Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2019 March 14

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. Catfish Jim and the soapdish 08:04, 21 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

This article fails the WP:BASIC criteria of WP:Notability (people). There are three dubious sources in Turkish that are decades old, and one primary source over a century old (which cannot contribute to notability). The article has no reliable or intellectually independent sources. The subject of the article only seems to be mentioned in the context of Armenian Genocide denial. I searched both Google and Google Books. Almost all Google results were Wikipedia:Mirrors and forks. The top Google result that isn't a mirror or fork is a blog that denies the Armenian Genocide. I could not find a single Google Books source in English or any other language besides Turkish that even mentions Kapamajian. There are no sources that can WP:VERIFY the notability of this article, which is why it should be deleted. Étienne Dolet (talk) 20:42, 28 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete: He is Armenian and yet there is no article in Armenian Wikipedia about this person. This means he is not notable amongst Armenians and hence he is not notable. --Ernesztina (talk) 21:10, 28 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for pointing this out. (I do it, when necessary, as well.) But, of course, it's not acceptable as an argument in AfD discussions. Take care. -The Gnome (talk) 13:57, 6 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 20:48, 28 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Armenia-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 20:49, 28 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Turkey-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 20:49, 28 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. This text is about a historical subject, amply supported by sources, such asRamadan Sonyel, Salahi (1993). Minorities and the destruction of the Ottoman Empire. Mazal Holocaust Collection. Ankara: Turkish Historical Society. p. 129. -The Gnome (talk) 13:57, 6 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. I don’t see how he fails notability at all. Google search indicates that there appear to be sources for him (which I haven’t read) here, here and here. Mccapra (talk) 04:49, 7 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. has enough sources to be notable Alex-h (talk) 18:21, 17 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. Sources are now adequate and article is well constructed and references; also WP:PRESERVE and WP:NOTPAPER. Britishfinance (talk) 12:38, 20 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment – The sources listed above by Mccapra (here, here and here) are not reliable sources. Their content is culled from Wikipedia articles ("Please note that the content of this book primarily consists of articles available from Wikipedia or other free sources online"). Ultimately, Wikipedia is not a reliable source. See also: WP:CITOGEN and Circular reporting. This is not an !vote because I have not assessed the sources in the article at this time. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 01:16, 21 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

You’re right. I should have spotted that. Mccapra (talk) 05:26, 21 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. -- RoySmith (talk) 02:52, 22 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Kavita Bajaj (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)

Writer who has just done one film. I can't seem to find much searching for him other then mirror sites. Wgolf (talk) 23:18, 14 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 08:39, 15 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 08:39, 15 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 08:40, 15 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete fails WP:BIO and WP:GNG. There is nothing on Google that would demonstrate notability. — Nearly Headless Nick {c} 16:41, 17 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Fails WP:GNG at best a case of WP:TOOSOON.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 16:57, 19 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Fails WP:GNG, WP:NACTOR and is definitely a case of WP:TOOSOON. --Rsrikanth05 (talk) 09:03, 20 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. The short version of this is that I read the delete proponents as having having stronger arguments.

While there may be some WP:OSE going on here, that is not in this case a very strong rebuttal to keep arguments, as this is a call to how these pages in general are designed and created. Rather, the stronger arguments are that indeed there isn't enough content to reasonably fill an article page. Concerns about notability are valid and well-taken, as this essentially links to just one person and isn't a proper disambiguation/set-index. The keep proponents, while making good arguments, link to a number of guidelines, etc., of which none explicitly state there must be such a page. Rather, these reference materials (such as Wikipedia:Name pages#Content, Wikipedia:WikiProject Anthroponymy/Standards, and Wikipedia:Wikipedia is not a dictionary#Minor differences) generally presume the existence of multiple names being listed, and in doing so undercut their utility as support for keeping this page. Although nobody mentioned it, I think the disparate sources of the given name and surname (Finnish and South-East Asian, respectively) would have made a good argument for keeping, and considered it as well when weighing the arguments here.

