Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2019 April 8

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

The result was delete. — JJMC89 (T·C) 01:21, 16 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Cuttin' da Mustard (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

I believe the article lacks this fails WP:GNG due to the lack of coverage from reliable, third party sources. Aoba47 (talk) 00:13, 9 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. Aoba47 (talk) 00:15, 9 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 09:12, 9 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete I'm afraid I have to agree with you. Other than brief mentions, I can't find anything supporting notability. Schazjmd (talk) 20:36, 14 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 Eastwood International School Beirut. Consensus to merge, but it sounds like the merge has already happened, so I'll just redirect the title. -- RoySmith (talk) 01:39, 16 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Eastwood College (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

I propose a merge & rename of Eastwood College with Eastwood International School Beirut as according to this website https://eastwoodschools.com/, they are merely campuses of the one school. Eastwood International School Beirut mentions Eastwood College in its own article along with them both being campuses of the same school. UaMaol (talk) 23:42, 8 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. Ceethekreator (talk) 06:51, 9 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. Ceethekreator (talk) 06:51, 9 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lebanon-related deletion discussions. Ceethekreator (talk) 06:51, 9 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• This doesn't require a deletion discussion, Uamaol. Please see Wikipedia:Merging for instructions for merging articles. Cordless Larry (talk) 06:33, 10 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge and redirect to Eastwood International School Beirut. I have already carried out the limited merge needed. Just Chilling (talk) 16:21, 14 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. Malcolmxl5 (talk) 00:51, 16 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

George Charalambous (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

Actor who has questionable notability. I can't find him in the list of credits for the film he was apparently in (I checked the IMDB link that was there and he wasn't mentioned) All the links I can find are wiki mirrors. Wgolf (talk) 23:30, 8 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

As a note I can't find his name on the IMDB-it is very possible he is listed there under another name. Wgolf (talk) 23:44, 8 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Ceethekreator (talk) 06:52, 9 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. Ceethekreator (talk) 06:52, 9 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Greece-related deletion discussions. Ceethekreator (talk) 06:52, 9 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Even if he was in the film named, it certainly doesn't appear to be a notable role; the film does not appear to be notable; and he would need more roles anyway to meet WP:NACTOR. I don't find coverage for this George Charalambous that would enable him to meet WP:GNG, either. RebeccaGreen (talk) 10:22, 9 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete a non-notable actor.John Pack Lambert (talk) 03:55, 10 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom and NACTOR. IMDb knoweth him not, though it is possible that he switched to behind-the-scenes work or animation, which still wouldn't make him notable. Clarityfiend (talk) 09:11, 11 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete apart from notability there are problems verifying any of the content Atlantic306 (talk) 16:50, 13 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) DannyS712 (talk) 01:16, 16 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Meadowvale (village) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

Article about a neighbourhood within a city, not properly referenced as passing WP:GEOLAND. The rule for populated places is basically that the city itself is inherently notable, while the individual neighbourhoods within the city get their own standalone articles only if they can be well-referenced to enough reliable source coverage to properly establish that they actually have any standalone notability independent of the city. But of the three "references" that were here before I initiated this discussion, all were garbage that had to be struck: one was a circular reference to another Wikipedia article, and the other two were both badly formatted (in completely different ways) links to the same self-published website of a school in the neighbourhood -- which means zero of them were to reliable or notability-supporting sources at all. Bearcat (talk) 23:16, 8 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 09:20, 9 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 09:21, 9 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep.ISBN 9780972343602 page 242 identifies this as a former town, anddoi:10.7202/1018105ar as a former village, and notability is not temporary, so WP:GEOLAND is passed. Phil Bridger (talk) 11:59, 9 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep: Per Bridger. Also, I found this. --David Tornheim (talk) 22:26, 11 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment, people/stuff aren't usually reported on as being (insert name) of (neighbourhood/subdivision) unless the city is also included, googs has numerous snips of people/stuff being of "Meadowville, Ontario" eg. A National Soul: Canadian Mural Paintings, 1860s-1930s (2002) - "In 1906 Frederick Haines painted a mural for the public school in Meadowvale, Ontario ..", American Peony Scociety Bulletin (1958) - "Miss Minerva Castle, Rowancroft Gardens, Meadovale, Ontario, Canada.", Peel County United Churches - church records, from National Gallery of Canada website - "Georges Chavignaud .. Died Canada: Ontario, Meadowvale 1944-05-03", American Short-horn Herd Book (1920) - "Index to Breeders and Owner Fraser, W. P., Meadowvale, Ontario", Canadian National Record for Swine (1918) - ".. farrowed the property of James B Ross, Meadowvale, Ont...", Shorthorn Country (1984) - "bred and owned by Sanford Farms, Meadowvale, Ontario.", Commemorative Biographical Record of the County of York, Ontario (1907) - "His next residence was in Meadowvale, and he remained there for some time...", Ukraine in a changing world (1977) - "The Redemptorists operate St. Vladmimir's College for Boys in Roblin, Manitoba and a novitiate in Meadowvale, Ontario.", so Meadowvale was identifiable as a seperate place/village before it was gobbled up by Mississauga, additionaly there are books/lets about Meadowvale including Meadowvale and Churchville: A History (1975), and A Souvenir of the Village of Meadowvale-on-the-Credit (1904)/A Souvenir of the Village of Meadowvale-on-the-Credit: Described and Illustrated (1904), oh, and being the first Heritage Conservation District in Ontario is also a plus, so with the sources revealed by the above editors, this meets WP:NGEO and is a Keep from me. Coolabahapple (talk) 08:45, 12 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep, Meadowvale is the first Heritage Conservation District in Ontario, a protection status conferred on an entire neighbourhood, from landscape to buildings. It is also the primary subject of a 315 page book. -- Zanimum (talk) 19:22, 12 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. ~ Amory (u • t • c) 00:40, 16 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Ming Veevers-Carter (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

Notability not asserted, can't find substantive independent sources Reywas92^Talk 22:38, 8 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep A gold-medal winner at the Chelsea Flower Show means that she passes WP:ANYBIO as that puts her at the top of her field. Andrew D. (talk) 23:29, 8 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • That's "a well-known and significant award or honor"? They have a number of awards in a number of categories and I wouldn't expect that to make the winners automatically notable. Reywas92^Talk 00:54, 9 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 09:24, 9 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 09:24, 9 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment She also published several books during the 1990s: Festive Decorations, The Step by Step Art of Dried Flowers, and Celebration Flowers, so she's had a long career, and she may well meet WP:CREATIVE. I will see if I can find reviews, profiles, etc. RebeccaGreen (talk) 10:29, 9 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep I agree with Andrew Davidson's reasoning. That is a notable award in her field, and only the best in that field would be making such large displays for the Queen of England. Dream Focus 15:48, 9 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Agree with Andrew 9H48F (talk) 13:39, 12 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep I agree that a gold medal at the Chelsea Flower Show meets WP:ANYBIO. (And yes, for anyone interested in flowers and gardens, they are well-known awards, and well reported in the media.) The article has improved referencing since it was nominated for AfD. RebeccaGreen (talk) 10:27, 15 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) DannyS712 (talk) 01:16, 16 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

African People's Socialist Party (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

Article has no sources except internal sources and links to another party's website. There appears to be no elected officials and no non-trivial coverage in reliable sources. Toa Nidhiki05 22:36, 8 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Africa-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 09:25, 9 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 09:25, 9 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 09:25, 9 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 09:29, 9 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Florida-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 09:29, 9 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep — Although most of the sourcing is pretty poor, and I can understand why the nom nominated it, within few minutes of basic search, I was able to find reliable independent sources covering the subject in detail. [1] ; [2] ; Tani, E.; Kae Sera. False Nationalism False Internationalism: Class Contradictions in the Armed Struggle, Seeds Beneath the Snow Publications (1985), p. 163-229 PDF ; [3] ; [4] ; and not to mention countless of snippets on Google books with multiple pages covering the subject - many of which I can make out pretty well e.g. paragraphs. Article passes WP:NORG and WP:GNG. I will add some of the sources later and do more search. I will also remove the terrible links used as sources e.g. Facebook and YouTube.Tamsier (talk) 12:54, 9 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep per Tamsier. I found similar sources.--21:45, 9 April 2019 (UTC)
• Keep Sources available, just need to be added. 9H48F (talk) 13:23, 12 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep probably small, but if it exists, we should have an article. Peterkingiron (talk) 17:50, 14 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. Per above and my BEFORE I do see sources. I would, however, consider a merger to Uhuru Movement which this party is the main proponent of. Icewhiz (talk) 13:34, 15 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. — JJMC89 (T·C) 01:20, 16 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Gangrene of the eyelid (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

