethekreator (talk) 09:24, 1 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Ohio-related deletion discussions. Ceethekreator (talk) 09:24, 1 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - seems like a mostly self promotional article with most sources being blogs or other simple lists, quotes or mentions that are not first-tier sources nor profiles of the subject himself. 2600:387:6:80D:0:0:0:70 (talk) 19:04, 31 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - self-promotional article. Very weak sourcing much of which is misleading and barely mentions the subject. 50.245.177.163 (talk) 19:25, 2 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - it is not notable and promotional which likes an advertisement for then brand.Serendipity1201 (talk) 03:14, 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. Drmies (talk) 01:48, 7 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hugh MacDonald (soccer) edit

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

A 33-year-old player with no WP:NFOOTY game appearances and no coverage to satisfy WP:GNG. Hugh MacDonald was signed in 2007 by the Major League Soccer team MetroStars (now called Red Bulls) but released a few months later with no first team appearances. Search results returning the team's signing announcement and release announcement amid a couple other passing mentions. Leviv ich 18:47, 31 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Leviv ich 18:48, 31 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. Leviv ich 18:48, 31 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Leviv ich 18:48, 31 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of New Jersey-related deletion discussions. Leviv ich 18:48, 31 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. Leviv ich 18:48, 31 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Virginia-related deletion discussions. Leviv ich 18:48, 31 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Leviv ich 19:05, 31 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Consulted by nom prior to nomination. Was not drafted after college. Signed to a contract, but never played as a pro, so fails NFOOTY. While the very common name makes searching difficult, does not seem to pass GNG (and sources in the article definitely do not establish GNG). Seems he retired from play is coaching at Monmouth university. Icewhiz (talk) 05:59, 1 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - fails WP:GNG and WP:NFOOTBALL. Giant Snowman 07:47, 1 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete it is realy time we had more stringent notability rules for soccer players.John Pack Lambert (talk) 04:34, 2 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

This individual clearly fails those notability requirements and the article will doubtless be deleted, so not sure what the relevance of this comment is here. Jellyman (talk) 07:11, 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 delete. Drmies (talk) 01:48, 7 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Jason Stenta edit

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

A 32-year-old player with 2 WP:NFOOTY games and no coverage to satisfy WP:GNG. Jason Stenta (SW) played 2 games in 2010 in the third-tier USL Second Division; all other experience is in the fourth-tier, non-WP:FPL leagues USL PDL and National Premier Soccer League. Search results returning only routine game reports. Leviv ich 18:44, 31 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Leviv ich 18:44, 31 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. Leviv ich 18:44, 31 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Leviv ich 18:44, 31 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Michigan-related deletion discussions. Leviv ich 18:44, 31 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. Leviv ich 18:44, 31 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Pennsylvania-related deletion discussions. Leviv ich 18:44, 31 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Leviv ich 19:05, 31 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Consulted by nom prior to nomination. Kalamazoo Outrage was not in a fully professional leagues, and nor is GBFC Thunder. The two games for Pittsburgh Riverhounds (back in 2010 - in USL2) probably were. However, this player rather clearly fails WP:GNG. It is not even clear if he is still playing or not. Absent independent, reliable sources establishing notability this should be deleted. Icewhiz (talk) 05:49, 1 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - fails WP:GNG and WP:NFOOTBALL. Giant Snowman 07:47, 1 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete we are finally making a little progress against Wikipedia's overabundance of articles on non-notable footballers. I still find it problematic that the birth year category that is the biggest is the one for 1989.John Pack Lambert (talk) 04:37, 2 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I agree. scope_creep^Talk 22:04, 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. Drmies (talk) 01:49, 7 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

David E. Tolchinsky edit

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

Highly advertorialized WP:BLP of a person whose claims of notability are not reliably sourced. The only references here are IMDb and a deadlinked primary source press release from one of his own former employers, not real media coverage, and until I cleaned it up for WP:ELNO compliance just now, the article was otherwise a stank nest of offsite links to the self-published websites of organizations and people named in the article. As always, however, the inclusion test on Wikipedia is not what the article says, but how well it references what it says -- people are very highly prone to making inflated self-promotional claims of notability about themselves, so the inclusion test requires real media coverage to independently verify that the notability claims are actually true, and is not passed just because of what the subject claims in his own self-published sourcing about himself. Bearcat (talk) 18:21, 31 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Tolchinsky's page should not be deleted -- a prominent Northwestern University professor, a graduate of Yale and USC, and his films have been seen on iTunes and various festivals and have won awards. He's been written about in The Chicago Tribune, The New York Times, Broadway World, Splash, the Village Voice, and others. Tried to delete unverifiable statements and added verifiable references; but could use some help with proper formatting for those references. This article should be expanded. MegaAguirre —Preceding undated comment added 05:57, 1 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Far, far too much of what you've added is still primary sourcing that does not count as support for notability at all — for instance, a person is not notable as a film producer just because the film is on iTunes as referenced to iTunes, or because he has an IMDb profile, or because he has a staff profile on the self-published website of his employer, or because he's been written about on blogs. And the only New York Times citation you've added here is not an article about him, but an article about furniture design in which he gets briefly namechecked as a giver of soundbite about chairs — so that's not a source that supports his notability either. Newspaper articles do not automatically support personal notability just because he gave a quote to a journalist in an article about something other than himself — newspaper articles support notability by being about him as a subject.

You've only added two sources that are doing anything at all in terms of establishing his notability, Broadway World and The Daily Northwestern — but Broadway World is "covering" him only in the context of winning the Best Director award at a minor local theatre festival that isn't notable enough to be the notability claim that gets its award winners into Wikipedia in and of itself, and The Daily Northwestern is a university student newspaper. So they're not nothing, but they're not enough — and not a single other source in the entire article besides those two is worth anything at all. Bearcat (talk) 21:41, 1 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Bearcat, Passes WP:PROF if he held a named chair at NW.-TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 23:46, 1 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

He wasn't named chair. He is full Professor and was Founding Director and Department Chair. --Theredproject (talk) 16:55, 6 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

P.S. I am surprised this article is hear without the wife Debra Kahn Tolchinsky also being listed jointly. The articles were created about 15 minutes apart back in 2010.-TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 23:51, 1 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Illinois-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 01:28, 2 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 01:28, 2 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Arts-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 01:28, 2 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment, are there copyright issues here? this article looks very similar to Tolchinsky's biopage here. Coolabahapple (talk) 01:33, 2 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

That could be serious. I have not run a copyright test in a good while so maybe someone will want to do that. Otr500 (talk) 06:50, 6 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

It shows there are: copyvios
Just from his bio page. Otr500 (talk)
Delete: per nom. I am opposed to intrinsic notability (inherent) as a rubber stamp or attempts to "water-down" or otherwise negate basic notability guidelines that rely on significant reliable sourcing. These will lessen the chance of copyright violations. This page in a nutshell: shows the allowance for the use of primary sources in academics "when influential in the world of ideas" or "significant impact in their scholarly discipline". I can agree that Criteria #1, #2, #3, #4, #6, #7, #8, #9 to be exceptions (still requiring sourcing), but I do not agree that just having a "Named chair" as a lone criteria for allowing an article. If we accept that then please lets change the "Five pillars". Otr500 (talk) 07:54, 6 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Otr500 PROF says: "any one of the following conditions," including 5: "The person holds or has held a named chair appointment or distinguished professor appointment at a major institution of higher education and research, or an equivalent position in countries where named chairs are uncommon."--Theredproject (talk) 17:03, 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 redirect to East Lancashire Coachbuilders. Drmies (talk) 01:57, 7 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

East Lancs Lowlander edit

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

Unsourced article on a bus which had never been built - fails WP:V and WP:GNG. CoolSkittle (talk) 17:20, 31 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. CoolSkittle (talk) 17:24, 31 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. CoolSkittle (talk) 17:24, 31 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Google search returned virtually no related results, therefore fails WP:GNG. --Hiwilms (talk) 06:10, 1 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy redirect to East Lancashire Coachbuilders, in a similar format to other vehilces that dont have articles. Nightfury 20:58, 6 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect. Lacks notability for a stand alone article, but a redirect would make sense as it is a plausible search term. Dunarc (talk) 22:56, 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. Drmies (talk) 01:57, 7 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Pradeep Puri edit

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

Non notable. ToT89 (talk) 16:44, 31 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 00:49, 2 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 00:49, 2 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. ~ Amory (u • t • c) 09:11, 2 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. ~ Amory (u • t • c) 09:11, 2 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as per nomination and search couldn't yield enough WP:RS QueerEcofeminist^{"cite! even if you fight"!!!} [they/them/their] 17:36, 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 delete. Drmies (talk) 01:58, 7 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Yael Alkalay edit

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

Non notable and promotional. ToT89 (talk) 16:43, 31 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep and draftify Take the promotional mess out and irrelevant trivia, all the sources needed are there! Trillfendi (talk) 17:24, 31 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 00:46, 2 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete No coverage apart from the main two refs, fails WP:SIGCOV and no coverage outside the business. It is all the business. scope_creep^Talk 21:56, 4 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 18:50, 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. Drmies (talk) 01:58, 7 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Michelle Lesniak edit

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

Not notable up to wiki standard. Only trivial mentions in some sources. ToT89 (talk) 16:41, 31 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 13:35, 1 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fashion-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 13:35, 1 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Appearing on a reality show doesn’t equal notability.Trillfendi (talk) 22:56, 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. Drmies (talk) 01:58, 7 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Colin Dale edit

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

Fails WP:NACTOR "Has had significant roles in multiple notable films ....". He had lead in 'Just Ask for Diamond' but bit part in 'Hope and Glory'. Separately, insufficient indepth coverage to meet WP:GNG. Just Chilling (talk) 16:38, 31 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 13:31, 1 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 13:31, 1 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Wikipedia is not meant to be an IMDb mirror. The real scary things is how many deletion discussions I have written that exact sentence on.John Pack Lambert (talk) 04:22, 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 delete. Drmies (talk) 01:58, 7 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Chris Tronbjerg edit