I don't read a consensus (or much discussion beyond two mentions) about what to do with this title (especially as regards Varma (surname)), so that is left to the editing community. If we end up with a more sizeable number of articles using this name, this should likely be revisited. ~ Amory (u • t • c) 15:45, 22 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Varma (given name) (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)

Wikipedia is not a dictionary nor a directory of names.  I dream of horses (My talk page) (My edits) @ 16:35, 28 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Finland-related deletion discussions.  I dream of horses (My talk page) (My edits) @ 16:36, 28 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep: Wikipedia has loads upon loads of articles on given names, even unpopular ones. There's even a style guide specifically for surname/given name pages. GN-z11 ^{☎ ★} 17:46, 28 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Language-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 18:21, 28 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep per above, and also this article disambiguates between Varma (given name) and Varma (surname). --vuo (talk) 11:30, 4 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep Articles on given names and surnames are a well established concept on Wikipedia. Also see Wikipedia:WikiProject Anthroponymy and MOS:APO. The nominator's reason for deletion was that "Wikipedia is not a dictionary nor a directory of names". However, WP:NOTDICT specifically states anthroponymy articles as an aspect of Wikipedia: stating that "An article about a given name or a surname is an anthroponymy article that contains a list of people with this name as well as encyclopedic content about the meaning, etymology and history of the name." MarkZusab (talk) 00:11, 15 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete There are hundreds if not thounsands of given name articles... but if the name isn’t notable then there’s no use. If only one notable person has the name that’s useless too. Also this article doesn’t meet the standards for name articles. Trillfendi (talk) 01:57, 15 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete completely non-notable. Only very passing mentions in books. wumbolo ^^^ 13:14, 17 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete: Fails GNG, no notable mentions via Google Searches either. ToThAc (talk) 13:15, 20 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - as per User:MarkZusab and User:GN-z11. See WP:NNAME: a properly sourced article on a name - and this one is - can be notable without a list - but clearly no-one has bothered searching in Finnish. Alternatively, add the content to the existing Varma (surname) and call it Varma (name).Ingratis (talk) 14:46, 20 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - as per User:Vuo , User:MarkZusab and User:GN-z11 and as per WP:PRESERVE , WP:NOTPAPER . Unoc (talk) 06:46, 21 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. As people have said above, the article meets WP:NNAME because it is properly sourced. The proposals to delete the article have not addressed the fact that the article meets these criteria. Alarichall (talk) 22:34, 21 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete: The support for keeping the article either invokes that "other similar stuff alrteaduy exists in Wikipedia" or misunderstands what the relevant essay on the Manual of Style guideline is about. WP:NNAME deals with name articles and is quite clear:A name article usually contains either a list of entries that link to other articles or a wikilink to a list article. An editor above explicitly misuses WP:NOTDICT by suggesting Keep although the quote they're citing is also quite clear:An article about a given name or a surname is an anthroponymy article that contains a list of people with this name as well as encyclopedic content about the meaning, etymology and history of the name". Emphasis added. "As well as" means that both encyclopedia content about the meaning and a list of people are needed. In so many words, a name article without a list of notable persons has no place in Wikipedia, on the basis of WP:NAD and WP:INDISCRIMINATE. The case for keeping the contested article is so weak as to be irrelevant. -The Gnome (talk) 09:49, 22 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 01:25, 21 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Deerbrook Editions (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 find no coverage beyond parentheticals and asides indicating that it is the publisher of whatever book is being discussed in a given source. Fails WP:N. Largoplazo (talk) 21:07, 28 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. ___CAPTAIN MEDUSAtalk 21:29, 28 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Maine-related deletion discussions. ___CAPTAIN MEDUSAtalk 21:29, 28 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 10:45, 2 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 10:45, 2 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Poetry-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 10:45, 2 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete: fails WP:NCORP / WP:CORPDEPTH. --K.e.coffman (talk) 00:23, 16 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete: at this time, there is nothing which conveys notability for a stand alone article; fails WP:CORP. Kierzek (talk) 21:50, 17 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete I feel like a Grinch, deleting a reputable, small, literary publisher. But we do need sources, and I can't find them. There should be no prejudice against a fresh article on this publisher by an editor who can soruce one. E.M.Gregory (talk) 20:49, 19 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 merge and redirect to Singapore Premier League#Statistics. Not sure why this was extended, neither of the two keep votes offered any kind of sourcing to show that hat tricks in the singapore league have gained independent coverage to satisfy WP:NLIST. Under the name "Singapore Premier League", this competition has only been in existence for a year, so the merge arguments are clearly stronger. This should not preclude editors from creating another fork if they wanted to create a list that also includes the s league so long as they can show coverage to satisfy NLIST and apso avoid any WP:NOTSTATS concerns. Fenix down (talk) 19:01, 15 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