We do not need articles, or even redirects, for gangrene of every part of the body. Although medical conditions are generally deemed notable, this is not a medical condition, it's just silly. Natureium (talk) 22:12, 8 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. MarginalCost (talk) 14:18, 9 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Would tend to agree. It's easy to find at least a dozen refs for "gangrene of any body part you care to mention" [5][6][7]; that does not mean we need a separate article or redirect for every possible combination. --Elmidae (talk · contribs) 20:58, 9 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. — JJMC89 (T·C) 01:19, 16 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Nelder Dawson (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

Another Billy Hathorn Louisianan with no assertion of notability. Sourced to non-independent obituary. A nice resume but a routine job and no significant coverage. Reywas92^Talk 21:43, 8 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Louisiana-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 21:44, 8 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 21:44, 8 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete None of the sources contribute towards establishing WP:GNG. Best, GPL93 (talk) 02:22, 9 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. — JJMC89 (T·C) 01:18, 16 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

CCS Group (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

This draft was moved to mainspace by an editor who is apparently a paid employee of the company, without ever passing through AfC review. As a result, editors have not yet had an opportunity to evaluate whether it is notable by our standards, so here is one. It gets a few hits on Gnews, mostly relating to its acquisition by GPV International; and no verifiable hits on Gbooks. I cannot see how that takes it anywhere near satisfying WP:NCORP. Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 21:10, 8 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Switzerland-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 21:13, 8 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 21:13, 8 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Soft Delete without prejudice to a future neutral submission - The article in its current state is the product of corporate editing and does not establish corporate notability. Robert McClenon (talk) 00:45, 10 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. — JJMC89 (T·C) 01:18, 16 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Madhu C. Narayanan (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

Filmmaker who falls under too soon. He so far has just one film. Will he be notable enough someday? Perhaps. But for now a delete as he is too soon. Wgolf (talk) 20:32, 8 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 20:35, 8 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 20:35, 8 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 20:36, 8 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete or userfy as it is a case of WP:TOOSOON with only one work as main director with the other credits being assistant director which do not contribute much to meeting WP:Creative. Needs to direct at least one more notable film to gain coverage that qualifies him for an article, thanks Atlantic306 (talk) 16:47, 13 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. — JJMC89 (T·C) 01:17, 16 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Constitution Party of Hawaii (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

Article only links to two sources that say this party exists. It does not appear to have any elected officers or any non-trivial coverage in reliable sources. Any useful information can be folded into Constitution Party (United States). Toa Nidhiki05 20:31, 8 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 20:37, 8 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Hawaii-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 20:37, 8 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 20:38, 8 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Zero sources found for this newly established branch of a minor national party. Ti is, at the very least, WP:TOOSOON for a page.E.M.Gregory (talk) 08:54, 12 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. ~ Amory (u • t • c) 00:44, 16 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Debra Kahn Tolchinsky (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

As with her husband, whose article was recently deleted at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/David E. Tolchinsky, this is a heavily advertorialized biography of a person whose claims of notability are not reliably sourced. Just like David's article, this was an overgrown linkfarm of WP:ELNO violations to the self-published websites of people and organizations named in the article, until I cleaned it up just now — and the actual footnoted references are primary sources, not notability-supporting media coverage. As always, the notability test hinges less on what the article says, and more on how well the article references what it says to reliable sources. I also still suspect some form of conflict of interest editing here, as Debra and David were both created by the same user, and the only other contributions that user ahs ever made to Wikipedia at all that didn't directly involve the surname "Tolchinsky" still pertained to a colleague of theirs — so even if the article can actually be salvaged with better sources than I've been able to find, it would still have to be fundamentally overhauled for WP:NOTADVERT compliance anyway. Bearcat (talk) 20:01, 8 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Illinois-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 20:12, 8 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 20:12, 8 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 20:12, 8 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of News media-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 20:13, 8 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 20:13, 8 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. She has done stuff, but nobody has noted it, so not notable. Xxanthippe (talk) 22:23, 8 April 2019 (UTC).[reply]
• Delete Fails WP:GNG.-TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 16:24, 10 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Thsmi002 (talk) 22:32, 8 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• delete Fails to meet the GNG. Blogs, IMDB, and non-independent sources are all I see.Sandals1 (talk) 14:44, 12 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak delete. The article doesn't adequately demonstrate that she passes WP:GNG or WP:PROF, doesn't include sufficient references and isn't very well written, but it could possibly be a borderline case of notability. --Tataral (talk) 02:57, 13 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was soft delete. WP:REFUND applies. — JJMC89 (T·C) 01:17, 16 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Working Families Party of Oregon (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

Article only links to the websites, a self-published source. It does not appear to have any elected officers or any non-trivial coverage in reliable sources. Any useful information can be folded into the article for the national Working Families Party. Toa Nidhiki05 19:30, 8 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 19:55, 8 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Oregon-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 19:55, 8 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 19:55, 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 keep. Seems like this is a notable work after all and the text quality issues mentioned in the deletion nomination are being worked on Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 05:36, 16 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

SkyOS (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

I nominated this article for deletion considering the following facts:

(1) It was written like a promotional advertisement to the operating system and the person who created it. After some years after the last AfD, this article still has a lot of problems that evidence the apparent lack of notability and how POV it is.

It is enough to quote some parts to see why it is like an advert:

(1.a) Biased wording.

The above statement was written alike "how hard was the 'good work' of the developer(s)". An editor unrelated to the subject of the article would have written something like "SkyOS was being developed by ... since/during ..." and cited a source, something this phrase does not have. Of course, it could be rewritten if the article would be notable, but again, here there is no sources.

(1.b) Promotional.

(1.c) Fanatic and "garage band" POV.

This looks like the same case of WP:GARAGEBAND but applied to developers of an obscure operating system as the crew and the software itself as the band.

(1.d) Written from the perspective of the main developer and anecdotal issues unrelated to the article.

Here (I guess the developer himself) wrote what was in his mind but as 3rd person to mask the fact he wrote those quotes himself, trying to show the reader as it was written by someone else.

(2) Almost every source cited is from the (defunct) website of the article's subject, so here we have self-published (WP:SELFPUBLISH) and primary (WP:PRIMARY) sources, therefore the neutrality and factual accuracy could be disputed.

As of 4 March 2019 there are 14 references, from which 12th is the only one independent to the subject and the remaining 13 sources are citations to (archived copies of) pages of skyos.org, the former official website of the operating system. The only independent source is a broken link (can be found in Internet Archive here) and it directed to a comment on a brief entry of OSNews, but not to the article itself, so it could be more questionable as reliable source.

(3) There are parts without any cited reliable source.

History does not have any independent and reliable source, and most of it does not even have any cited source. Subsection "Components", "SkyFS" and "Porting applications" among others also does not cite any sources.

(4) First and second AfDs were flooded by IPs and new-registered users who argued (or better said, voted) things in a way they did not provide any valid argument, such as:

(4.a)

This user argued that the article is notable because it was created long time ago, because it is supposedly popular (what is popular and how, I do not know, and also without citing references to that claim). Not valid arguments at all. Also saying that it is relevant, non-biased and not-an-advertisement does not magically make it that way. The user after diverted to something unrelated, that is another article (it does not matter if the other article is or not biased, the article discussed in the AfD was "SkyOS", not "OS X"). Finally argues that being mentioned in another Wikpedia articles makes it also notable, but let's consider that is frequent to POV-pushers to try to make their POV articles look like notable by adding links to it from another Wikipedia pages.

(4.b)

The main developer himself removed content, what was conflict of interest.

(4.c)

Lots of comments like this one above were made, who can be depicted as fanatic, without providing any valid argument.

(4.d)

Here we have a personal opinion and connection to the subject. It says that it is "significant" and has "enough media coverage", but where are the sources to confirm that claims? Also it WP:BALLed affirming it "will be a more notable". Not valid at all.

(4.e)
Finally let's quote the following statement who depicts well why popularity is not notability and the lack of valid sources. Being linked by <insert here> website does not mean it is notable.

Also please take in mind the "Wikipedia effect": when a completely unknown subject without reliable sources becomes known after it gained an article in Wikipedia, so after that other websites began to talk about the subject on the basis of the Wikipedia coverage, which in turn begins to link to that other sites as the "independent sources".

Therefore, I consider the AfDs did not have any valid argument supporting to keep the article.

After the AfDs, the issues were not fixed at all.