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

Notability isn't automatically inherited because one is a CEO of a multinational corporation. The source searches I cited in my PROD ("Chris+Tronbjerg" 1 2) and further ones in WorldCat and Star show a lack of significant coverage in independent, reliable sources, thus Tronbjerg fails ANYBIO and GNG. Courtesy ping Iridescent. SITH (talk) 14:54, 31 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. ___CAPTAIN MEDUSAtalk 18:24, 1 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. ___CAPTAIN MEDUSAtalk 18:24, 1 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Denmark-related deletion discussions. ___CAPTAIN MEDUSAtalk 18:24, 1 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Brazil-related deletion discussions. ___CAPTAIN MEDUSAtalk 18:24, 1 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete unsourced article.John Pack Lambert (talk) 04:20, 2 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. You should think that it would be possible to find at least a couple of good sources about a man who's had a street in São Paolo named after him. Here's the little I managed to dig up regardless of insignificance:
- Visão (in Portuguese). 1967. p. 83. Retrieved April 3, 2019. mentions him as sales director of Vemag [pt]. Vemag was taken over by Volkswagen do Brasil in 1967.
- A scan of Correio da Manhã 7 January 1968, mentions him as senior executive (alto dirigente) of Volkswagen do Brasil.
- Associação de Exportadores Brasileiros (1972). Anais (in Portuguese). Associação de Exportadores Brasileiros. p. 90. Retrieved April 3, 2019. lists him first under the VOLKSWAGEN DO BRASIL S/A heading.
- A scan of Jornal do Brasil 24 March 1973, has a retirement notice saying (mostly Google Translate): "The oldest employee of Volkswagen do Brasil, Danish-born Chris Tronbjerg, was retired on 7 February. He saw the birth of the national automotive industry 38 years ago, in the same field where the first production line was raised, that of Volkswagen, 20 years ago. He was retired because a company regulation says that people can no longer be employees when they 65 years of age."
- Death notice in a scan of Jornal do Brasil 6 March 1986.
- "As origens da Sabrico, o primeiro concessionário autorizado Volkswagen do Brasil". Não é bigorna, é bigórnia! (in Portuguese). July 28, 2016. Retrieved April 3, 2019., a blog, briefly mentions that Tronbjerg helped convince Heinrich Nordhoff to sign an agreement for the assembly of Volkswagen in Brazil.
All in all, too little to support a stand-alone article. An alternative could have been WP:ATD-R with a mention in Volkswagen do Brasil, but I don't feel that the above sources give us a clear picture of the man's role in the company. I wonder what the future will bring in terms of non-English sources becoming available online. Sam Sailor 13:36, 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. Drmies (talk) 01:59, 7 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Daddy, What's a Train? edit

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

Lacks the necessary indepth coverage in RS. Fails WP:NMUSIC. Delete. Just Chilling (talk) 14:44, 31 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. IntoThinAir (talk) 14:50, 31 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 14:53, 31 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - a search finds almost no critical coverage, and unsurprisingly there's no indication of notability in the article either, so this does not meet WP:GNG. Chiswick Chap (talk) 15:22, 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 soft delete. WP:REFUND applies. Vanamonde (Talk) 17:52, 7 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Mathieu Jussaume edit

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

The article doesn't contain any assertion that would mean the subject meets the presumed notability criteria at WP:RLN (since, according to our article on it, the French Rugby League Championship is not a fully professional league). The subject would therefore need to pass WP:GNG, but doing a Google search I can't see any significant coverage that would get him over the line there. GirthSummit _(blether) 13:47, 31 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Icewhiz (talk) 13:56, 31 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of France-related deletion discussions. Icewhiz (talk) 13:56, 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 keep. Drmies (talk) 01:59, 7 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

L. Whitney Clayton edit

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

Per WP:BEFORE source searches, this subject does not meet WP:BASIC to qualify for an article. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 10:48, 24 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 10:48, 24 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 10:49, 24 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 10:49, 24 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Utah-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 10:49, 24 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, So said The Great Wiki Lord. (talk) 12:28, 31 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per the recent source and content additions. Based on his participation in a temple groundbreaking [17], at religious conferences [18] [19], and the mention of leadership changes outside of LDS Church sources, such as [20]. While the article could use more cleanup, the individual gathers enough attention to pass WP:BASIC. Rollidan (talk) 16:29, 1 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep We have enough 3rd party coverage to justify having an article.John Pack Lambert (talk) 17:02, 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. Vanamonde (Talk) 17:55, 7 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Adam Algar edit

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

Fails WP:NCRIC. Although has played in a T20I for Spain, this was not part of a World T20, Global Qualifier or Regional Final, per point 4. Lugnuts ^{Fire Walk with Me} 11:51, 31 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Ceethekreator (talk) 11:59, 31 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. Ceethekreator (talk) 11:59, 31 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Cricket-related deletion discussions. Ceethekreator (talk) 11:59, 31 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Spain-related deletion discussions. Ceethekreator (talk) 11:59, 31 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Ok I agree with Lugnuts on the notability issues of this cricketer and I respect his proposal for deletion because he has written plenty of articles abide by the policies and guidelines. I thought those who have played in the recently concluded 2019 Spain Triangular T20I Series from Spain and Malta except Estonia XI are recognised to be T20 International cricketers from that point onwards. I first of all created for Awais Ahmed who got enough notability after scoring a century in the second T20I match of the series between Spain and Malta. Awais Ahmed has also been included in List of centuries in Twenty20 International cricket. It is noteworthy that ICC initially revealed the matches played between Spain and Malta had Twenty20 International (T20I) status, with both teams making their debuts in the format and further went onto announce that all matches played between Associate Members from 1 January 2019 would have T20I status. Sorry for my mistakes regarding the WikiProject Cricket policy guidelines. Abishe (talk) 12:43, 31 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks Abishe - appreciate your feedback. Don't know if this now meets some kind of speedy-deletion requirements, with these comments from the article's creator. Lugnuts ^{Fire Walk with Me} 12:46, 31 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Per nom. Though these matches are T20I's, the standard is so low that the prior guidelines for inclusion of non-Test/ODI nations make perfect sense. It seems that the stats for T20I's are going to take a serious beating, with weaker opponents generally finding it easier to score more runs amongst themselves. StickyWicket (talk) 12:48, 31 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete does not meet the general notability guidelines. This is true of a huge nyumber of cricket players. We really need to remove many of these articles.John Pack Lambert (talk) 17:20, 1 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

GNG is weak and meaningless, and contradicted by WP:N which states that an article should be met by either GNG or an appropriate subject-specific guideline. Bobo . 09:35, 2 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - This cricketer has, within the last week, appeared in an ITT match. Does this make this cricketer notable? If at some point the cricketer becomes notable, CSD G4 will not apply - according to the CSD page itself. Bobo . 09:37, 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 delete. Vanamonde (Talk) 17:55, 7 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Thuruthippuram Boat Race edit

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

Unsourced non-notable promotional COI article. Cabayi (talk) 10:20, 31 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Cabayi (talk) 10:20, 31 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. Cabayi (talk) 10:21, 31 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 12:26, 31 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom Obvious COI editor too Jimfbleak - talk to me? 12:40, 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 keep. The nom's concerns have been addressed over the last two weeks with improvements being made to the article and the references being fixed and additional ref's added. The clear consensus here is keep. (non-admin closure) Dusti ^{*Let's talk!*} 05:04, 7 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Niels Jannasch edit

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

Subject does not pass WP:NBIO nor WP:GNG. Of the three references given, only one of them seems to exist; the remaining reference is to a site that mentions his name as a medal recipient. Google News had not a single hit on the name "Niels Jannasch". Google Books shows he is mentioned several times, usually by way of thanks in a given book's introduction or as a museum curator, but I didn't find substantive discussion of him in these sources. A loose necktie (talk) 10:52, 24 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. CASSIOPEIA^(talk) 10:58, 24 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Germany-related deletion discussions. CASSIOPEIA^(talk) 10:58, 24 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. CASSIOPEIA^(talk) 10:58, 24 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Fixed three bad url. Article has at least three good refs now. Lrwilli (talk) 19:23, 26 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Adequately sourced now and OC should be enough for notability. —David Eppstein (talk) 08:03, 29 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 09:00, 31 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Founding director of the Maritime Museum of the Atlantic, and meets WP:GNG. Dennui (talk) 19:20, 3 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep More sources added, meets WP:BASIC. RebeccaGreen (talk) 04:39, 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 no consensus defaulting to Keep and w/o prejudice to a future renomination.However I would suggest a cooling off period of not less than six months before sending this back up. Ad Orientem (talk) 01:05, 8 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Paul Atherton edit

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

Fails GNG. Many brief mentions but no in-depth coverage. HouseOfChange (talk) 04:53, 24 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 06:07, 24 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 06:07, 24 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 06:08, 24 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 09:37, 24 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Votes edit

Keep. Unfortunately Google can not be deemed a useful source in this instance. It measures popularity and not notability. It's nature of not holding much information and then not for long, means much press about this subject is not shown, with many of the notable events discussed being over a decade old (and many predating the Internet all together). But the press would still be retrievable through such things as the British Newspaper Archive but this research would require an in person search as many of the publications there have yet to be digitised. The Western Mail one of the papers cited on the Bio for example is only digitised up to 1959 https://www.britishnewspaperarchive.co.uk/titles/countries/wales

But notability as defined by Wikipedia is "the person who is the topic of a biographical article should be "worthy of notice"[1] or "note"[2]—that is, "remarkable"[2] or "significant, interesting, or unusual enough to deserve attention or to be recorded"[1] within Wikipedia as a written account of that person's life. "Notable" in the sense of being famous or popular—although not irrelevant—is secondary."

I believe under that criteria, the subject's video diary being taken into the permanent collection of The Museum of London https://collections.museumoflondon.org.uk/online/object/951647.html/ would suffice in its own right. However the subject has five films collected in the UK's National Film Archive The British Film Institute and obviously remains the only person to have shown a film on the video Billboards at Piccadilly Circus the cause for the original entry being accepted in the first place. https://londontopia.net/site-news/featured/london-places-10-facts-figures-piccadilly-circus-london-probably-didnt-know/ 144.178.8.38 (talk) 15:24, 24 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Reply Wikipedia has criteria for the notability of creative professionals e.g. "The person has created or played a major role in co-creating a significant or well-known work or collective body of work. In addition, such work must have been the primary subject of an independent and notable work..." Having a film about Piccadilly Circus shown at Piccadilly Circus, or having a film about London's history included in a collection of "over a million objects" (to quote the website you link to above) do not match our criteria for significant creative work, in my opinion. There is even less indication that Atherton meets WP:GNG, which requires significant, in-depth coverage in multiple reliable sources independent of the bio subject. There seem to have been brief flurries of interest in his being a foundling, or biracial, or disabled, or having a lawsuit, but most of these seem to be a direct result of great energy spent on self-promotion. 16:00, 24 March 2019 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by HouseOfChange (talk • contribs) 16:00, March 24, 2019 (UTC)

Reply I would counter saying that the only non commercial film to have garnered permission to be screened on one of the world's most famous advertising hoardings Piccadilly Lights in one of the world's most popular tourist attractions Piccadilly Circus is indeed notable in its own right. The fact that film. along with others in the series, equally broadcast onto other noted globally recognised London Landmarks Trafalgar Square and Leicester Square were then deemed worthy of inclusion into The British Film Institute undeniable makes them significant and by association the person who produced and directed them.