List of Singapore Premier League hat-tricks (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)

Contested PROD. Concern was The list is incomplete, and shows no sign of significant coverage. The subject has not received significant coverage beyond routine match day reporting. Sir Sputnik (talk) 19:26, 7 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. Sir Sputnik (talk) 19:26, 7 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Singapore-related deletion discussions. Icewhiz (talk) 20:18, 7 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 22:44, 7 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 22:45, 7 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions.CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 22:46, 7 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Merge to Singapore Premier League, not clear that this is a notable topic as a stand-alone list. Reywas92^Talk 23:27, 7 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete or perhaps merge at most. GiantSnowman 08:49, 8 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. These lists are regular amoung professional leagues, there is a whole category just for them. Sourcing needs improvement but hasn't been given the time to get that yet. There is no deadline here and incomplete lists can be expanded, the whole encyclopedia is not finished. Borgarde (talk) 14:44, 8 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge to Singapore Premier League which is just 50k bytes right now. If there are more "hat-tricks" then we can think again about creating a stand-alone page. शिव साहिल/Shiv Sahil (talk) 15:21, 8 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge - a bit premature to create this when there have only been 5 hat-tricks -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 19:13, 8 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge - would be better to have more hat tricks, more content. robertsky (talk) 06:44, 9 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep per Borgarde, prod rationale was spurious in suggesting delete because incomplete. There is no time limit on completion - if one thinks it's incomplete one should consider completing it. Doesn't matter there has been only 5: what is the cut off to keep these lists? 6? 10? 20?. I'd argue that as there have only been 5 they are more notable than some of the other ones where they are a dime-a-dozen. Don't see how Singaporean 1st tier hattricks are any less notable than English 4th tier hat tricks, A-League hat tricks, I-League hattricks or Algerian hattricks. Don't see those pages being nominated for deletion. Systemic bias...Hattricks are considered notable. There is even a page for Lists of hat-tricks. ClubOranje^T 10:01, 12 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

While we're listing invalid reasons for deletion, WP:OTHERSTUFF. To show notability of a list, there must be coverage that discusses the subject of the list, not just the entries on it. There's no indication that this is the case here. Sir Sputnik (talk) 15:51, 12 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, whatever. So are you arguing that Singaporean hattricks are not notable even though other ones are with your OTHERSTuFF argument? Because EVERYONE above is suggesting it is notable enough to keep, probably because it is all notable stuff, it's just that half of them think the list is too short to waste a whole page on and want to put it on the same page as other information because, well I don't know why, I can only speculate maybe to save a tree. Half of them are saying keep the separate page if there are more hattricks in the list. Pretty sure that as time goes by there will be more hattricks in the list. End of the day if it's notable enough to keep then it can be as a list as it fulfills WP:LISTPURP. ClubOranje^T 08:59, 13 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. -- RoySmith (talk) 02:54, 22 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