Zerabat (talk) 18:59, 8 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. Zerabat (talk) 19:14, 8 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 19:58, 8 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete All the sources are its own dead website. Reywas92^Talk 22:12, 8 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

*Delete Per nom, it is really a bullshit article! -- Editor-1 (talk) 04:43, 9 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment I will look for some RS (brief search shows at least some "weird 25 OSs" kind of articles in usual tech sources). As of other article issues, TNT to stub-like state is cheap and - in this case - best way to go (assuming my search for sources is successful). Pavlor (talk) 09:04, 9 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

By done this edit, the article is in better status and with the sources it has now, there is no problem to keep it. Editor-1 (talk) 12:04, 15 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Best source I found so far is an article on root.cz [8] (Czech tech news site, mainly Linux focused; has editorial staff and publishing company in background, so it may pass RS test), there are also more short news about SkyOS. English language sources are scarce. Several short news (and longer articles) are on OSNews.com [9], but I´m not sure, how to judge this one (claims to have editorial staff, but may be closer to a blog, it is not clear, how rigorous is editorial control over submissions from external contributors). Other than that, only a passing mention on The Register [10], or article on sites with unclear reliability [11], [12]. So, we have one RS webpage with one solid article and few short news (root.cz) and one maybe (or not) RS with plenty of content about SkyOS (OSNews.com). This could be enough for me to rewrite the article starting with TNT, but notability is clearly borderline (even by my quite low standards). Pavlor (talk) 19:41, 9 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Other sources: short article on zdnet.com [13], 6 slides on Der Standard webpage [14] (apparently the OS has Austrian roots). Pavlor (talk) 09:16, 12 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep and improve. Deletion is not clean up, which means your whole Afd is flawed. It is clearly notable. As regarding point 4, Bilby voted keep at the time, so it wasn't as much as IP,SPA fest as you say. I think if @Pavlor: can drastically reduce it in size, a wee article that is cleanly sourced will emerge. scope_creep^Talk 09:36, 10 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I started basic rewrite (well, trimming most promotional parts; at half of original article size now), but this article requires a complete rewrite. I will continue by adding proper references, if I find the time (probably not before the end of this week). For now, I will probably only put best sources I found in the "further reading" section, so the article is not entirely without sources. As of notability, I will look into some archived pages (byte.com comes in my mind), at least some coverage would certainly help in this regard. Pavlor (talk) 10:05, 10 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep Not many high quality sources available, but enough - in my point of view - to establish notability. As the OS is dead now, there is no danger this article will serve as a vehicle for promotion. I will rewrite the article (probably during weekend). Pavlor (talk) 09:24, 12 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment Basic article rewrite done. Someone should "anglicize" text I wrote and rewrite the lead. There is not much more I can do to improve the article. Respectfully asking fellow editors Zerabat, Reywas92 and Editor-1, if this rewrite is sufficient to change their decision. Pavlor (talk) 09:06, 15 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. It looks like the promotional statements have been deleted or re-phrased. The ZDNet and NewsForge references are suitable for establishing notability. Most of the OSNews authors seem to be random people, but Eugenia Loli is the former editor-in-chief of OSNews. While her statements are brief and inadequate for estabilishing notability on their own, they are suitable for providing supporting information. I am unable to read the content of the Czech and German web pages. I shall try Google translate later. Axl ¤ [Talk] 11:13, 15 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The Der Standard reference (in German) looks like a good source that helps to establish notability. The Root.cz references (in Czech) are rather brief. They are suitable for sourcing information, but they don't really support notability. Axl ¤ [Talk] 12:35, 15 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment. @Pavlor: Source 8 (https://www.root.cz/zpravicky/vyrazne-upravy-v-systemu-skyos/) it's just a translated copy of a OSNews stub (https://www.osnews.com/story/15151/skyos-gets-desktop-compositing-people-files-more/) without adding to or changing it anything at all, so here should be cited the original source. Now the text follows Wikipedia guidelines and its statements are sourced, so in the current state the article should pass the notability threshold. If there is not any other issue, this should be closed as keep. --Zerabat (talk) 18:04, 15 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Malcolmxl5 (talk) 00:54, 16 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Gerardus Everardus Tros (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

Does not meet notability criteria Kid Fabulous (talk) 19:06, 8 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, never nominated an article before, so apologies if I'm missing anything out here. Anyway, the subject does not appear to be in any way notable. The only significant references to him are on his own website and a handful of blog postings. As per his website, his philosophical output seems to be complete woo, so I think it is extremely unlikely he has received significant coverage in any reliable sources. Kid Fabulous (talk) 19:17, 8 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Europe-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 20:00, 8 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 20:00, 8 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 20:00, 8 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Philosophy-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 20:00, 8 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Netherlands-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 20:01, 8 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. Just to be clear, our inclusion criteria for philosophers have very little to do with whether their philosophy is "serious" or "woo" — metaphysical writers can still receive reliable source coverage that analyzes their importance (e.g. Helena Blavatsky), and non-metaphysical philosophers can still fail to receive that. What's determinative here is not so much his subject area, as his complete lack of any sources he didn't write and publish himself. Bearcat (talk) 20:10, 8 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete It seems that no notice has been taken of this person's work. Xxanthippe (talk) 06:04, 9 April 2019 (UTC).[reply]
• Delete. Independent scholars can be notable but we have no evidence that this one is. There are a few blog posts about him out there but nothing that would count as an independent reliable source by Wikipedia standards. —David Eppstein (talk) 04:55, 11 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. No evidence of him passing WP:PROF or WP:GNG. --Tataral (talk) 02:44, 13 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. Anyone who feels a redirect is a good compromise can simply be bold and do it outside of this AfD. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 15:30, 16 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Canadian Screen Award for Best Hair (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

Award with very little notability, receives little to no attention. Prod removed with a claim of what is basically inherited notability (the awards in total are notable, so every individual award is notable). Searching for sources is hampered by the fact that the award is not called the "Canadian Screen Award for Best Hair", but for "Achievement in Hair", but even so there is very little to be found from independent sources, apart from some sources which list this one without further comment (i.e. "passing mentions"). 40 Google hits[15], two passing Google News mentions[16].

Note that, according to the main article, "The Canadian Screen Awards has roughly 130 categories in total. ", so it is not surprising that some will not be really notable: it looks as if of the 100 TV categories, about 14 have a separate article at the moment. So this is not a deletion that will break some complete series. Fram (talk) 14:56, 1 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. For awards that are presented in multiple categories, such as the CSAs or the Oscars, it is not useful to pick and choose that some categories are notable while some categories are not. It's simply a question of what's the best method of organizing information about the overall awards program for maximum benefit to the reader: for multi-category awards, the answer to that has always been that there should be a by-year article for each year that the awards are presented, paired with by-category articles that track the specific history of each category across the years.
  Each individual category is not a standalone thing that has to demonstrate its own standalone notability by showing sources that uniquely single it out as its own subject of its own dedicated attention — it's simply a component part of a notable thing that is far, far too large to simply be handled all in just one megalong article, so each category gets chunked out for size management purposes regardless of whether it has its own dedicated category-specific sources or not. If the Canadian Screen Awards are notable as a whole, which they are, and this category is verifiable as being part of them, which it is, then its results have to be tracked somewhere — and Wikipedia's practice has always been to cover awards programs like this by having by-ceremony articles that list the categories that were presented that year, cross-referenced with by-category articles that list the results in that specific category across the years, and not getting into arguments about whether some categories were "more notable" than others. It's like the notability principle that applies to telephone area codes: because the overall system is notable, and Wikipedia's role is to serve as a complete reference for notable things, Wikipedia just keeps an article about each area code as a matter of course, and does not attempt to measure or debate whether each individual code independently clears GNG as a topic independently of the overall system, simply because the overall system is far, far too large to cover every aspect of it in a single merged megalong article.
  It is true that the CSA television categories don't all have their own category articles — note, however, that the film categories do all have their own category articles, and this is a film category — but the reason is not that they've been deemed non-notable, it's that people haven't been doing the work. Even before the Genie-Gemini merger, the people who started our Gemini articles didn't actually do a very good job with them, and just picked a small non-representative handful of categories to actually list in the articles — not because the articles are supposed to just highlight a few categories to the exclusion of others, but because those page creators were lazy and didn't finish the job. (It's only been within the past three or four years that I've even got all the Genie articles fully fleshed out, instead of just going "acting categories, best director, best picture, one completely random and not actually consistent from year to year craft category, the end", either.) Our Genie+Gemini=CSA content is actually still very incomplete even now, because I'm the only person who's actually making any genuinely serious effort to fix most of it — but it's not that some categories are notable and others aren't, it's that people aren't stepping in to help me do the research work needed to actually get the missing categories in place, which means I'm tackling all the deficiencies all by myself. So no, the lack of some television category articles is not proof that we pick and choose "notable" and "non-notable" categories under the auspices of a notable overall awards program — it's not a series that's been deliberately filtered for comparative notability contests, it's a series that is meant to be complete in principle, and people just aren't doing the damn work. Bearcat (talk) 15:28, 1 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • That people have not being doing the work for a topic like this is often an indication that things aren't as notable and important as you may think they are. A current media-related article from an English speaking country is normally the first thing editors pick up. But some of these awards are only important for the incrowsd, it seems, and no one outside really cares. These awards are less notable than e.g. the Oscars, and it isn't because we try to be complete there that this applies to all awards (a claim I seriously doubt, some awards just scrape by on notability for a single article and will never warrant a full series). That WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS is not an argument that will convince many people, how we treat telephone codes can be disputed as well but is hardly a reason to keep or delete this article. The other argument, that we need to split this out because otherwise we would have a way too long article, is also nonsense. We always choose what to include and what not, and there is no need to e.g. include the list of nominees for a non notable award into a larger article. An article on the 2018 or 2019 awards can easily list the winner of the "achievement in hair" award without any need for a split. In fact, it already does, 7th Canadian Screen Awards has the exact same information as the article up for deletion, so that's basically another argument to delete this one. Fram (talk) 15:50, 1 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