"An extract from the British Film Archive Collecting Policy to be found as a Download

4.2 Cultural significance

25. The overriding criterion for acceptance into the national collection of moving image material for the United Kingdom is that the work should be of cultural and/or historical importance to the British people, recognising the diversity of British communities.

26. Because this is the national collection of moving image material in the UK, acquisition of British-produced and British-related material will be prioritised over non-British material, especially for the preservation collection. However, much non-British material is also of cultural importance and some non-British material may be highly relevant to particular cross-cultural audiences for the reference collection.

27. The bfi does not aim to hold a comprehensive collection, even for British- produced material. It aims to collect works that have or had real cultural impact, or historical significance, or that are highly representative of production, society or cultural values, or which are valuable for educational purposes or as information resources for study. Examples include: - High quality productions, where the production values and treatment are of a high artistic merit or information content."

As for the subject's diary (albeit in Video Form) being accepted into the Museum of London with a supporting exhibition about its inclusion, again, clearly makes the subject notable along with the likes of the diarist Samuel Pepys whose diary (albeit a copy) is also in the collection

"The Museum of London’s collection, called the London Collection, has developed over the last 190 years. It is the world’s largest relating to a single urban centre over a 2,000 year period and the most important source for the material evidence of London’s history. It includes collections from two precursor museums: the Guildhall Museum and the London Museum." Museum of London Collections Policy

Again, I would suggest your contentions are giving too much weight to the Google Search Engine or what is found online and not recognising the import of curatorial decisions by globally recognised institutions. 144.178.8.38 (talk) 15:44, 26 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

You said,

...the only non commercial film to have garnered permission to be screened on one of the world's most famous advertising hoardings Piccadilly Lights in one of the world's most popular tourist attractions Piccadilly Circus is indeed notable in its own right."

No, it's not. We evaluate Notability using Wikipedia policy and guidelines, and there's nothing in the guideline about world-famous tourist attractions.

You said,

The Museum of London’s collection, called the London Collection, has developed over the last 190 years. It is the world’s largest relating to a single urban centre over a 2,000 year period and the most important source for the material evidence of London’s history. It includes collections from two precursor museums: the Guildhall Museum and the London Museum.

This is all completely irrelevant. You puff up your arguments here, without regard to what policy says. How long the London Collection has been around, or how large it is, or how important it is, is not connected with Wikipedia's policy on Notability. Ditto Picadilly Circus. Please quote policy and guidelines about notability, not the importance of your sources from some non-Wikipedia source.

Here's what WP:N says about Creative professionals in bullet 4: The person's work (or works) has: (a) become a significant monument, (b) been a substantial part of a significant exhibition, (c) won significant critical attention, or (d) been represented within the permanent collections of several notable galleries or museums. Does it meet any of (a)–(d)? If so, please demonstrate it. If not, it fails WP:ARTIST. You're closest on (d); find a couple more substantial exhibitions in other museums, and you may have it. Even if not, it may still meet some other portion of the Notability guideline, but you'd have to demonstrate that it does. Mathglot (talk) 21:34, 5 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep WP:ANYBIO Lubbad85 (talk) 15:02, 26 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete The article appears to be made up of self-aggrandizing half-truths and exaggerations which make it almost impossible to ascertain notability. For example the article claims Atherton performed as an actor in the acclaimed stage production 'You Me Bum Bum Train' - this production famously used unpaid volunteers as "performers" and literally anyone who signed up on their website could "perform." It claims he was named as a Fellow of the Royal Society of Arts which sounds like a highly prestigious award, in reality it is simply the RSA's membership scheme which anyone can purchase online in under 30 seconds. It claims he was a performer at Notting Hill Carnival, but the cite is a just a YouTube video which does not identify him, and again any member of the public can sign up to perform there. Some citations do not mention Atherton. Other things like winning random Internet competitions (especially ones where the only citation is the subject's own Twitter account) clearly have no place here. The article really needs a diligent editor to go through and properly fact check all the claims made and remove all the irrelevant self-cited bumpf before a case for notability can be made.85.211.202.126 (talk) 21:24, 26 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Reply This statement would imply an edit rather than a delete. Any comments in respect to the notability of the subject being included in the Museum of London? 144.178.8.38 (talk) 13:54, 27 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, here. Mathglot (talk) 21:39, 5 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Wikipedia is not a means of promotion and is not a collection of trivia. This is from the first a piece of overly self serving spam. Exaggerating, presenting run of the mill as noteworthy, peacocking. This needs a dose of TNT even if he is notable. duffbeerforme (talk) 12:55, 28 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Reply I would suggest your comments are about the past ten plus years of Wikipedians editing rather than whether the subject is notable or not (which is the contention of the Deletion request) duffbeerforme. Any comments or thoughts about the significance of the subject's diary being deemed worthy of (as far as I can see) being the only video-dairy collected into the Museum of London's permanent collection (see collections policy above)?144.178.8.38 (talk) 11:56, 30 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Does not meet WP:NARTIST. See above. Mathglot (talk) 21:42, 5 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 07:38, 31 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Reply Out of interest, I just did a News Google search using "Paul Atherton" & "Producer" and found the following four articles, I'm not sure if it's relevant, but the link in the AfD does not find them (January 2017 - March 2019) and I'd argue whilst they are not substantive, it does demonstrate the problem with search engines.

City A.M. - Goodbye Piccadilly: A short history of the Piccadilly Circus advertising billboards "...Paul Atherton screened the only non-commercial film there, The Ballet of Change..." - 16 January 2017

The Sun (United Kingdom) - What Is Chronic Fatigue Syndrome? "...Other celebs that are believed to battle with the condition include film producer Paul Atherton" - 16th June 2017

The Guardian - I allow myself a mini-wallow': how to handle rejection in the arts "...this worked for Paul Atherton, an experienced producer and managing director. After he missed out on a “heaven sent” opportunity to co-write a play with his favourite playwright..." - 9 August 2018

Tate Modern - Talk - Welfare and the digital lie, problems of Digital Exclusion for the poor and the vulnerable in the UK by Paul Atherton FRSA - Beta Society in Tate Exchange - 6 March 2019

The Londonist - Things To Do Today In London: Wednesday 27 March 2019 - "WITHOUT A HOME: An Evening With Paul Atherton" - 27 March 2019

-144.178.8.38 (talk) 11:46, 1 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

You're right, they're not substantive. Find ones that are, or that meet some other aspect of WP:GNG. Your assertion that "it does demonstrate the problem with search engines" is irrelevant even if it were true; technology failure is not an argument that helps you establish notability. Mathglot (talk) 21:48, 5 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Undecided - Notability may exist independently of references, and conversely, simply having many references isn't sufficient to establish notability. Since this article has 55 references, it's worth examining them to see whether they help to establish notability. I've started a discussion about this below. I plan to change my !vote based on further investigation and discussion. Mathglot (talk) 21:08, 5 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. This is just an adulatory text (e.g. "At 16 he set up home on his own against the wishes of Social Services", "Starting in 1997 he hosted four parties a year across various London locations", etc) with a plethora of citations (including one from the Sun titled "Charles Props Up Naughty Knickers") whose value sums up to very little. It's indicative of the whole "project" that the section on personal life takes more space in the text than anything else. Subject fails WP:NARTIST. -The Gnome (talk) 10:20, 7 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Discussion edit

The article currently has 55 references. I wanted to start a discussion to see whether one or more of these are sufficient to establish notability per WP:GNG. No !votes here, please; just discussion about references.

References synopsis edit

Synopsis of selected citations from version 889204249. (Numbers are clickable.):

References in the lead
- 1. The following appears in the page html code, but is not visibly rendered and is visible to search engines only: "2007 Paul Atherton’s short film 'The Ballet of Change,' exploring the history of the Circus, premieres on Coca-Cola’s LED ad space."
- 2. This is from website self-publishing site "about.me".
Selected references in the Early life section:
- 3. covers his adoption as an infant in Wales Online, and 4 is substantially the same.
- 5. A short film which appeared on 4thought.tv but is not available at the given url; the film at the web archive url cannot be played currently, but from the archived viewer comments, it appears to be a short film interview about PA's transracial adoption.
- 6. A biography printed in The Big Issue street newspaper in 2008. Is this sufficient to meet GNG?
- 9. A deleted vimeo promotional trailer for the documentary film "What About Me?" about chronic fatigue syndrome by Double D Productions. I'm unable to play the archived copy, but a text link points to whataboutme.biz, which renders a GoDaddy expired domain name page.
- 10. Dead link to Cardiff Uni Mag. (web archive non-responsive)
- 11. Incompletely specified citation to Sun newspaper, cannot verify.
- 12. Incompletely specified citation to Vogue magazine, cannot verify.
Selected references in the Career section:
- 13. PA is the recipient of a "lucky break" of four weeks work experience after being made redundant. 4rfv is an "online directiory for the the broadcast, TV and Film Industry" in the UK, and appears to accept user-submitted content.
- 14. Sign-in required, but appears to be from the letters-to-the-editor section from Broadcast (magazine).
- 15. YT video uploaded by PA.
- 16. An opinion column in the Guardian by PA about Katharine Birbalsingh.
- 17. PA interviewed on SohoShorts (a blog of Rushes Postproduction) as producer of The Feminist Car Commercial at IMDb.
- 18. Duplicate of 17, on the interviewer Dana Knight's blog.
- 19. The ref is styled as "Paul Atherton, Q&D Productions (January 2016). 'Our London Lives'" but is a link to about.me/paulatherton, same as #2.
- 20. YT video uploaded by PA
- 21. Links to "Online Shop" for "Elastic Knitting Woolen Woman's Ankle Boots..." Archived 10 May 2017 at the Wayback Machine contains short blurb about PA as director/producer.
- 22. Dead link due to spurious trailing '=', but video exists on YT and is a promo for "Meet the Critics". PA appears at 0:39 for 1 second, saying, "Meet the Critics" as one of a dozen or so personalities saying that phrase.
- 23. Dead Twitter link for lineup of Meet the Critics.
- 24. Eventbrite announcement for "Meet the Critics".
- 25. Dead Twitter link.
- 26. ISP parked domain page. Orig url not archived.
Selected references in the Personal life section:
- 27. Dead link redirects to Telegraph home page. Available on web archive; article by PA about 2012 Olympic games.
- 28. YT clip uploaded by PA.
- 29. Dead link, not on archive, not discoverable on web, from 2012 Olympics documents.
- 30. Soft 404 at wendyperriam.com; the soft 404 archived as such at web archive.