No significant independent coverage in reliable sources. Lots of mere mentions, but that doesn't add up to anything that would meet WP:GNG. Looking on Yandex, I wasn't able to find any more significant coverage. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 07:20, 27 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. Icewhiz (talk) 07:25, 27 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Russia-related deletion discussions. Icewhiz (talk) 07:25, 27 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Weak Keep He does seem to be a well known Russian entrepreneur, but there is no real biographical information about him as such that I can see. There is coverage, it might be named drops but its a whole lot of different companies are asking him what's what about startup's advice, with a mix of substantial news companies. The second half of the supposed references all about the COMDI company, which makes the article promotional and would need to be copyedited out. scope_creep^Talk 12:48, 2 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment. But that is the issue here, there is no actual biographical information on this subject (either in the article, or available elsewhere). "Name drops" do not give notability. As you say, there is a lot of WP:PROMO here (and probably WP:COI). I can't find anything on the subject that would meet WP:SIGCOV for a BLP? Britishfinance (talk) 10:32, 17 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. For 40-year old tech entrepreneur, he seems like a ghost on en-RS with almost nothing on him, and nothing obvious on rus-RS (that I could see). The article reads like a CV/resume. There are a lot of Russian references listed but they either don't mention him or make passing references about him. No WP:SIGCOV. Britishfinance (talk) 14:46, 7 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment. Very few of these refs actually relate to the statements being made. If I took out all the statements with no refs, this would be a very small article. Unreferenced statements like "In April 2018 he co-founded World Entrepreneurial Leadership Foundation." are very PROMO. Britishfinance (talk) 09:14, 16 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete: fails WP:BASIC. --K.e.coffman (talk) 00:48, 20 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was soft delete. WP:REFUND applies. -- RoySmith (talk) 02:55, 22 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The Exceptional Jivatma Valettas (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 appears to have received localised coverage only. There is "The+Exceptional+Jivatma+Valettas" little online that suggests passage of WP:NFILM. Offline, the three reviews it received were "The+Exceptional+Jivatma+Valettas" localised. It seems that this film simply isn't notable. SITH (talk) 13:23, 28 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. SITH (talk) 13:24, 28 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. SITH (talk) 13:24, 28 February 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. -- RoySmith (talk) 02:55, 22 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Bill G. Chapman (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

Fails WP:GNG. The sources used are 1) The subject's book 2) his Obituary in the local newspaper and 3) the home page to Central Baptist Theological Seminary, which has no mention of the subject. A Search turned up no sources that would support a claim of notability. GPL93 (talk) 03:39, 27 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Texas-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 06:34, 27 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Oklahoma-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 06:34, 27 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 06:35, 27 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of New Mexico-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 06:35, 27 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Weak Delete. Per my search he doesn't pass GNG. I suspect Coping With Vision Loss: Maximizing What You Can See and Do might pass NBOOK (e.g. held by 162 libraries - plausible there are independent reviews - though Hunter House Publishers raises perhaps some questions) - but I haven't found independent reviews (hard to filter with all the crud that is out there on commercial books). I don't think Chapman meets NAUTHOR for authoring one possibly notable book. Might be scope for a re-purpose to the book if notability of the book is established. Icewhiz (talk) 07:24, 27 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete I ran some news archive searches, on variants of his name, different keywords, and title of book, but I'm not finding him. Feel free to ping me to reconsider if anyone has more success.E.M.Gregory (talk) 17:44, 20 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. To answer User:Malincia's question, what we need are good sources (described at WP:NCORP talking about the company. How many games the put out is not a factor. -- RoySmith (talk) 14:38, 22 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

Fails WP:NCORP, non-notable JMHamo (talk) 22:55, 14 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Are localisation companies/publishers no longer notable? They've put out a similar amount of games to other companies like Sekai Project, MangaGamer and Nicalis and their releases of stuff like Muv-Luv and RPGMaker have garnered a fair amount of attention so I'm not sure where the issue lies. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Malincia (talk • contribs) 03:18, 15 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Video games-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 08:57, 15 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 08:58, 15 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Japan-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 08:58, 15 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 08:58, 15 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Fails WP:ORGCRIT - lacks the necessary coverage (unless someone who speaks Japanese can find something?). Jmertel23 (talk) 14:46, 21 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment The Japanese version of the article has 7 sources - 2 are sources within Japanese WP, 2 are to Degica's own site. Then there are cites to 4gamer and famitsu. The final cite is a note and not a reference. 4gamer and Famitsu seem like RS, but via google translate, neither appear to be actually ABOUT the company, and only mention it. Not that Japanese WP is the benchmark for whether a topic is notable, but it's worth noting for a Japanese topic. ‡ Єl Cid of ᐺalencia ^ᐐT₳LKᐬ 17:05, 21 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Just to agree with this assessment — the parent websites seem reputable enough (especially Famitsu), but as you note they're not particularly reasonable as sources since they're not really covering the company at all. ~ Amory (u • t • c) 11:08, 22 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete on account of lack of adequate in quality and quantity sources verifying notability per WP:NCORP. Almost all sources cited are primary. Possibly a case of WP:TOOSOON. -The Gnome (talk) 09:52, 22 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. More on account of the GNG argument than NACTOR ~ Amory (u • t • c) 10:47, 22 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Andrew James Allen (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 minor performer; lacks significant coverage in independent reliable sources, failing WP:ENT / WP:GNG. -- Wikipedical (talk) 22:37, 14 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 09:00, 15 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 09:00, 15 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 09:00, 15 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Washington-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 09:00, 15 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete It is high time we rid Wikipedia of all articles sourced only to IMDb.John Pack Lambert (talk) 03:06, 20 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete on account of subject failing WP:NACTOR and WP:CREATIVE. -The Gnome (talk) 09:54, 22 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. -- Patar knight - ^chat/_{contributions} 20:45, 21 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