No, it's not at all true that you can gauge notability in terms of how many editors are actively working on making the articles good. Most editors, as a rule, only invest any serious attention or work into contemporary topics they can load up with currently web-accessible sourcing, and very few put remotely equivalent effort into older topics that require archival research of any sort — so people not doing the work doesn't speak to notability nearly as much as it speaks to age. Genuinely notable topics that are older, and require digging into newspaper databases or microfilms to reference properly, often have much less work put into them by far fewer people than current pop culture topics do — that's not proof that older topics are inherently less notable, it just proves that most Wikipedians are lazy.
And no, the fact that the information is also present in the by-year article is not an argument against having a by-category article at all, because that's always true of every category presented by any multicategory awards program, including the Oscars and the BAFTAs and the Junos and the Grammys: by definition, the information is always also cross-referenced with by-year articles that place the same information in a different context. So that's not a reason to single this category out for different treatment than other categories get — it would be a reason to completely kibosh ever having any by-category lists at all, because "that information is already in the ceremony articles" is always true of every category article. But the practice has always been that the by-year lists should be cross-referenced with by-category lists, precisely so that a reader who wants to track the history of a specific category can do so in one place instead of having to jump back and forth across the by-year lists — so the only credible argument against this article would be that it's a new category that's only been presented once so far and doesn't have much prior history to list yet, but within one year that won't be true anymore.
And at any rate, film awards aren't in notability competitions with each other. If the CSAs are "less notable than the Oscars", that's only because Canada is a smaller country than the United States — and it's not relevant to notability anyway, because film and television notability depends solely on "top-level national film award", period, and has nothing to do with whether or not that award is as internationally famous beyond its own nation as the Oscars are. A film that won an award from some iteration of the Canadian Film Award → Genie Award → Canadian Screen Award sequence does not fail NFILM just because the CFA/G/CSAs aren't famous in Australia or Kazakhstan — it passes NFILM, because it won the highest level of film award it can win in its own country. So no, the CSAs don't have to compete with other countries' national film or television awards to determine whether they qualify for similar treatment or not: they merely have to be notable period, not more notable than other film or television awards. The Primetime Emmy Award for Outstanding Sound Mixing for a Variety Series or Special, for just one example out of many, isn't the subject of any dedicated coverage in its own right either, but just meets the standard of having its results be verifiable within sources that collectively address the overall Emmy Awards program as a whole — but its lack of its own dedicated category-specific coverage is not a reason why it should be excluded from standard practice for award categories either. It comes down entirely to what's the best and most user-friendly way to present the information: by-year lists for people who want to know who won the awards in a given year, crossreferenced with by-category lists for people who want to know who won in a particular category across the years it was presented. Bearcat (talk) 16:15, 1 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I have stopped reading your wall of text when your first line totally missed the point. I said "a topic like this", and further on indicated clearly that I was talking about a current, media-related topic from an English language country. If your reply then starts with "No, it's not at all true that you can gauge notability in terms of how many editors are actively working on making the articles good. Most editors, as a rule, only invest any serious attention or work into contemporary topics they can load up with currently web-accessible sourcing, and very few put remotely equivalent effort into older topics that require archival research of any sort", it makes no sense in spending more time replying to strawmen arguments. A cursory glance seems to indicate that the remainder of your text is a continuation of the otherstuffexists line, coupled with some irrelevant statements about how the award conveys notability (I note that the WP:NFILM guidelines defines this only for major awards like e.g. "Palme D'or, Camera D'or, or Grand Prix from Cannes", not every possible award given in Cannes: I guess the same would certainly apply to the Canadian awards). Fram (talk) 17:35, 1 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I have missed zero points. Firstly, you specifically equated editor effort with notability in the context of editors not putting the work into historical content that requires archival research to complete — so my pointing out that editor effort is not an infallible measure of notability was not missing the point, because that is exactly the context in which the point even came up to be discussed.
Secondly, NFILM does not say or even imply that notability deriving from Cannes attaches only to the "Palme D'or, Camera D'or, or Grand Prix" specifically, while deprecating any other Cannes award as unable to make a film notable — for one thing, the body of NFILM does not actually contain the word Cannes at all. In a footnote, those Cannes awards get mentioned as examples of notable film awards that satisfy NFILM #3, but that footnote does not say or imply that they are the only awards that satisfy NFILM #3. All of Cannes' other award categories besides those three still have Wikipedia articles despite not being named in that footnote, and are still accepted as notability claims for a film as long as the article is properly sourced. The BAFTAs aren't named in that footnote at all, but are still accepted as a notability-making award for a film. The César Awards in France are not named in that footnote at all, but are still accepted as a notability-making award for a film. The Toronto International Film Festival is not named in that footnote, but its awards are still accepted as notability-makers for films. And on and so forth: the footnote cherrypicks a few representative examples for the sake of brevity, not for the sake of removing notability from all other awards it hasn't directly named.
The core point is still, however, that almost no individual category presented by any multicategory awards program ever actually gets its own dedicated reliable source attention, analyzing it as its own standalone thing independently of the overall ceremony's overall coverage. Even at the Oscars, the categories mostly get verified by the overall coverage of the overall ceremony, but rarely if ever get their own special analysis as their own standalone thing independently of the Oscars as a whole. So no, each individual category does not have to independently clear GNG as the subject of its own category-specific analysis and coverage — because the overall awards program is far too large to cram all the relevant content into a single article, the most user-friendly way to present film (or literary) awards in Wikipedia is to have a by-year article that lists all of the categories presented in that year, cross-referenced with a by-category article that lists all of the winners and nominees in that category across the years.
It's not "OTHERSTUFFEXISTS", either: this has always been standard practice for categories presented by notable multicategory film, television or literary award ceremonies. The only thing that's required is that the category is verifiable in the same sources that are supporting the by-year articles, because having crossreferenced by-year and by-category articles is the user-friendliest way of formatting our coverage of the overall awards program. Each individual category does not have to show that it has received special dedicated category-specific attention, analyzing it as its own standalone thing independently of the overall ceremony, to qualify as notable — it merely has to be verifiable in the same sources that are supporting the notability of the ceremony as a whole. Bearcat (talk) 18:04, 1 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. Bearcat (talk) 23:02, 1 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. Bearcat (talk) 23:02, 1 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep I note that Wikipedia:Notability (awards and honors), started a year ago, has not advanced very far, so can't be used for guidance. Referring to WP:ANYBIO #1, which says simply "a well-known and significant award or honor", not "a well-known category of a well-known award", it seems that "notable award" could be interpreted as covering all categories of well-known and significant awards. This specific award is very new, having been introduced last year, so we are not going to find as much media coverage of it as for awards which have been in existence longer. I also see that there is a category "Film awards for makeup and hairstyling" [17] - the BAFTAS and the Academy Awards both have a single award for makeup and hair, but does that make separate awards less notable? Presumably the point of awards is to recognise work that contributes to the success of films and/or tv shows, and if the industry recognises it in national awards, and there is some coverage of it, Wikipedia should also recognise it. RebeccaGreen (talk) 14:50, 15 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete (possibly with a redirect afterwards). A completely pointless article because its entire content is contained in the parent article. No sources actually about the award itself, either. Black Kite (talk) 09:21, 16 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Firstly, the parent article of this is Canadian Screen Awards, which does not contain a repetition of the same content. And secondly, individual categories presented as part of multi-category awards programs do not need to have their own independent category-specific coverage that analyzes them in isolation — I've already explained why above — all they have to be is verifiable in the sources that support the notability of the Canadian Screen Awards as a whole. Bearcat (talk) 15:56, 16 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. All over the map. There is no consensus as to whether this meets GNG or not. There are those who support the idea that GNG is only criteria by which to judge notability, and there are those who feel that Wikipedia should present encyclopedic information on topics that are deemed inherently notable (example: Olympic athletes, but in this case those meeting FOOTY), no matter depth of coverage. I doubt further discussion will resolve the dichotomy. 78.26 _{(spin me / revolutions)} 13:28, 16 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Paulo Victor Costa Soares (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