(This is as far as I got for now; 25 refs remain to be added here.) Mathglot (talk) 21:08, 5 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Discuss references edit

The following can be discounted as not contributing to Notability:

YT videos: 15, 20, 22, 28 (these are also all SPSes by PA)
Unrecoverable dead links and soft 404s: 10, 23, 25, 27, 29, 30
Unverifiable: 11, 12. Possibly someone with access to archived newspapers could hunt these down.
Articles by the subject of an article (16, 27) generally do not establish notability.
Self-published material: 2, 19
Trivial mentions (judgment call): 1, 22 probably many of the others

Possibly establishing notability:

independent bios: 6 - He's in this paper as "former homeless makes good"; is this sufficient to establish N?
difficult childhood: 4, maybe 5 - I'd say these aren't sufficient to establish notability. Local papers have lots of human interest stories of this type, and generally they do not have articles on Wikipedia.
disease: 9 - having fatigue syndrome and being the subject of a human interest article about it, is similar to the above.
special case: #1 text is visible to search engines, but not to humans viewing the page. Can it still contribute to Notability?

I don't currently see anything as definitely establishing notability, but the street news bio (6) is the strongest contender, imho, among the first 30 refs. He may meet WP:ARTIST 4(d), if two additional galleries or museums can be found with his works in their permanent collection. Mathglot (talk) 21:08, 5 April 2019 (UTC) updated by Mathglot (talk) 21:55, 5 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. After a rather lengthy discussion it's clear that there's no consensus to delete. The conversation has been relisted once and garnered some more thoughtful discussion which makes the consensus clearly a keep. (non-admin closure) Dusti ^{*Let's talk!*} 11:01, 7 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

These Heaux edit

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

The self-released debut single by Bhad Bhabie peaked at #77 on the Billboard Hot 100 and certified gold, but there is a lack of non-trivial coverage. Although there are many mentions of the song, particularly in articles about the artist, the song itself does not receive in-depth treatment. The most in-depth article is from Maxim: [21], but it's really just a description of the video and quotes from the lyrics, not an actual musical review. The other references are generally two-paragraph mentions announcing the song's release, or focusing on a "diss" in the song relating to a feud between the artist and some other celebrity. We don't have enough sources to write a stand-alone article about this song, although the artist is notable. The article These Heaux should be redirected to and merged with the article Bhad Bhabie. Leviv ich 04:11, 24 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. Leviv ich 04:11, 24 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Leviv ich 04:11, 24 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Florida-related deletion discussions. Leviv ich 04:11, 24 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - per charting on multiple country’s all-format song charts, including the Billboard Hot 100. And going gold in the US, which indicates half a million units sold. It’s ludicrous to suggest that a song of this caliber does not at least scrape by the minimum of WP:NSONGS/WP:GNG. (And this is from someone who absolutely hates this song too.) Sergecross73 msg me 16:34, 25 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
"Ludicrous"? Doesn't WP:NSONG explicitly say that just because a song charted or is certified doesn't mean it's automatically notable? 1. Has been ranked on national or significant music or sales charts. (Note again that this indicates only that a song may be notable, not that it is notable.) and Notability aside, a standalone article is appropriate only when there is enough material to warrant a reasonably detailed article; articles unlikely ever to grow beyond stubs should be merged to articles about an artist or album. Leviv ich 17:40, 25 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, ludicrous. As in, when a song hits national charts and selling half a million copies, there’s reasonable belief that somewhere out there, there’s multiple RS’s covering it in detail. If it’s some random album track that just happened to chart for a single week on an album’s release week at #98 on the Billboard Hot Country chart or something, sure, I could believe that maybe the coverage isn’t out there. But here? No way. Sergecross73 msg me 17:50, 25 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
A "reasonable belief", generally, sure. But in this case, for this song, despite it having charted and going gold, there is no RS coverage of the song, as a song, from which we can write an article. All the coverage is of the artist, not the song. Hence, the song shouldn't have a stand-alone article, but should be redirected to the artist (where the scant information about the song that currently exists in RSes–such as the fact that it charted and went gold–can be included in a section about the song, rather than a standalone article). Pretty straightforward argument, really: there's no WP:SIGCOV. Leviv ich 17:56, 25 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - This song is notable right off the bat thanks to chart placement and for being certified Gold. Being covered in the the media helps a song become even more notable, and this one has been covered in top hip hop and celebrity media sources, while the quality of a media mention cannot be deduced just by counting the number of paragraphs. The sources may indeed be from the cheesy side of the media but the song has been noticed more than enough to support a claim of notability. ---DOOMSDAYER520 (Talk|Contribs) 15:12, 26 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
This song is notable right off the bat thanks to chart placement and for being certified Gold. ... NSONG says the exact opposite of this: "Note again that this indicates only that a song may be notable, not that it is notable." It always surprises me to see experienced editors argue the exact opposite of what an SNG says. Leviv ich 15:35, 26 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I don't feel like getting into the exact same argument at three different AfD's, nor should I have to. Since the nominator is accusing people of not understanding policies, here are a couple that are also relevant: WP:CONSENSUS and WP:BLUDGEON. ---DOOMSDAYER520 (Talk|Contribs) 16:45, 26 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Do you not follow the music industry or something? A gold certification is extremely rare accomplishment in 2018. It’s going to be an extreme uphill battle for you to convince anyone that it doesn’t indicate notability here, especially coupled with multiple national all-format charting positions. Sergecross73 msg me 15:42, 26 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Extremely rare accomplishment? Look at the RIAA list of Gold and Platinum certifications. [22] I count 50 Gold and Platinum certifications in the first half of March 2019 alone! The certification includes digital downloads. [23] In 2017, RIAA certified 1,671 songs and 404 albums. [24] In 2016, 890 songs and 407 albums. [25] In 2015, 934 singles and 122 albums. [26] We're talking 1,000 songs a year are certified. Do we write a stand alone article for each one of them? Some editors are saying that certification and/or charting = notability, or as you put it, that they indicate notability. But NSONG says that they "indicate" only that a song "may" be notable, not that it "is" notable. In other words, according to NSONG, charting and/or certifying ≠ notability, only an indication that a song may be notable. This song is not notable because it has no WP:SIGCOV. If it were on an album, NSONG suggests we merge to the album. As this song isn't on an album or the 15 mixtape, it should be merged to the artist's page. All the content (there isn't much) can be on the artist's page. There is no need for a standalone. Leviv ich 16:08, 26 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Context helps, you know. Do you know how many tens or hundreds of thousands of songs come out every year? Or how much Gold certifications have shrunk since the 1990s? Beyond that, since you seem to be unaware of context or precedent here, have you come across many incidents of RIAA Gold certified songs that got deleted at AFD? I would think it’d be exceptionally rare. I can’t think of one, and I’ve been doing this for a decade. This could be a difficult scenario though, as most would know better to nominate it to begin with. Sergecross73 msg me 17:41, 26 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

If we write a stand-alone article about every song that RIAA certifies Gold, we will be writing over 1,000 new stand-alone song articles per year, >100 per month, >3 per day, almost all of them will be stubs, and we will become an RIAA catalogue. Not my vision of what an encyclopedia should be. I believe we must have sources from which to write an article, not just write an article about any song that charts. Leviv ich 19:46, 26 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Again, the way you frame things baffles me. Three articles created a day, for a topic as broad as “songs”, on a website that hosts 5.8+ million articles, is not a lot. And no ones saying we don’t need sources. We’re saying, songs don’t sell half million copies, and get national radio AirPlay, and the don’t get noticed by three or so RS journalists out there. The premise is highly improbable - it’s ridiculously impractical to think that it sold that much and it flew under the radar. There are almost certainly sources in existence, so cleanup is more appropriate. Sergecross73 msg me 20:01, 26 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I'm here because I would like these SNG assumptions to meet GNG proof. :-) Leviv ich 20:12, 26 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Source	Independent?	Reliable?	Significant coverage?	Count source toward GNG?
Source assessment table:
XXL 1	Original reporting, in own voice, non-affiliated publication	WP:A/S	~ 10 sentences, most describing the music video	~ Partial
XXL 2	Original reporting, in own voice, non-affiliated publication	WP:A/S	3 sentences about the song (2 stating that it charted); 8 sentences total	✘ No
The Wrap	Original reporting, in own voice, non-affiliated publication	WP:A/S	8 sentences: 2 quoting the lyrics; 3 about the artist; 1 about the release of the music video, and the other two are: To be fair, it actually could be much, much worse. And either way, it's a pretty short song.	✘ No
Alternative Press	Original reporting, in own voice, non-affiliated publication	WP:A/S	2 sentences about the song; 6 sentences total	✘ No
Maxim	Original reporting, in own voice, non-affiliated publication	~ Celebrity/gossip magazine not on WP:A/S, WP:RSN, WP:RSP, not widely used as a source (~500 insource search results)	15 sentences; about half are direct quotes of lyrics	✘ No
In Touch	Original reporting, in own voice, non-affiliated publication	~ Celebrity/gossip magazine on WP:A/S, WP:RSN, WP:RSP, not widely used as a source (~500 insource search results)	~ 7 paragraphs: 4 quoting "diss" lyrics; 3 about the "beefs" relating to those "disses"	~ Partial
This table may not be a final or consensus view; it may summarize developing consensus, or reflect assessments of a single editor. Created using {{source assess table}}.

Comment – here is a source assessment table for These Heaux. Arguments about charting and certification aside, we do not have any material from which to write anything beyond a stub-length article. All we can say about this song is that it charted/certified, and who was in the music video. The artist is widely covered, but the song is not. This song came out almost two years ago (August 24, 2017); it's highly unlikely there will be more coverage in the future of the song. Per WP:NSONG: Notability aside, a standalone article is appropriate only when there is enough material to warrant a reasonably detailed article; articles unlikely ever to grow beyond stubs should be merged to articles about an artist or album. Leviv ich 19:46, 26 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 07:38, 31 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep A WP:POINTy test case, as is obvious from nominator's comment I'm here because I would like these SNG assumptions to meet GNG proof. The purpose of SNGs is to save community time and attention, not to be a 100% predictor of coverage in every single possible case. Insisting on wasting that time and attention at AfD in an effort to show that SNGs are not 100% predictors of coverage in every possible case is, in my opinion, not only a misunderstanding of community consensus but also disruptive behavior in an already contentious and difficult area of the encyclopedia. Wikipedia talk:Notability is thataway. This topic meets the SNG, and every other issue is an editing matter that does not need to be handled, much less bludgeoned, at AfD. Bakazaka (talk) 19:03, 6 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Appears to meet WP:NSONG, but as was shown, much of the sourcing (other than the low charting) is not reliable. Walter Görlitz (talk) 19:26, 6 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Very weak keep The song has been independently covered by a few outlets], however minimal the coverage. That combined with the low charting and certification indicate it barely passes the notability standards. Toa Nidhiki05 19:40, 6 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep It has charted in an important national chart with certification, has some coverage, that is good enough to meet WP:NSONG. The assessment table does not show anything but a determination to ignore the validity of the sources, there is for example nothing wrong with the source talking mainly about video, given that the video is about the song. Hzh (talk) 03:17, 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 keep. The primary rational for delete here was not notability but whether there was sufficient content to warrant a standalone article (though there was consensus that notability was met, in any case)