Fails WP:GNG and WP:NPOL. Sources used in this article simply don't establish notability and a search for others turned up nothing. The references used are obituaries in local newspapers (only one of which is his); unlinked and sometimes untitled local newspaper articles; passing mentions in a book; and a listing in Who's Who in American Politics, which has a lower notability threshold than Wikipedia (you can pay to be included GPL93 (talk) 19:43, 14 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. Icewhiz (talk) 19:52, 14 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. Icewhiz (talk) 19:52, 14 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Finance-related deletion discussions. Icewhiz (talk) 19:52, 14 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Louisiana-related deletion discussions. Icewhiz (talk) 19:52, 14 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Agree with nom, fails the GNG, current sourcing not convincing enough. ^Thanks,L3X1 ◊distænt write◊ 21:04, 14 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, fails GNG, per nom; trivial. Kierzek (talk) 01:48, 15 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. As is so often the case with Billy Hathorn's handiwork, the most substantive basis for notability here was the existence of an obituary in the local newspaper upon his death. But as always, this is not in and of itself a notability-clincher that guarantees him an article on GNG grounds despite falling below the NPOL bar — municipal finance commissioners aren't presumed notable just for existing, but the amount of reliable source coverage shown here is not enough to make him more special than most other municipal finance commissioners in most other cities. Bearcat (talk) 18:44, 15 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Fails WP:BIO. Preaky (talk) 22:58, 15 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Whether merging is appropriate is left to post-AFD discussion. I will be moving the page to the new name though. -- Patar knight - ^chat/_{contributions} 20:48, 21 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Microsoft Imagine (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 isn't notable anymore. It should be deleted because it is part of Microsoft Azure. Mstrojny (talk) 18:52, 14 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. Icewhiz (talk) 18:55, 14 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. Icewhiz (talk) 18:55, 14 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment Is this even valid deletion rationale? Pavlor (talk) 08:28, 15 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep: Per WP:NOTTEMPORARY. surely using Template:Update, Template:Citation needed or a merge should have been considered before AfD. SomeOnce notable always notable. Its primary purpose seems to be educational so wiping it off or hiding it in the massive Azure cloud would seem a poor decision.Djm-leighpark (talk) 08:35, 15 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

  Djm-leighpark, I think I probably nominated this at the wrong place at the wrong time. Should I withdraw this nomination and nominate this to WP:PM? Mstrojny (talk) 10:04, 15 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

  My instinct or gut feeling would be a merger would to Azure would be almost akin to deletion by minimization or it would simply end up WP:UNDUE in Azure and its better left to evolve relatively harmlessly in its own article without causing interference to anybody or ending up with highly coupled touch points to Azure which I assume to be a medium to high importance article. I actually know nothing about the Imagine product but have some concept of Microsoft and Azure but I personally think tagging the merger statement for cn and possibly using the update statement if the article needs updating would probably be the route I would take. But this is my view ... and I am known to have some very weird views ... and the decision is yours. Thankyou. Djm-leighpark (talk) 10:21, 15 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

  @Djm-leighpark: I will let the community decide whether to delete this or not. If the consensus is to keep this article, I would either move it to Microsoft Azure Dev Tools for Teaching or merge it into Microsoft Azure. Any thoughts? Mstrojny (talk) 18:54, 15 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