Technically unreferenced, but if the information in the article is correct the subject never played in a fully professional league thereby failing WP:NFOOTY, and I do not see correspondence to WP:GNG. Ymblanter (talk) 11:32, 24 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Icewhiz (talk) 12:12, 24 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. Icewhiz (talk) 12:12, 24 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Cambodia-related deletion discussions. Icewhiz (talk) 12:12, 24 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Brazil-related deletion discussions. Icewhiz (talk) 12:12, 24 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions.CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 15:27, 24 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete I agree with Ymblanter, the lack of notability and a major league are too strong of factors. Garlicolive (talk) 01:03, 25 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep -- He has played in the K League 2, a fully professional-league (1, 2). Therefore he passes WP:NFOOTY. The article certiantly needs a clean-up though. Tropicanan (talk) 10:28, 25 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

  Why are you sure this is the same player? The article gives the birth year as 1999.--Ymblanter (talk) 11:12, 25 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

  @Ymblanter: Per the source I listed above. I think it a reasonable assumption that only one 'Paulo Victor Costa Soares' has moved to Phnom Penh this year. Tropicanan (talk) 11:17, 25 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep - meets WP:NFOOTBALL; needs improving, not deleting. GiantSnowman 13:22, 25 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete – This is the only coverage I can find about this player. We have nothing from which we can write an article. WP:42 After playing for fully-professional leagues for a couple of years and not receiving any coverage for it, he is now playing in a non-WP:FPL league. If he becomes notable, then we can create the article. Otherwise, this will be a perma-stub. Leviv ich 13:34, 28 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak delete - Article about footballer who played one season in the fully-pro South Korean second division (with a side that finished rock bottom and went out of existence), and has otherwise played in semi-pro leagues. There is nearly no online coverage of him in his homeland (Brazil), and certainly nothing significant, and although I struggle with online Korean-language translators, I found nearly nothing about him (just a routine note on his signing). He's dropped out of fully-professional football and I doubt we will ever locate more significant coverage in the future. I'd like to believe an editor proficient in the Korean language could find something significant online, but it would be better to recreate the article when (and if) that happens. Jogurney (talk) 14:26, 29 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Lack of substantive outside sources to establish notability. Reywas92^Talk 18:22, 1 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep He plays in the Cambodian League, a completely professional league. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Vitou012 (talk • contribs) 09:54, 2 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

— Vitou012 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

• Keep passes WP:NFOOTY and appears to pass WP:GNG in foreign language sources (sort of a weak keep !vote, but a keep vote nevertheless.) SportingFlyer T·C 07:31, 3 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep The article clearly passes the criteria of notability as stated in the Football/Fully professional leagues list. Shotgun pete 8:10, 7 April 2019 (UTC)

• Comment – inviting keep !voters to post the WP:THREE examples of SIGCOV that pass GNG, as I can only find one [18], which is rather routine. Leviv ich 17:47, 13 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Malcolmxl5 (talk) 00:56, 16 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Kelly Divine (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

Non-notable porn star. Only has nominations for minor awards and mainstream appearances were minor as well. She's not even listed on IMDb for the two episodes of the TV series she was supposedly appeared in. Fails GNG, Pornbio and other applicable notability guidelines. Also the article has BLP problems with supposed real name of performer and unsourced name of her young child. Wikiuser20102011 (talk) 17:57, 8 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 20:02, 8 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 20:02, 8 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Dance-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 20:02, 8 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sexuality and gender-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 20:02, 8 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Pennsylvania-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 20:04, 8 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fashion-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 20:04, 8 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 20:05, 8 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been added to the WikiProject Pornography list of deletions.CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 20:08, 8 April 2019 (UTC) [reply]

• Delete. Any claims of notability per WP:BASIC or WP:ENT cannot be supported by reliable secondary sources. This performer would not have even passed PORNBIO when it was in effect. The article's non-trivial references are promotional material coming from the subject. As usual, the award nominations don't cite significant coverage. An independent search for RS coverage came up with only false positives. • Gene93k (talk) 04:36, 9 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete another is a very long list of articles on non-notable pornographic actresses.John Pack Lambert (talk) 04:01, 10 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete no sign of significant coverage in reliable sources except for trade publications and no major award wins or minor ones claimed Atlantic306 (talk) 16:39, 13 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect to Bradford Lyttle. Black Kite (talk) 09:23, 16 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

United States Pacifist Party (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

Article only links to self-published sources. It does not appear to have any elected officers or any non-trivial coverage in reliable sources. Toa Nidhiki05 18:05, 8 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. Icewhiz (talk) 18:57, 8 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. Icewhiz (talk) 18:57, 8 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Icewhiz (talk) 18:57, 8 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep: I don't think this should be delete, just improved upon LoneWolf1992 (talk) 20:17, 8 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete/redirect/partial merge to Bradford Lyttle. Can't find evidence this has received substantive coverage or that it's an actual party, it's just one dude's amateurish attempt at activism. Reywas92^Talk 22:18, 8 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • I think redirecting it to Bradford Lyttle would work. (talk) 2:07, 9 April 2019 (UTC)
• Redirect to Bradford Lyttle. His lyttle party never amounted to anything. A Proquest news archive search turns up a single article about a lecture he gave on pacifism, which includes the sentence, " In 1983, he founded the United States Pacifist Party, a small political group marked by an anti-military and anti-aggression platform," a handful of letters-to-the-editor , and a couple of candidate event listings. total 10 hits in the search over 4 decades, a testimony to this Party's lack of notability. A gBooks search is similar. typical hit: Rebels and Renegades: A Chronology of Social and Political Dissent in the United States : "A sampling of third parties active today would seem to confirm that lesson: there are the Common Good Party, the New Liberty Party, the Working Families Party, the Freedom Socialist Party, the United States Pacifist Party—all largely ignored ..."E.M.Gregory (talk) 08:15, 12 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. — JJMC89 (T·C) 01:13, 16 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Christian Liberty Party (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

Article only links to self-published sources as well as a dead link to election results. It does not appear to have any elected officers or any non-trivial coverage in reliable sources. Toa Nidhiki05 18:03, 8 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. Icewhiz (talk) 18:58, 8 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. Icewhiz (talk) 18:58, 8 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Icewhiz (talk) 18:58, 8 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Washington-related deletion discussions. Icewhiz (talk) 18:58, 8 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Not seeing substantive sources establishing notability. Reywas92^Talk 21:49, 9 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete I have searched, but I cannot find any SIGCOV, not an iota. It is mentioned in some lists of non-notable parties by one or two humor writers.E.M.Gregory (talk) 08:23, 12 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. — JJMC89 (T·C) 01:13, 16 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Convergence indexing (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

Nominating on behalf of an IP user, their reasoning is that this appears to be a hoax. [19] Beeblebrox (talk) 18:02, 8 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. Icewhiz (talk) 19:00, 8 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. Icewhiz (talk) 19:00, 8 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete It seems fake. Mosaicberry (talk) 21:44, 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) 01:13, 16 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

American Populist Party (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

Article only has one source and does not appear to have any elected officers. It also apparently is defunct and doesn’t seem to have any coverage in reliable, non-trivial sources. Toa Nidhiki05 17:58, 8 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. Icewhiz (talk) 19:03, 8 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. Icewhiz (talk) 19:03, 8 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Icewhiz (talk) 19:03, 8 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete "minor political party" is quite the stretch for this amateur hour. No evidence of substantive coverage or that they did literally anything. Reywas92^Talk 22:22, 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 soft delete. WP:REFUND applies. — JJMC89 (T·C) 01:12, 16 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Batman (The Dark Knight Returns) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