There seems a rough consensus either that Sig Cov is met, or more commonly, that there is sufficient content between the sources to justify the standalone article - in a sense, Sig Cov per article didn't have to be satisfied, only the combined level. (non-admin closure) Nosebagbear (talk) 09:18, 8 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Bich edit

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

This single by Bhad Bhabie from the mixtape 15 (mixtape) peaked at #68 on the Billboard Hot 100 and certified gold but despite that does not have any non-trivial coverage. (The mixtape did get reviews, including in The New York Times.) The single Hi Bich doesn't merit a stand-alone article and should be redirected and merged with the mixtape 15 (mixtape). Leviv ich 04:03, 24 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. Leviv ich 04:03, 24 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Leviv ich 04:03, 24 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Florida-related deletion discussions. Leviv ich 04:03, 24 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - per charting on multiple country’s all-format song charts, including the Billboard Hot 100. And going gold in the US, which indicates half a million units sold. It’s ludicrous to suggest that a song of this caliber does not at least scrape by the minimum of WP:NSONGS/WP:GNG. (And this is from someone who absolutely hates this song too.) Sergecross73 msg me 16:42, 25 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
"Ludicrous"? Doesn't WP:NSONG explicitly say that just because a song charted or is certified doesn't mean it's automatically notable? 1. Has been ranked on national or significant music or sales charts. (Note again that this indicates only that a song may be notable, not that it is notable.) and Notability aside, a standalone article is appropriate only when there is enough material to warrant a reasonably detailed article; articles unlikely ever to grow beyond stubs should be merged to articles about an artist or album. Leviv ich 17:40, 25 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, ludicrous. As in, when a song hits national charts and selling half a million copies, there’s reasonable belief that somewhere out there, there’s multiple RS’s covering it in detail. If it’s some random album track that just happened to chart for a single week on an album’s release week at #98 on the Billboard Hot Country chart or something, sure, I could believe that maybe the coverage isn’t out there. But here? No way. Sergecross73 msg me 17:49, 25 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
A "reasonable belief", generally, sure. But in this case, for this song, despite it having charted and going gold, there is no RS coverage of the song, as a song (as opposed to the mixtape), from which we can write an article. All the coverage is of the artist or mixtape, not the song. Hence, the song shouldn't have a stand-alone article, but should be redirected to the mixtape (where the scant information about the song that currently exists in RSes–such as the fact that it charted and went gold–can be included in a section about the song, rather than a standalone article). Pretty straightforward argument, really: there's no WP:SIGCOV. These Heaux at least has a tiny bit of coverage in RSes (not enough for a standalone). But this song, Hi Bich, and the third one I nominated, Gucci Flip Flops, have even less coverage in RSes than These Heaux–frankly, zero coverage, which you can see from the articles. NSONG specifically address this exact situation: Coverage of a song in the context of an album review does not establish notability. If the only coverage of a song occurs in the context of reviews of the album on which it appears, that material should be contained in the album article and an independent article about the song should not be created. Hi Bich and Gucci Flip Flops have only been covered in reviews of 15 (mixtape). And if I'm wrong, prove me wrong by posting WP:THREE good sources discussing this song. Leviv ich 17:59, 25 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep for pretty much the same reasons as stated over at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/These Heaux. This song is notable right off the bat thanks to chart placement and for being certified Gold. It has enough media coverage to support an additional claim of notability, and just because most of those sources are from the less glamorous side of the celebrity media, they talk about the song sufficiently. ---DOOMSDAYER520 (Talk|Contribs) 15:16, 26 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
At the risk of repetition: This song is notable right off the bat thanks to chart placement and for being certified Gold. ... NSONG says the exact opposite of this: "Note again that this indicates only that a song may be notable, not that it is notable." It always surprises me to see experienced editors argue the exact opposite of what an SNG says. Leviv ich 15:35, 26 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

You are far beyond the "risk of repetition" and have used almost the same prose multiple times in three different AfDs. See WP:BLUDGEON. ---DOOMSDAYER520 (Talk|Contribs) 16:52, 26 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Do you not follow the music industry or something? A gold certification is extremely rare accomplishment in 2018. It’s going to be an extreme uphill battle for you to convince anyone that it doesn’t indicate notability here, especially coupled with multiple national all-format charting positions. Sergecross73 msg me 15:42, 26 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Extremely rare accomplishment? Look at the RIAA list of Gold and Platinum certifications. [27] I count 50 Gold and Platinum certifications in the first half of March 2019 alone! The certification includes digital downloads. [28] In 2017, RIAA certified 1,671 songs and 404 albums. [29] In 2016, 890 songs and 407 albums. [30] In 2015, 934 singles and 122 albums. [31] We're talking 1,000 songs a year are certified. Do we write a stand alone article for each one of them? Some editors are saying that certification and/or charting = notability, or as you put it, that they indicate notability. But NSONG says that they "indicate" only that a song "may" be notable, not that it "is" notable. In other words, according to NSONG, charting and/or certifying ≠ notability, only an indication that a song may be notable. This song is not notable because it has no WP:SIGCOV outside of the album (or in this case, mixtape) on which it appears. In such situations, NSONG advises to merge the stand-alone song article with the album. I'm not battling uphill here, I'm floating comfortably down the river of NSONG consensus. Leviv ich 16:04, 26 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Source	Independent?	Reliable?	Significant coverage?	Count source toward GNG?
Source assessment table:
XXL (Jan)	Original reporting, in own voice, non-affiliated publication	WP:A/S	~ 8 paragraphs, all of them about how the remix of the song includes a "serious diss to Iggy Azalea" and the guests on the remix also diss other people	~ Partial
XXL (Feb)	Original reporting, in own voice, non-affiliated publication	WP:A/S	5 paragraphs total: 2 about the artist's legal troubles; 1 about the remix dissing Iggy Azalea; only 3 actual sentences about the song itself	✘ No
XXL (Mar)	Original reporting, in own voice, non-affiliated publication	WP:A/S	4 sentences about the song; 5 paragraphs total	✘ No
The Fader (Oct)	Original reporting, in own voice, non-affiliated publication	WP:A/S	2 sentences about the song; 5 sentences total	✘ No
The Fader (Dec)	Interview with artist	WP:A/S	6 questions with paragraph-length answers, but only 2 questions about the song	✘ No
The Wrap	Original reporting, in own voice, non-affiliated publication	WP:A/S	3 sentences about the song; 6 sentences total	✘ No
This table may not be a final or consensus view; it may summarize developing consensus, or reflect assessments of a single editor. Created using {{source assess table}}.

Comment – here is a source assessment table for Hi Bich. Arguments about charting and certification aside, we do not have any material from which to write anything beyond a stub-length article. All we can say about this song is that it charted/certified, and who was in the music video, and who got dissed by whom in the remix. That's it–there's nothing else out there. The artist is widely covered, but the song is not. This song came out almost a year and a half ago (September 22, 2017); it's highly unlikely there will be more coverage in the future of the song. Per WP:NSONG: Notability aside, a standalone article is appropriate only when there is enough material to warrant a reasonably detailed article; articles unlikely ever to grow beyond stubs should be merged to articles about an artist or album. Leviv ich 19:20, 26 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 07:37, 31 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Appears to meet WP:NSONG, but as is shown here, much of the sourcing (other than the low charting) is not reliable. Walter Görlitz (talk) 19:27, 6 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Weak delete This appears to be an exception to the norm that songs that chart and get certified are notable; it apparently has no independent coverage in reliable sources. The song itself simply doesn't seem to be notable, at least based on what sources are here right now. Toa Nidhiki05 19:30, 6 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Charted in an important national chart, and has been certified, with good enough coverage, that is enough to satisfy WP:NSONG. There are enough mentions of the song in major publications [32][33][34][35] either as part of articles on the singer or on the song itself to suggest that it has enough notability. Hzh (talk) 03:52, 7 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The WP:LAWYERly source analysis is unconvincing; several articles about Bhad Bhabie with 3-5 sentences of description or analysis (musical or cultural, either is fine) of the song is plenty enough media attention on which to hang an article about a notable charting single. Chubbles (talk) 06:23, 7 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per above comments. Meets WP:NSONGS and WP:GNG. StaticVapor message me! 15:08, 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~~ redirect. I'm sure this will be unpopular, but after reading the whole AfD, and examining WP:NSONG in detail, I have come to the conclusion that, while the keep arguments are more numerous, they are not supported by policy, while the delete arguments are. Many of the keep arguments are either based on charting alone, or assertions that this meets WP:SONG and/or WP:GNG, without demonstrating how these criteria are met by providing sources.

Discussants are given a fair amount of latitude to make judgement calls about specific sources; whether they are reliable, whether they are independent, whether they are significant coverage, etc. But, first there need to be sources to evaluate. Statements that sources must exist, without giving specific examples, don't carry any weight.

The bottom line is that sources are what's important. User:Levivich's table convinced me that none of the sources meet WP:GNG, therefore we have no policy-based basis on which to keep this article.