FORK and fancruft, not stand alone worthy. THE NEW ImmortalWizard(chat) 17:57, 8 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. THE NEW ImmortalWizard(chat) 18:00, 8 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Comics and animation-related deletion discussions. Icewhiz (talk) 19:04, 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 keep. ~ Amory (u • t • c) 00:51, 16 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Anne Renaud (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

WP:BLP of a writer with no strong claim to passing WP:AUTHOR and no strong reliable source coverage to get over WP:GNG. Her strongest notability claim is having been shortlisted for minor, non-notable literary awards, and her sourcing consists of two primary sources that aren't support for notability at all; two unrecoverable dead links in limited-distribution media outlets that would be fine for supplementary verification if she'd already cleared GNG on stronger sources, but aren't really makers of a GNG pass all by themselves if they're the best sources on offer; and a short book review in a library association newsletter. Nothing stated in the article gets her over the more achievement-based author criteria, but the sources aren't strong enough to give her the "notable just because sources exist" pass either. Bearcat (talk) 17:57, 8 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. Icewhiz (talk) 19:06, 8 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Icewhiz (talk) 19:06, 8 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Quebec-related deletion discussions. Icewhiz (talk) 19:06, 8 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment I have started searching for and adding additional references, and updating the information based on more recent sources. She won the QWF Prize for Children's & Young Adult Literature last year. RebeccaGreen (talk) 14:45, 10 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep as User:RebeccaGreen has improved the article with more references giving credibility to its notability. Thanks −MyanmarBBQ (talk) 12:02, 13 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep I found several other reviews, I'll put links on the talk page. Schazjmd (talk) 21:20, 14 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment, have just created a little article on one of her notable books called Fania's Heart. Coolabahapple (talk) 14:07, 15 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep, meets WP:NAUTHOR, Renaud has written a number of notable books (see above for one of them:)) that have received reviews from reliable sources. Coolabahapple (talk) 14:11, 15 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was withdrawn by WikiDan61 (nominator) based on prior AFD results.

The Powers of the Earth (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

Non-notable book. This apparently self-published book (Morlock Publishing lists only titles by Corcoran on its website) won the Prometheus Award for 2018, but otherwise I cannot find any significant independent coverage of the book. The Prometheus Award is not recognized as a major book award, either for general literature, or even for science fiction literature. WikiDan61^ChatMe!_ReadMe!! 17:42, 8 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Withdrawn, based on prior AFD results. (Hadn't seen that before nominating!) WikiDan61^ChatMe!_ReadMe!! 17:45, 8 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

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. Happy to restore/draft if he ends up playing ~ Amory (u • t • c) 00:46, 16 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Jake Kielly (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

Non-notable amateur ice hockey player who fails to meet WP:NHOCKEY yet or to otherwise meet WP:GNG. Can be recreated when/if he ever does. DJSasso (talk) 16:09, 8 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 16:36, 8 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Ice hockey-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 16:36, 8 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 16:36, 8 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2019 April 8. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 17:25, 8 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom. No indication that this player has gained notability beyond the usual coverage of a hockey player at his level. – Nurmsook! ^talk... 17:34, 8 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. The notability test for hockey players is not just the act of signing to an NHL team, because lots of people do that but then never actually get beyond the farm team level. The notability test for hockey players is actually making ice in at least one NHL-level game, which Kielly has not yet done — and since the Canucks are already out of the playoffs, the earliest he can possibly clear the notability bar at all is next season. No prejudice against recreation in the future if and when he's actually crossed that line, but signing a contract eight days ago and having zero NHL-level stats yet is not the bar he has to cross. Bearcat (talk) 18:29, 8 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete: per above. And eeesh, it's just plain obnoxious to deprod without giving the vaguest reason to do so. Just sayin'. Ravenswing 18:47, 8 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom. No indication of notability. Rlendog (talk) 14:12, 9 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• delete Fails to meet either the GNG or WP:NHOCKEY. Sandals1 (talk) 15:13, 12 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• delete per Bearcat. He has signed for the Canucks but that doesn't guarentee he'll either actually make the team or play 200 plus AHL games. Long story short, it's too soon. Tay87 (talk) 10:03, 14 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) EggRoll97 ^(talk) 19:01, 15 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Independent Party of Delaware (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

Only one source here does not link to election results or the party website. A quick google search failed to turn up any significant, non-trivial coverage. Toa Nidhiki05 16:17, 8 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 16:33, 8 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Environment-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 16:34, 8 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 16:34, 8 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Delaware-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 16:34, 8 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2019 April 8. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 17:24, 8 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep - The IPoD has hundreds of members, has ran multiple candidates at the state level for state legislature and governor, and articles can be easily found about it if for articles in Delaware instead of the national level. It is far better to keep the article and continue with the additional citations are needed rather than just delete the article. Jon698 21:23, 8 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Enough coverage comes up in an simple gNews search [20] to persuade me that a decent article can be written.E.M.Gregory (talk) 08:01, 12 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete and redirect to Independent American Party. Black Kite (talk) 09:23, 16 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Independent American Party of Hawaii (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

Article is unsourced and has no real content. Does not appear to be notable or to have been covered in a non-trivial manner in sources. Toa Nidhiki05 16:29, 8 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 16:31, 8 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Hawaii-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 16:32, 8 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 16:35, 8 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2019 April 8. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 17:24, 8 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect to Independent American Party, no evidence the state affiliates are independent on their own. Reywas92^Talk 22:23, 8 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete I can find no evidence that this state-level branch party was ever noticed by anyone. Zero hits in news archive search.E.M.Gregory (talk) 07:45, 12 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. — JJMC89 (T·C) 01:11, 16 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hawaii Independence Party (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

Article has no sources and barely any content. Does not appear to be notable, nor does it seem have to have had non-trivial coverage. Toa Nidhiki05 16:27, 8 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 16:32, 8 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Hawaii-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 16:33, 8 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 16:35, 8 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2019 April 8. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 17:24, 8 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Never won an election. No notable members. Sole source on page is a listing in a voting guide. Sole mention in a Proquest news archive search was by a non-notable humour columnist in a small Missouri paper, who lists it as an example of the absurd. Book mentions of this party are mere name-checks, despite the fact that writing about the Hawaiian sovereignty movement has recently become a major Hawaiian industry. Nothing here to keep.E.M.Gregory (talk) 07:58, 12 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Sandstein 17:05, 15 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

New Market Mall (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

Minor local mall. Was deleted back in 2014, and nothing has changed to show it passes WP:GNG. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 16:44, 8 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Shopping malls-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 16:44, 8 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Ohio-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 16:44, 8 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Virginia-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 16:45, 8 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per the previous AfD discussion and the lack of change in the subject's notability since then. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 17:13, 8 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as a non-descript mall, which seems to no longer exist? Thus no likelihood of further—or any—coverage in RS. I assume the reason it hasn't been G4'd is the amount of time that's passed? A good idea, in any case, as we can now establish a new consensus as to the subject's notability. ——SerialNumber54129 17:19, 8 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - Yes, Serial Number 54129 - that's the reason I didn't request speedy, since it's been almost 5 years since the last AfD. I don't like wasting editors' time if there's no need, but I felt that the length of time was sufficient enough that a new discussion was warranted.Onel5969 ^{TT me} 17:46, 8 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Absolutely; and, of course, arguably it saves time in the future, when G4 will have (presumably) become available. ——SerialNumber54129 17:52, 8 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. Tiny mall with just a few stores and nowhere near the level of independent sources to make it notable. Ajf773 (talk) 19:55, 8 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Per nom and previous AfD. --Crystallizedcarbon (talk) 22:57, 8 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Non-notable strip mall. Nate • (chatter) 04:05, 9 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Speedy deleted in accordance with WP:CSD#G11. ~Anachronist (talk) 23:25, 11 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Repixeling (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

This is some covert WP:ARTSPAM for a term that, as far as I can tell, isn't notable, widely used or covered outside of the companies trying to push it. Also WP:ESSAY definitely applies. Praxidicae (talk) 14:09, 8 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Advertising-related deletion discussions. MarginalCost (talk) 14:45, 8 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. MarginalCost (talk) 14:45, 8 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - Praxidicae is correct. This is not a term being used widely - searches for both "repixel" and "repixeling" (when used with quotes) along with "retargeting" turn up basically nothing on this term outside of one company, and its founders attempts to spread mentions elsewhere. The article creator has been blocked for a promotional username and promotional editing. I don't think the article is as blatantly promotional as others seem to, but the term doesn't meet the notability threshold. I'd normally be inclined to redirect to site retargeting, but there's simply no use outside this company that I can find to support that. MarginalCost (talk) 14:55, 8 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Speedy Delete Was clearly made to popularize their Repixel site on Wikipedia, that counts as advertising Daiyusha (talk) 15:16, 8 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete does not pass WP:GNG and is a disguised advert as the first reference (now deleted) went to the sales site of the company promoting this advertising system, thanks Atlantic306 (talk) 16:23, 9 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) InvalidOStalk 13:11, 15 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Concha Gómez (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

While accomplished, doesn't meet either WP:GNG or WP:NSCHOLAR. I can't find any citation count, and she doesn't appear to meet any of the other criteria for NSCHOLAR. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 12:40, 8 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. CASSIOPEIA^(talk) 13:47, 8 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. CASSIOPEIA^(talk) 13:47, 8 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Mathematics-related deletion discussions. CASSIOPEIA^(talk) 13:47, 8 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. CASSIOPEIA^(talk) 13:47, 8 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Weak keep. As a community college instructor, she is unlikely to pass WP:PROF, and I don't think she does. However, in-depth coverage in the sources from Science and Mashable show a pass of WP:GNG instead. Because the stories are so far apart in time (from 2005 and 2018), there is no issue with BIO1E. —David Eppstein (talk) 15:56, 8 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Passes WP:GNG, though probably not WP:PROF. XOR'easter (talk) 18:40, 8 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep: passes WP:GNG; some coverage such as this will be under "Concetta" rather than "Concha". PamD 09:08, 9 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment - I agree that the Science article is definitely in-depth, but the Mashable article I did not think was enough significant coverage. A before turned up some mentions, but the only other in-depth piece I could come up with was a Univ of Wisconsin student newspaper piece. The example PamD gives is actually a press release for a conference, and I don't think those count towards notability. I didn't check under Concetta Gomez, but a News search returned 0 hits. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 12:32, 9 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak keep per David Eppstein -- agree with others that she doesn't pass WP:PROF, but the Science piece is very solid and should be enough with the additional sources available. --JBL (talk) 09:18, 11 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 Carnegie Mellon University. Sandstein 17:05, 15 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The Oakland Review (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

Prod removed by article creator. However, no independent sources showing notability. Having some notable contributors does not contribute to notability. Does not meet WP:GNG. Hence: Delete. Randykitty (talk) 12:18, 8 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Seems notable as multiple professors have been involved with the publication (e.g. Jim Daniels and Terrance Hayes), and many noteworthy contributors (e.g. Jewell Parker Rhodes, David Yezzi, Gerald Costanzo). Edit: I was not aware of Having some notable contributors does not contribute to notability. 84percent (talk) 12:27, 8 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. CASSIOPEIA^(talk) 13:49, 8 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Pennsylvania-related deletion discussions. CASSIOPEIA^(talk) 13:49, 8 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. Randykitty (talk) 13:56, 8 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. Notability for magazine or journal media mentions award-winning work and frequent citations as possible standards for notability. I'm not sure if the AWP's undergraduate journal award finalist position would count as "award-winning" but the journal is also cited in various poet-bios on the internet. Doing a quick search showed that poems in its issue had won the 2018 Academy of American Poets Prize ("Coumbite" according to the award page and "Carol" according to the list of poems on the journal article's website). I would say merge, but I don't know how to put all of this into the Carnegie Mellon Wikipedia article. Userqio (talk) 14:03, 8 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Lacks coverage in RS. Or, merge to Carnegie Mellon. Citrivescence (talk) 22:21, 10 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Redirect to Carnegie Mellon per WP:FAILN. The lack of independent coverage to establish notability means it doesn't merit a stand-alone article, but it'd be a useful search term to keep, and there is WP:ABOUTSELF content that can be used at the Carnegie Mellon article. Leviv ich 00:41, 13 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Randykitty (talk) 13:09, 15 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

International Policy Digest (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

I was removing refs to International Policy Digest, a website that invites submissions from the general public and publishes them with a disclaimer that the content isn't reliable. Then I opened our article on it, finding it has zero references and just an external link to the site itself. It has been tagged for lack of references for more than a two years,[21] and no references have been supplied. I preformed a Notability search via Google News as well as general Google search. I was unable to find any reliable sources providing coverage about International Policy Digest. Skimming the history, it looks like substantially all content was added by a pair of SPAs, and deleted as unsourced puffery. The remaining content is little more than an unsourced business directory listing, still with a whiff of puffery. It looks like a clear delete for failing Notability guidelines, and because Wikipedia is NOT a promotional or indiscriminate business directory. Alsee (talk) 10:49, 8 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. CASSIOPEIA^(talk) 13:53, 8 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. CASSIOPEIA^(talk) 13:53, 8 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of South Korea-related deletion discussions. CASSIOPEIA^(talk) 13:53, 8 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. It's not notable. 84percent (talk) 12:13, 8 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I couldn't find anything to support keeping it. Schazjmd (talk) 22:05, 14 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. Randykitty (talk) 11:36, 15 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Àkin (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

The subject of this article fails WP:GNG and WP:MUSICBIO. All of the sources in the article are primary sources. A Google search of him doesn't show him being discussed in reliable sources independent of him. The award he won is not notable.  Versace1608  ^{Wanna Talk?} 01:04, 25 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions.  Versace1608  ^{Wanna Talk?} 01:04, 25 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions.  Versace1608  ^{Wanna Talk?} 01:04, 25 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions.  Versace1608  ^{Wanna Talk?} 01:04, 25 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Nigeria-related deletion discussions.  Versace1608  ^{Wanna Talk?} 01:04, 25 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep has won a number of international awards and has significant coverage in multiple reliable sources such as Pulse Nigeria and it is a strong sign of notability that he is being interviewed in reliable sources Atlantic306 (talk) 21:18, 27 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Neutral: While Pulse is a reliable source, from experience in the Nigerian perspective, WP:MUSICBIO is a better way of evaluating notability of newer generation musicians than WP:GNG. I'm not confident of the significance of the most prestigious awards won, "African Entertainment Award" and " Independent Music Award". Let me also point that there is another better referenced Nigerian artiste that goes by a similar name, "Akin Shuga". The reason I'm not giving an outright delete is that there is a chance he's more proclaimed overseas than locally, and I'm not sure I've gone through enough Canadian sources. HandsomeBoy (talk) 14:19, 28 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. Randykitty (talk) 13:03, 15 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

DIPP (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

The subject of this article fails WP:GNG and WP:MUSICBIO. A Google search of him doesn't show him being discussed in reliable sources independent of him.  Versace1608  ^{Wanna Talk?} 00:57, 25 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions.  Versace1608  ^{Wanna Talk?} 00:58, 25 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions.  Versace1608  ^{Wanna Talk?} 00:58, 25 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions.  Versace1608  ^{Wanna Talk?} 00:58, 25 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Nigeria-related deletion discussions.  Versace1608  ^{Wanna Talk?} 00:58, 25 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Neutral: Has been around for quite a while, never really had any major breakthrough. Can be kept if better written. References such as these can act as foundation - 1, 2, 3. HandsomeBoy (talk) 14:26, 28 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete a non-notable musician.John Pack Lambert (talk) 02:13, 12 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep as per handsome boy who has found additional references and at least one of those has substantial coverage. Also, he has won three major awards, thanks Atlantic306 (talk) 19:06, 12 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. All "delete" !votes air concerns about the article's current state. However, AFD is not for cleanup and Spinningspark presents several RS that can be used to improve the article. Randykitty (talk) 11:33, 15 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Greenhouse gas emissions in Kentucky (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

Unexplained prod removal. Whole article is a selection of statistics (WP:NOTSTATS) from a 30-year-old government report, so I'm not sure what the purpose of keeping such an outdated topic is. I don't think just finding updated stats would be a good article topic, with no similar articles for other states, but similar stats at List of U.S. states by carbon dioxide emissions. Reywas92^Talk 00:52, 1 April 2019 (UTC) Reywas92^Talk 00:52, 1 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Environment-related deletion discussions. MarginalCost (talk) 01:09, 1 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Kentucky-related deletion discussions. MarginalCost (talk) 01:09, 1 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep, complete failure of WP:BEFORE. First of all, an article having a single source is not a reason for deletion. It might be if that were the only source in existence, but that is not the case here. Secondly, being 30-years old has no basis in policy for discounting it. Even if it is out of date (and you can only know that if you have found a more recent source, in which case your action should have been to incorporate that source, not nominate for deletion) Wikipedia is an encyclopaedia and should rightly include history of its topics. That includes the state of play of greenhouse gases in Kentucky in 1990. I am entirely sick of people deleting or overwriting information in Wikipedia because it is out of date when it should just have been rewritten to remove the appearance of being current per MOS:DATED.