I noted that one of the keep arguments is from a blocked sock, and another is from a user with an extremely limited editing history. On the other hand, there are several keeps from users with extensive history. Overall, I didn't see socking as a significant issue. -- RoySmith (talk) 15:33, 8 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Per the discussion on my talk page, I'm re-closing this as redirect to 15 (mixtape). During my examination of the AfD and relevant policies, I apparently got tunnel vision and concentrated just on the keep/delete choice, missing the redirect option, which is clearly preferable to a straight delete, per WP:ATD and the arguments on my talk page. I'm going to restore the page and redirect it. The history will still be there, so if somebody wants to go back and recover material to merge, they can do so. -- RoySmith (talk) 21:14, 8 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Gucci Flip Flops edit

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

This single by Bhad Bhabie from the mixtape 15 (mixtape) peaked at #79 on the Billboard Hot 100 but does not have any non-trivial coverage. (The mixtape did get reviews, including in The New York Times.) The single Gucci Flip Flops doesn't merit a stand-alone article and should be redirected and merged with the mixtape 15 (mixtape). Leviv ich 04:00, 24 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. Leviv ich 04:01, 24 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Leviv ich 04:01, 24 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Florida-related deletion discussions. Leviv ich 04:01, 24 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Inherently notable due to charting and for being certified Gold. Unlike the other Bhad Bhabie song articles currently being nominated for deletion, this one does indeed need more evidence of media notice, but that is a reason to improve the article rather than delete it, per WP:NEXIST. For instance, this song has been featured in Billboard three times: [36], [37], [38], and additional coverage in the typical hip hop media is not too hard to find. ---DOOMSDAYER520 (Talk|Contribs) 15:21, 26 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
There is no such thing as "inherent notability" for a song, per WP:NSONG, which explicitly says that a song is not notable just because it charted or certified. It should receive in-depth coverage in multiple sources. What you've got here are Billboard announcements of the song and the music video, and an obviously-promotional interview with the artist. Each one is just a few paragraphs. None are reviews or analyses of the song. You'd find the same type of Billboard coverage for any song on the BB Hot 100, yet being on the BB Hot 100 doesn't = notability, even if it comes with an announcement in Billboard. There are no sources from which we can write an article about this song. It will be a permanent stub. It is exactly the type of song that NSONG suggests we should be merging to the album. If this one is a keeper, then we should just revise NSONG to say that any song on the BB Hot 100 is notable. Leviv ich 15:32, 26 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note - Certifications do not equal sales at this point. Record certifications now include streaming totals, which are not sales - basically if a song is streamed enough times, it counts as a sale. Toa Nidhiki05 19:34, 6 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I used the adjective "inherently" to spice up my prose and did not say that "inherent notability" is any sort of policy. The true reasons for my vote were stated once and that is sufficient. Saying something once is a virtue that you might want to think about. See WP:BLUDGEON. ---DOOMSDAYER520 (Talk|Contribs) 16:55, 26 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - per charting on multiple country’s all-format song charts, including the Billboard Hot 100. And going gold in the US, which indicates half a million units sold. It’s ludicrous to suggest that a song of this caliber does not at least scrape by the minimum of WP:NSONGS/WP:GNG. (And this is from a non-fan too.) Sergecross73 msg me 15:53, 26 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
"Scrape by NSONG" isn't a thing that exists, per the language of NSONG that says charting and certification "indicates only that a song may be notable, not that it is notable", that songs that are only discussed in the context of their albums should be merged to their albums, and that songs should have non-trivial coverage in multiple RSes to receive a standalone article. As for GNG, in order to "scrape by" GNG, we need at least two SIGCOV (to meet the "multiple" requirement). There is not even one SIGCOV of this song. Of the three songs I've nominated, this one is by far the weakest on GNG. Leviv ich 16:12, 26 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Please stop wasting both of our time with badgering me with responses like this. I understand the GNG and NSONGS, and even if I didn’t, you rehashing the same comment ten times wouldn’t help anyways. Sergecross73 msg me 17:47, 26 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Source	Independent?	Reliable?	Significant coverage?	Count source toward GNG?
Source assessment table:
Billboard 1	Interview with artist, no independent analysis or commentary	WP:A/S	5 paragraphs containing four soundbite-length quotes	✘ No
Billboard 2	Original reporting, in own voice, non-affiliated publication	WP:A/S	Only brief mentions of the song stating it was released; remaining 4 paragraphs are about the artist	✘ No
Billboard 3	Original reporting, in own voice, non-affiliated publication	WP:A/S	3 paragraphs: 2 about the artist, 1 paragraph describing the music video	✘ No
Complex 1	Original reporting, in own voice, non-affiliated publication	WP:A/S	4 paragraphs, all about the artist and other artists appearing on remix of song; song itself is merely identified, not discussed	✘ No
Complex 2	~ An article in own voice reporting on an interview with the artist	WP:A/S	3 paragraphs: 2 about the artist, 1 paragraph describing the music video	✘ No
XXL 1	Original reporting, in own voice, non-affiliated publication	WP:A/S	4 sentences: 2 are about the song going gold, 1 about it being on XXL's list of best videos 2018	✘ No
XXL 2	Original reporting, in own voice, non-affiliated publication	WP:A/S	6 paragraphs: 2 about the artist, 2 about David Spade, 2 describing the music video	✘ No
The Wrap	Original reporting, in own voice, non-affiliated publication	WP:A/S	Literally mentions the song in one sentence; the rest of the article is about David Spade, Lil Yachty, and the artist	✘ No
Rap-Up	Original reporting, in own voice, non-affiliated publication	WP:A/S	5 paragraphs: 1 about David Spade, 2 describing the music video, the rest about the artist	✘ No
This table may not be a final or consensus view; it may summarize developing consensus, or reflect assessments of a single editor. Created using {{source assess table}}.

Comment – here is a source assessment table for Gucci Flip Flops. Arguments about charting and certification aside, we do not have any material from which to write anything beyond a stub-length article. All we can say about this song is that it charted/certified, and who was in the music video. That's it–there's nothing else out there. The artist is widely covered, but the song is not. This song came out almost a year ago (May 1, 2018); it's unlikely there will be more coverage in the future of the song. Per WP:NSONG: Notability aside, a standalone article is appropriate only when there is enough material to warrant a reasonably detailed article; articles unlikely ever to grow beyond stubs should be merged to articles about an artist or album. Leviv ich 18:50, 26 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - notable due to charting. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Gristleking (talk • contribs) 02:33, 30 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 07:37, 31 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per above. TheEditster (talk) 12:41, 31 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete CHARTING IS NOT NOTABILITY! Especially at the wonderful feat of 79... You need actual sources. Trillfendi (talk) 15:28, 31 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Most Keep stances arent arguing that alone. The argument is that appearing on multiple national all-format charts, coupled with selling over half million copies, meanings there’s a strong likelihood of the sources existing. No one is advocating that sources aren’t necessary. You’re free to your opinion, but inaccurate oversimplifications like this aren’t helpful. Sergecross73 msg me 18:39, 31 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I don't understand "strong likelihood of the sources existing" being a reason to keep. It's an American song that came out in 2018. If there was significant coverage, we would easily find it. Why speculate on what's likely, instead of evaluating what actually is (the table above)? Leviv ich 19:35, 31 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, thank you, your relentless badgering across these 3 AFDs has made it abundantly clear that you’re unable to understand beyond your own personal stance on this. Sergecross73 msg me 19:54, 31 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Appears to meet WP:NSONG, but as is shown in the table above, much of the sourcing (other than the low charting) is not reliable. Walter Görlitz (talk) 19:28, 6 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Delete Although it charted, there seems to be literally no independent coverage of this song. Charting alone isn't enough to create an article - if there's no coverage, it isn't notable. Toa Nidhiki05 19:34, 6 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep meets WP:NSONGS and WP:GNG. A Google search turns up independent coverage in reliable sources. StaticVapor message me! 21:45, 6 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep As with the others in this series, the WP:LAWYERly source analysis is unconvincing. Analysis of the music video is coverage of the song (the chart is written as if this is insufficient or inferior), and the song has received attention (musical or cultural, either is fine) sufficient to support an article on a notable charting single. The table has several sources that probably should be added to source the article. Chubbles (talk) 06:29, 7 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Meets WP:NSONG #1. "Has been ranked on national or significant music or sales charts." Mind you, I'll see your Guggi Flip Flops and raise you my Joy Division Oven Gloves. Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 13:28, 8 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. — JJMC89 (T·C) 02:02, 7 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Chronic Stress (journal) edit

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

Article PRODded with reason: "Non-notable relatively new journal. Not indexed in any selective databases, no independent sources. Does not meet WP:NJournals or WP:GNG." Article dePRODded by DGG with reason: "given the editors, it is likely to be notable, and there is no advantage to removing the article". I disagree. 1/ WP:NOTINHERITED. 2/ I agree that the editors are well known researchers and that SAGE is a reputed publisher. However, neither guarantees that the journal will succeed. On my user page I have a list of journals started by reputable publishers that fizzled without leaving much trace. Note also that SAGE may be a reputed publisher, but they are strong mostly in social sciences and humanities, much less in life sciences.

In short, my crystal ball broke yesterday, so I think that the judgment on this journal is still out. At best, this is a case of WP:TOOSOON. PROD reason still stands, hence: Delete. Randykitty (talk) 19:15, 16 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academic journals-related deletion discussions. Randykitty (talk) 19:18, 16 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 19:47, 16 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: I have edited the article following the instructions in our journal article writing guide, which resulted in the removal of all references (which were all to the journal's own website, except for one, which was a press release from Yale - the institution where the editors work). The previous version of the article can still be seen here. --Randykitty (talk) 19:57, 16 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 03:44, 24 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 07:35, 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. — JJMC89 (T·C) 02:00, 7 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Igal Dahan edit

AfDs for this article:

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

Hello. This article was deleted following a first AfD less than one year ago, and then there was a G4 deletion, but I think this new version is fairly different. However, sources are still Dahan's comments about the royal wedding - for some perspective, take a look at this "how to get featured in top publications" guide. There is also an interview on IdeaMensch - for some perspective, take a look at this "how to be featured on IdeaMensch" guide. Then there is the usual "Forbes contributor" article and a press release. To conclude: clear GNG fail, should be deleted and salted. Thanks and regards, Biwom (talk) 02:20, 24 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 09:04, 24 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 07:32, 31 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete the sources are either not independent or are just quoting him, without going into detail about him --Danski454 (talk) 15:04, 31 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete , insufficient reliable sourcing, and clear promotionalism . Suggest salting. DGG ( talk ) 01:50, 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 no consensus. Rather than relisting this a third time, I believe it's best close this as no consensus. In essence this is a contested PROD as there's not been enough discussion to have a "keep" or "delete" outcome. (non-admin closure) Dusti ^{*Let's talk!*} 11:11, 7 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Marsden Building Society edit

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

Non-notable organization that fails WP:GNG. A proposed deletion was removed by a conflict of interest editor. Aspects (talk) 03:33, 17 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 04:12, 17 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 04:12, 17 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 04:13, 17 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment there’s plenty of refs as you might expect from an institution that’s 150 years old, but nothing with much depth. Lenders tend to make the national headlines if there’s a financial scandal and rarely otherwise. What kind of refs would we expect e.g. for a US bank with branches only in Iowa and Nebraska, or a German bank with branches only in Bavaria? They’re also unlikely to make national news with in-depth coverage. Mccapra (talk) 11:03, 17 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
There appear to be articles about all the independent building societies, which, collectively, were very significant, though less so now. It doesnt seem sensible to delete just this one article and leave all the others. There is certainly significant reporting of the Society, but not recently, so it wont appear on Google. But the test is not whether it appears on the internet. Rathfelder (talk) 11:02, 18 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
- Google Print and Hathitrust have digitized a huge number of works from before 1924. If it doesn't appear in them, I'd question significant reporting of the society before 1924.--Prosfilaes (talk) 06:03, 25 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Finance-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 00:10, 19 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. I don’t see a good reason yet for deletion. Mccapra (talk) 00:27, 24 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 01:43, 24 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