This is an easily demonstrable notable topic; coal seam fires and the greenhouse gases they produce are a big issue in Kentucky. There have been several published studies into this [22][23][24]. Numerous other scholarly papers can be found on greenhouse gases in the south-eastern United States from which information on Kentucky can be extracted. Greenhouse Gases: Worldwide Impacts discusses at length plans to store CO₂ underground in Kentucky. SpinningSpark 18:28, 1 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete When readers click on the link I think they would be expecting to find info about the current situation. So I think it is wasting the reader's time to have info which the reader cannot rely on as current (at least to the past few years) or not. If someone has the time and inclination to update this article they might think it instead more useful to update Greenhouse gas emissions by the United StatesChidgk1 (talk) 12:08, 10 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• We don't delete articles because they can be improved per WP:ATD which is policy. What is your policy-based reason for deletion? There is also WP:NOTNEWS which says the diametric opposite of expecting to find info about the current situation, namely Wikipedia considers the enduring notability of persons and events and is also policy. If the greenhouse gases in Kentucky in 1990 were notable then, they are still notable now. And by the way, do you have any actual evidence that this information is out of date? The coal fires I referred to above are a major, possibly the major, source of greenhouse gas emission in Kentucky and they are still burning now, decades later. SpinningSpark 18:45, 10 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete or draftify The article merely lists (in prose) measurements from a report. No context, no examination of impact or importance of any of those measurements. Not to say that greenhouse gasses in Kentucky aren't deserving of an article, but this isn't it without significant improvement.

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) 10:35, 15 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

List of wars involving Northern Cyprus (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

Northern Cyprus was established de facto after the Turkish invasion in 1974 and de jure (leaving aside the actual legality of it) in 1983, therefore it cannot have participated in any conflict prior to that; its participation in the War on Terror is unreferenced, and as an unrecognized puppet state, highly unlikely at that Constantine ✍ 08:52, 8 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 09:54, 8 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Cyprus-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 09:54, 8 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete completely spurious. Mccapra (talk) 14:11, 8 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Northern Cyprus can only be involved in wars taking place after its de jure establishment in 1983. No source is given for a participation in the War on Terror as well.--Attar-Aram syria (talk) 20:27, 8 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Turkey-related deletion discussions. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 14:22, 8 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete This list is unnecessary, the main article of Cyprus already covers all of these wars. Garlicolive (talk) 02:42, 12 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Randykitty (talk) 10:33, 15 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Serbs of Finland (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

There is no source to prove that this group of people has any notability. Also, the cited source says that there are 244 people born in Serbia living in Finland as of 2018. But, that doesn't mean they are all Serbs. I guess most of them are Albanians born in Kosovo, and this article is about Serbs. So, it is not clear if there are any Serbs in Finland at all. Vanjagenije (talk) 06:47, 8 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Serbia-related deletion discussions. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 06:57, 8 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Finland-related deletion discussions. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 06:57, 8 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Kosovo-related deletion discussions. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 06:58, 8 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - The only peice of information on this page is the count they give, no notable people list or more information on the demographics, and that one count statistic doesn't need its entire own page. Meszzy² (talk) 08:38, 8 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Doesn't deserve its own article. The tidbit of information could easily fit under demographics headers in Finland or Helsinki. 84percent (talk) 12:20, 8 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Can't really see Finland benefit from a mention of the number of every nationality living there. I mean, either we'd specifically mention the Serbs for no particular reason or we'd have a very long list. That's probably even worse than letting it have it's own article: Finland is a pretty widely read article, and things mentioned there should be important. /Julle (talk) 23:27, 10 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect to Coffee and Cigarettes#Renée. (non-admin closure) Spirit of Eagle (talk) 04:09, 15 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Renée French (actress) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

Actress with just 2 roles. Only one of them is even on Wikipedia. It seems that her notable role is in a segment of an anthology film called Coffee and Cigarettes and if not deleted should be a redirect to there. Can't find anything else that cries notability for her. Wgolf (talk) 00:39, 1 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. MarginalCost (talk) 01:08, 1 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. MarginalCost (talk) 01:08, 1 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Redirect probably. I'm not even sure that the Renée French who was in Coffee and Cigarettes is the same one who was in Nowhere Fast - I found this book, Jim Jarmusch: Music, Words and Noise with a chapter called "Voices: John Lurie", where John Lurie says "Renée [French] is in Coffee and Cigarettes from 1992 when she was my girlfriend. ....She'd never acted before and acted in Jim's film, you know, so it's a big thing for Renée." [25] (p 99). I'm not sure I really understand "in Coffee and Cigarettes from 1992" - does it mean "she appeared in Coffee and Cigarettes because in 1992 she was my girlfriend"??? But whether she was in other films like Nowhere Fast or not, that does not appear to be a notable film, so she does not meet WP:NACTOR. I don't find anything about her in a google or Newspapers.com search either - not an easy name to search for, as there are several other Renée Frenches, including a writer, a singer, a teacher, a Miss America .... but none that seem to be this one. However, she did have a significant role in Coffee and Cigarettes, so redirecting to Coffee_and_Cigarettes#Renée would make sense (and perhaps including the source I have found as a reference for that section? although it can't be considered independent). RebeccaGreen (talk) 08:31, 1 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 09:49, 1 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 20:54, 1 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Wikipedia is not meant to be an IMDb mirror.John Pack Lambert (talk) 05:02, 2 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect to Coffee and Cigarettes#Renee as suggested as her only notable role and she is not independently notable at this time, a redirect is little more than a deletion anyway Atlantic306 (talk) 21:54, 6 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Redirect to Coffee and Cigarettes#Renée. There aren't any serious content issues besides the lack of notability, and the section there is sufficient. Pretty much everything is covered there anyway, so not much would be lost, but the redirect may help people find the section. Alpha3031 (t • c) 06:55, 8 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect as the movie article does have a section on her/her character so it makes sense to redirect there instead of a delete. Meszzy² (talk) 08:31, 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 keep. (non-admin closure) Spirit of Eagle (talk) 04:05, 15 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

2018 West Footscray warehouse fire (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

Per WP:NOTNEWS, run-of-the-mill fire that is of no long-lasting importance other than to the local community. There are probably tens of such fires a week around the world. Stephen 02:37, 8 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 04:57, 8 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. Satisfies WP:NEVENT, WP:EVENTCRIT and notable as per WP:GEOSCOPE.--PATH SLOPU 05:38, 8 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. There have been more developments since the fire, as shown in a Google News search. I added some references. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 06:48, 8 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep The fire was in August 2018, there was still significant coverage through to December 2018, in particular for example, which shows very significant in-depth core coverage by a highly reliable source. Coverage and reporting is still occuring at least as recently as February 2019. Given the nature of the fire, revelations to-date, there is almost certainly more to come. This subject is neither a single event nor contemporaneous news. Aoziwe (talk) 08:07, 8 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep as Eastmain has improved the article with more references giving credibility to its notability. Meszzy² (talk) 08:35, 8 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep This was by no means a "run-of-the-mill fire" - The Age called it "one of the worst industrial blazes in decades" [26]. The article as it was when it was nominated for deletion did not show the seriousness of the fire, or the investigations it led to into illegal storage of toxic chemicals. It appears the creator started the article in September 2018, and then no-one added to it. There is plenty more that could be added - I will also try to do so, as other editors have too. RebeccaGreen (talk) 09:53, 8 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Well sourced from reliable sources and satisfies WP:NEVENT. Hughesdarren (talk) 10:25, 8 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep as per RebeccaGreen. It could definitely be improved. There's been many updates since. 84percent (talk) 11:24, 8 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Randykitty (talk) 10:31, 15 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

National Express West Midlands routes 66 & 66A (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

Non notable bus route. There's a lot of unsourced information with regards to the Gravelly Industrial Park diversion (NXWM would've put out a press release but I can't find anything) and while information on previous vehicles used is slightly interesting, it is uncited and not particularly pertinent to the article as a whole. RÆDWALD E|T 00:37, 8 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 05:32, 8 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 05:34, 8 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I'm going to hold off on voting until I understand this issue better. But how are these bus routes (even the other ones within the Midlands category) remotely eligible for inclusion in WP? All of these seem remarkably non-notable. Skirts⁸⁹ 08:33, 8 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete National Express West Midlands is welcome to include a List of routes subsection, but the routes themselves certainly don't appear notable. Reywas92^Talk 22:29, 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.