It makes no sense to delete just one out of Category:Building societies of England. This article is better than some of the others, but to maintain our coverage of these important organisations we need all of them. Rathfelder (talk) 09:28, 29 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 07:31, 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. Mainly on SIGCOV grounds. ~ Amory (u • t • c) 10:34, 8 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Richard Gray's Power Company edit

AfDs for this article:

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

Survived AfD in 2014 but does not appear notable and the company does not seem to have any significance Mccapra (talk) 23:25, 16 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete per WP:A7, as the neither the page nor the linked pieces make any credible claims of significance. Previous AfD was no quorum and 5 years ago so I don't think this would count admin-shopping. Alpha3031 (t • c) 03:47, 17 March 2019 (UTC) Struck while reconsidering sources. Alpha3031 (t • c) 08:52, 25 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 04:26, 17 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Louisiana-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 04:29, 17 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete No claim of importance and no sign of significant coverage in reliable sources. Fails WP:GNG. Pax:Vobiscum (talk) 15:48, 20 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: According to homeatheaterreview it is/was "One of the most interesting success stories in high-end audio and home theater... Gaining a cult following throughout the audio underground" - that site has a bunch of reviews but may not be a sufficiently RS. Stereophile has a large review in 2000 and another in 2004 -- both negative. There's a number of other in-depth reviews[39][40][41][42]. There's also evidence of some kind of reviews in Jazz Times, Sound & Vision, and The Absolute Sound.[43], which suggests a likelihood of further print coverage. There's not a huge amount on the company itself to clearly meet CORPDEPTH, but there appears enough reviews to satisfy GNG of at least their 400S and WP:PRODUCT applies for manufacturers. By analogy to NCREATIVE, etc, coverage of a body of work should be considered as evidence for notability even if coverage of the creator is limited. That said, I'd be happy enough with a merge to capsule in a list of noteworthy audio manufacturers until there's (NPOV, RS) expansion but I can't see a suitable target and a permastub is hardly the worst thing in the CORP world. ^~Hydronium^~Hydroxide^~(Talk)~ 06:23, 23 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Merge into the List of loudspeaker manufacturers or the List of headphone manufacturers, per Hydronium Hydroxide's suggestion and research. Independent notability the subject possesses not. -The Gnome (talk) 09:39, 23 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting to get more comments on the recent !votes
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Kpg jhp jm 01:12, 24 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: I think It's worthwhile to note in any case that the company is actually named Audio Line Source, and the current title is the name of its product series. Reading the reviews posted, I'm not entirely convinced of their reliability or independence. The hometheaterreview.com link seems to be just a directory listing, and the other sources, while much longer, don't really offer much in the way of substantial encyclopedic information. Overall, while I'm not happy with the sources, it might be worth it to get WP:RSN to take a look first.
From the information given, I'm not certain what exactly it is they manufacture, but I don't think they manufacture headphones or loudspeakers. Power conditioners seem to be the only thing that's been noted in sources, but there is no list to merge to. I have not found a merge target. Basically, I definitely don't think a keep is appropriate, but nor am I going to suggest delete. Neutral. Alpha3031 (t • c) 03:04, 26 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 07:16, 31 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. See PRODUCT REVIEWS. Those sites routinely review products. They have to be truly independent before things start to count for notability. If companies are sending products unsolicited, giving products, or even paying them for an evaluation, that's a payment for shelf space on their review site which fails the independent criteria. The company itself doesn't glean of notability and their products don't seem to shine with notability either. Being among a whole bunch of things that they review is definitely not an indication of notability Graywalls (talk) 10:24, 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 keep. Drmies (talk) 02:03, 7 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Anna Clendening edit

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

Fails WP:MUSICBIO ToT89 (talk) 16:18, 17 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 16:30, 17 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 16:30, 17 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of North Carolina-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 16:30, 17 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 16:30, 17 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 16:32, 17 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 16:32, 17 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 16:33, 17 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 16:56, 17 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 16:56, 17 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep has not released a great deal yet but does have significant coverage in multiple reliable sources such as this independent biography at AllMusic here and an article in Bust (magazine) already in the article so passes WP:BASIC Atlantic306 (talk) 20:58, 21 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 01:02, 24 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete “Allmusic” is not a reliable source at all and the subject simply doesn’t meet notability for a musician. One article certainly isn’t enough. Trillfendi (talk) 17:09, 24 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Allmusic is a long established reliable source. --Michig (talk) 08:04, 25 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Meets WP:GNG. Subject is notable. Lubbad85 (talk) 15:01, 26 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Very weak Keep - I'm pretty much 50/50 - On one hand IMHO this is TOOSOON however on the other there are sources out there (ie [44][45][46][47][48][49]) - The majority of the sources on Google News aren't great however IMHO by a bare minimum notability is certainly there. –Davey2010^Talk 14:24, 25 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep — I've struggled with my decision while performing WP:BEFORE of this subject. Nearly everything that I read about this person positions my mind in the middle of the road. After two hours of research, I can't make a strong case to delete. I also can't make a strong case to keep. The subject has recently released her first EP, she's worked with two major labels (East West Records/Warner & Asylum). One of the music videos has 40 million views. She's embarking on her first tour, in some benchmark venues (capacity > 250). I know that these aren't the yardsticks that we favor here at Wikipedia, but in the music industry, these are some of the barometers that are watched. Considering that notability isn't always black & white, and that this subject is trending upwards, I've arrived at a KEEP. — Scottyoak2 (talk) 04:12, 26 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I'm pretty much aligned with Scottyoak2's thinking; this subject hovers in the middle between keep and delete, but I lean keep in favor of interpreting the sum total of sources/indicators for real world notability that might fall outside a strict interpretation of wiki criteria. ShelbyMarion (talk) 01:45, 28 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Probably delete. I'm searching, but the sources are marginal. I s there ANY WP:SIGCOV of her?E.M.Gregory (talk) 18:14, 30 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 06:38, 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. Randykitty (talk) 13:10, 7 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Aji's edit

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

Non notable company, no in depth coverage and appears to be WP:TOOSOON Praxidicae (talk) 20:39, 23 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 22:19, 23 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Nepal-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 22:19, 23 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Reliable sources are scanty, the first reference from Nepali Times may have seemed reliable but it seems it was placed as an Ad + promotional content on the site, while the rest are self published references. WP:TOOSOON and fails WP:RS. Lapablo (talk) 08:17, 24 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. The Nepali Times article is not promotional content. Nepali Times does not do paid article placements. There are two more references cited that are not self published, one by The Kathmandu Post and another by Republica which are both reputed national daily newspapers in Nepal. All three articles cited feature in-depth coverage of Aji's, two of them include videos which have received over 90K views. Chairdaily sf (talk) 10:04, 24 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Chairdaily sf Irrespective of if it was paid or not, it is still WP:TOOSOON to have a page at this time. As it doesn't meet criteria WP:SIGCOV.

Delete - There are two decent sources I can find, but they are what you would typically see of a startup and not really WP:SIGCOV. I would agree this is WP:TOOSOON. Great concept though. --CNMall41 (talk) 02:41, 25 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 06:14, 31 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. In addition to the aforementioned articles in Nepali Times, Republica, and Kathmandu Post. Here are more articles about Aji's on more reputed Nepali Publications: Setopati (https://www.setopati.com/social/193767), Naya Patrika (https://www.nayapatrikadaily.com/news-details/42719/2020-05-05), ECS Nepal (http://ecs.com.np/craft-maker/the-makers-of-aji-products), and BBC Nepali (https://www.facebook.com/watch/?v=411265282812528).Chairdaily sf —Preceding undated comment added 09:53, 28 September 2020 (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) 13:09, 7 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Alone in the Neon Jungle edit

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

Decline PROD, ping Premeditated Chaos. Article failing WP:FILM with one editor said the film never actually been released for a speculation and also undersourced as well. Sheldybett (talk) 07:56, 16 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 08:03, 16 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 08:03, 16 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 08:04, 16 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, obviously, since I was the PROD nominator. (PROD rationale was "Doesn't appear to meet WP:NFILM. No in-depth reviews found on search (regular Google search + Newspapers.com). As a made-for-TV-movie, it was never widely released, and it doesn't meet any other NFILM qualifications.") Sheldybett, I have to admit I'm having trouble with your reasoning for declining the PROD in the first place. Neither your your edit summary for the PROD removal nor your nomination here give any indication that you dispute or disagree with my PROD rationale, so I can't understand why you would go to the trouble of taking this to AfD when you don't seem to actually want the article kept. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 17:57, 16 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Premeditated Chaos: Same thing happened recently at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Kiwiberri. Seems like a basic misunderstanding of PROD. Bakazaka (talk) 10:24, 17 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: the film may meet WP:FILM '1. The film is widely distributed and has received full-length reviews by two or more nationally known critics'. I have cited two reviews in the lead. One, by Tom Shales, definitely meets this criterion. The other is by someone called Joan Hanauer, who may or may not be considered a nationally known critic; some of her other work is listed at https://www.rottentomatoes.com/critic/joan-hanauer/movies. Personally, I'd give it the benefit of the doubt and keep it. Alarichall (talk) 12:23, 18 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The entire content of Hanauer's review of Neon Jungle is one sentence at the very bottom of that article. There is no universe in which a single sentence qualifies as a full-length review. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 12:52, 18 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

No, it's the last four paragraphs. I do recognise, though, that this may not be seen as a full-length review. Alarichall (talk) 21:52, 18 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Pardon me, the entire portion which represents any critical appraisal of the film. The rest is regurgitation of plot and production information. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 23:19, 18 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 06:13, 31 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - as per nomination, no valid sources found. QueerEcofeminist^{"cite! even if you fight"!!!} [they/them/their] 01:59, 7 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. Do you not consider The Washington Post, United Press International, or Chicago Tribune "valid sources"?

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

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

The result was delete. — JJMC89 (T·C) 01:57, 7 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Bajgain edit

AfDs for this article:

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

Survived AfD by no consensus after a Sept 2018 AfD, despite a ludicrous single weak keep vote substantiated by nothing. This is unsourced surname cruft. There is no indication the name is notable. The article is not suitable for use as a disambig as there is currently only one article containing the name in the title. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 17:11, 23 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 20:08, 23 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Nepal-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 20:08, 23 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Ethnic groups-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 07:30, 25 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Ineligible for soft deletion as an AfD survivor.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 06:04, 31 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. No sources in the article and doesn't seem to be any that I can find. It's been months since the last AfD and in that time nobody has actually been able to find a source it seems. Meszzy² (talk) 21:53, 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 soft delete. WP:REFUND applies. Randykitty (talk) 13:05, 7 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

CLNZ/NZSA Research Grants edit

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

Non-notable grant program that fails WP:GNG. The provided sources are either in non-independent sources, non-reliable sources, or mention a winner of the award without significant discussion of the award itself. Citrivescence (talk) 05:39, 31 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. Citrivescence (talk) 05:42, 31 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of New Zealand-related deletion discussions. Citrivescence (talk) 05:42, 31 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Lacking sources which will lead to failing WP:ORG, but some of it's writing style read more like a promotion. Sheldybett (talk) 00:03, 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 delete. — JJMC89 (T·C) 01:53, 7 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Felicity Andersen edit

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

Article that has been around for a long time (since 2004!) for a actress which sounds more notable on it's one line then she really is, out of her roles, most of them are uncredited (her most known film is a uncredited role which is mentioned in it's one line summary), none of her credited roles stand out either. Wgolf (talk) 01:53, 31 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. IntoThinAir (talk) 05:02, 31 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. IntoThinAir (talk) 05:02, 31 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Her credits are pretty paltry, far, far short of satisfying WP:NACTOR. Clarityfiend (talk) 07:32, 31 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Not sure if I looked at the same things as NOM, but subject gets top billing for Trail of Passion (2003)? Subject's other two roles are credited but unnamed characters. Trail of Passion does get a simple wikimention here and here. Not enough for notability. Aoziwe (talk) 10:49, 31 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Trail of Passion is, if I read IMDb aright, a straight-to-video production that won Best Gratuitous Use of Sex at the Melbourne Underground Film Festival, according to IMDb, so not exactly a strong endorsement. Clarityfiend (talk) 18:52, 31 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 12:38, 1 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete a non-notable actress.John Pack Lambert (talk) 04:29, 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 delete. — JJMC89 (T·C) 01:52, 7 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hermanitas Velázquez edit

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

Actresses who are singers who I am trying to find anything for. All I can really find are wiki mirrors and that is it. So either delete or possibly a redirect to the film they were in. Wgolf (talk) 01:16, 31 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 06:19, 31 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 06:19, 31 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 06:19, 31 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 06:20, 31 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Mexico-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 06:20, 31 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Wikipedia is not supposed to be an IMDb mirror. It seems like it is pretty close to such at present.John Pack Lambert (talk) 04:32, 2 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as only one role of note credited as singer so does not pass WP:NACTOR and no sign of significant reliable sources coverage Atlantic306 (talk) 21:36, 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 keep. After a relist, it's clear that there's no consensus to delete as the article is clearly notable w/ WP:NACTOR (non-admin closure) Dusti ^{*Let's talk!*} 05:11, 7 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Dwayne Cameron edit

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

Doesn't seem to be a notable actor. Doesn't pass WP:NACTOR and the only claim to fame is from Power Rangers Operation Overdrive and 211. Article tagged with a couple of issue templates. Tyw7 (🗣️ Talk) — If (reply) then (ping me) 15:23, 23 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Tyw7 (🗣️ Talk) — If (reply) then (ping me) 15:25, 23 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. Tyw7 (🗣️ Talk) — If (reply) then (ping me) 15:25, 23 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. Tyw7 (🗣️ Talk) — If (reply) then (ping me) 15:25, 23 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of New Zealand-related deletion discussions. Tyw7 (🗣️ Talk) — If (reply) then (ping me) 15:25, 23 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep as passes WP:NACTOR with a prominent role of Bray in 157 episodes of the very notable series The Tribe, prominent roles in tv series Street Legal (New Zealand TV series), and Power Rangers Operation Overdrive, also some leading film roles such as 211 so he deserves a place in the encyclopedia Atlantic306 (talk) 21:34, 26 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Atlantic306, but there's almost no third party coverage. --Tyw7 (🗣️ Talk) — If (reply) then (ping me) 22:22, 26 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
with such a number of prominent roles there should be coverage offline or paywalled if not on google which has limitations with its algorithms Atlantic306 (talk)
Well then prove it. You can't just spectulate that sources exist. --Tyw7 (🗣️ Talk) — If (reply) then (ping me) 04:45, 27 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep – 2 sources in the article, from NZ's leading two online sources, who are confirmed to be reliable in many AfDs before this. Couple that with the NACTOR pass and it's a keep. I found those two on thd first page of a gnews search too, before looking at the article. At least when nominating an article here look at the article and do a WP:BEFORE search. Would provide links but on mobile. J 947 ^{^{^(c)}}, at 05:04, 28 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
J947, I did. But I think I'm getting hits for cricket, not the director. --Tyw7 (🗣️ Talk) — If (reply) then (ping me) 12:35, 28 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@Twy7: Three sources found. All have SIGCOV, two are from the same newspaper though but both could be used as an example. First page of the basic gnews search for me, though probably matters on location (I'm from NZ). Two of them are in the article already. What made you skip by them? Also this provides more possible results. J 947 ^{^{^(c)}}, at 02:52, 29 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@Tyw7: Fixed ping. J 947 ^{^{^(c)}}, at 02:53, 29 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
J947, Well in my mind they all reference a single fact so I sorta consider them as one. --Tyw7 (🗣️ Talk) — If (reply) then (ping me) 03:21, 29 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, DannyS712 (talk) 01:12, 31 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. "Has had significant roles in multiple notable films, television shows, stage performances, or other productions." WP:NACTOR. (Dushan Jugum (talk) 03:33, 1 April 2019 (UTC)).[reply]
Keep. Clearly passes WP:NACTOR. Sheldybett (talk) 00:00, 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 merge to Chaplain–Medic massacre. — JJMC89 (T·C) 01:55, 7 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Herman G. Felhoelter edit

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

Deprodded with a rationale that admitted this subject did not meet WP:NSOLDIER (having been awarded the 2nd highest military decoration). While gallant, the rest of the coverage comes out of the single event of the massacre, so WP:BIO1E would apply. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 19:52, 23 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Kentucky-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 20:02, 23 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 20:03, 23 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment -- This man is an unremarkable man, apart from the circumstances of his death. Since he chose to stay with a wounded man to administer the last unction, rather than fleeing, he probably qualifies as a Christian martyr and thus a candidate for canonisation. However I do not know how many breaches of the rules of war there were in the Korean War and thus how notable his death was. Peterkingiron (talk) 17:18, 24 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Merge and redirect to Chaplain–Medic massacre, the notable event during which he was killed.E.M.Gregory (talk) 09:23, 27 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, DannyS712 (talk) 01:07, 31 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Merge and redirect per E.M.Gregory. Redirects are cheap. Clarityfiend (talk) 07:36, 31 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep--having an individual article is helpful for wikilinking. Bios have small details that cannot be easily captured in group articles, such as birth dates, birthplaces, etc. that are helpful for contextualization. He wasn't notable for anything afterwards because he died. He is mentioned in Battle_of_Taejon along with George D. Libby. The notability of these two men is almost identical from a quick glance. Are you really going to go through all of the deceased war-heroes and delete all the ones notable for just one event who weren't decorated enough? Or are you going to go through the list of chaplains on Roman_Catholic_Archdiocese_for_the_Military_Services,_USA and delete nearly all of them?--Epiphyllumlover (talk) 22:22, 1 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
- Merge and redirect - though I note that there is little in the bio that is not already there. He "could" be sufficiently notable but this would depend on sources. Reviewing the sources, as a whole, they either lack independance or quality (see Russell, Christopher - which is a blog). Regards, Cinderella157 (talk) 23:05, 1 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Merge Tend to agree with all the above., not independently notable. George D. Libby is notable as he meets our notability criteria by virtue of getting his nations highest award for bravery.Slatersteven (talk) 14:23, 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 delete. — JJMC89 (T·C) 01:51, 7 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Stephanie Pond-Smith edit

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

Actress with just 3 roles. Which were all uncredited. According to the IMDB she worked on other films-but I am not sure if it is the same person (It's possible though that she did return to Hollywood doing that). Still not notable enough to appear here I think. Wgolf (talk) 00:47, 31 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 06:24, 31 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 06:24, 31 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 06:24, 31 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 06:24, 31 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Nevada-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 06:24, 31 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete fails WP:NACTOR. MarnetteD|Talk 06:28, 31 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete for failing NACTOR. Clarityfiend (talk) 07:37, 31 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Weak delete There are certainly sources which confirm her roles in the four films she acted in as a child. They are all notable films, but her roles are probably not significant. The obituary in Variety confirms her adult career, but again, her role in producing or publicising those films was not significant. I can't find other significant coverage apart from that obituary, so she would not meet WP:GNG either. RebeccaGreen (talk) 10:20, 1 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete People do not become notable on uncredited roles.John Pack Lambert (talk) 05:09, 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 delete. ~ Amory (u • t • c) 00:46, 7 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Cash and Maverick edit

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

Okay I did put a blp prod on this originally. Now I'm not sure if this is a case of too soon or not. It does mention that here song did go to number 21 on one chart, but it is unsourced. (I guess it isn't quite a speedy though) Wgolf (talk) 00:12, 31 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Strong delete This garbage is what happens when “anyone” can create a Wikipedia page. Trillfendi (talk) 00:22, 31 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
comment-I did consider a speedy, but I wasn't sure as it seemed possible they are notable. Wgolf (talk) 00:25, 31 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as WP:PROMO so unambiguous that the file uploaded by the article creator to illustrate the infobox is "Cash and Maverick Promotional.jpeg". Bakazaka (talk) 00:47, 31 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete based on current lack of sourcing to establish that the subjects satisfy WP:MUSIC. The claim that one of their songs charted is sourced only to their own YouTube channel page, not to the page of any reliable chart or independent source. If this group is notable, or later becomes notable, the article can be re-created once independent reliable sources are found. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 01:22, 31 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no reliable sources in the article nor could I find any myself that would support notability. -- Whpq (talk) 02:34, 31 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 06:23, 31 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Oklahoma-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 06:23, 31 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 06:23, 31 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: No reliable sources, fail WP:NMUSIC. Ceethekreator (talk) 01:06, 3 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Poor promotional article, lacking notability. No reliable sources found. Kind Tennis Fan (talk) 23:24, 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.

April Fools' Day Nominations edit

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 present. (non-admin closure) Spirit of Eagle (talk) 00:27, 2 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Future edit

Should be deleted per WP:TOOSOON. InvalidOS talk 19:03, 31 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Oh yeah, we can also delete April Fools' Day per WP:TOOSOON while we're at it. InvalidOS talk 19:05, 31 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:NOTCRYSTAL. -KAP03(^{Talk • Contributions • Email}) 02:21, 1 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep for the safety of space and time because if this gets deleted, we need to delete the past and thus, the universe. James-the-Charizard (talk) 02:24, 1 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to past, it's inevitable. Leviv ich 05:24, 1 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, and note that the Future begins with January 1, 2016. ~ ONUnicorn^{(Talk|Contribs)}problem solving 17:29, 31 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Why bother because the internet will all disappear soon. Margalob (talk) 23:51, 31 December 1999 (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.