  @Mstrojny:. I am concerned you may have a negative focus on the article and I have therefore taken trouble to add it to my watchlist. I believe any actions you may take such as moves may be contentious and possiby disruptive and you should seek consensus first. You are really advised to get advice at the WP:Teahouse rather than testing me. Thankyou. Djm-leighpark (talk) 19:32, 15 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep The program just changed its name last month. It might make sense to rename it to the new program name, if there is consensus to do so, but I see no reason to delete it. Schazjmd (talk) 22:45, 16 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• There's probably a good reason to either create a redirect for the new name (the product seems to keep getting re-branded) on to do a rename (leaving a redirect). The name actually seems a little clumsy at first glance (but perhaps its me). There's also a question of where it should be Microsoft Azure ... or simply Azure ... ... that sort of a bigger question than this subject and there's a couple of precedents both ways. AfD isn't the right place for that discussion, though it is sometimes where that decision may be made.Djm-leighpark (talk) 23:29, 16 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep I see this as a history article. Microsoft Imagine existed for a period of time. Keeping it means people looking for information about it will be able to find this article. What is needed is a description and Wikilink within the Imagine article, directing readers to Microsoft Azure. And perhaps the Timeline at that article could mention the fold-in of Imagine. David notMD (talk) 12:22, 18 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• I would not really agree with the historic. As far as I can tell the offering has been rebranded and repackaged as a Software as a Service application on Azure so is very much alive. I believe it is an application that can be provisioned on Azure, but not a core part of Azure infrastructure such as Azure files, Azure DNS, Azure DNS Private Zones or Azure Active Directory for example. Still agree with the keep which is primary AfD purpose. And a paragraph explaining the packaging to Azure would be good short term with a re-visit later. Needs a good independent review to source.Djm-leighpark (talk) 15:57, 20 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep and rename to Microsoft Azure Dev Tools for Teaching and establish a redirect, or merge with Microsoft Azure. There is no valid rationale for deletion, and the content about the history of the software should not be diminished. Article needs expansion and updating obviously. Unoc (talk) 10:30, 21 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. In light of the recent prior nomination and relistings I'm going to go ahead and close this. The prior close invited renomination, so it was reasonable to try again. At this point though, I'd recommend WP:RENOM, though just an essay, to anyone considering another go in the near future. Xymmax ^{So let it be written} _{So let it be done} 21:00, 21 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

Fails WP:NFILM.

Round Table, BR Ambedkar Caravan are not remotely reliable sources. N

Some random pieces about death of Dalit students have been cited in the article but I don't see about how they boost the notability of the subject, which is a documentary series. N

So, I conducted a WP:BEFORE. Accordingly:--

I spot a few trivial one-liner name drops over sources like this and this. Does not lend to significant coverage; required for passing GNG. N

There's another one-liner over this news-piece which is more significant than the two above but that's a blatant opinion piece (see this RSN thread as to the source not distinguishing between op-eds and objective reporting) and hence, is of much reduced value. N

Scroll has covered the series over one of their articles but they have been unanimously documented to be not a RS for these areas. N

That leaves us with it's plot-coverage by the local city-section of The Hindu; which is hardly enough to make it pass GNG/NFILM. ∯WBG^converse 18:25, 14 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. Icewhiz (talk) 18:29, 14 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Discrimination-related deletion discussions. Icewhiz (talk) 18:29, 14 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. Icewhiz (talk) 18:29, 14 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Icewhiz (talk) 18:29, 14 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Procedural Keep It has just now been open for over 1 month for February 13 to March 14 with it being relisted 3 times.It has been again been opened on March 14 itself that is just over 2 hours after the closure by .@Ritchie333:.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 20:29, 14 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The documentary receives mentions in the contest of Dalit suicides and casteism in campus not gone into the regional language press just went through it briefly

• BEYOND POVERTY AND DEVELOPMENT: CASTE DYNAMICS AND ACCESS TO MATHEMATICS EDUCATION IN INDIA Jayasree Subramanian Tata Institute of Social Sciences, Hyderabad, India
• If there’s no caste bias, why are Dalit students killing themselves? Hindustan Times
• If IITs had more Dalit professors, would Aniket Ambhore be alive? Business Standard
• The mythology of the Dalit student suicide Firstpost
• Casteism in Education SystemDr. Shashi Nautiyal Dept. of History, J.V. Jain College, Saharanpur, UP, India Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 21:21, 14 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. — Nearly Headless Nick {c} 11:12, 17 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Anand Srinivasan (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)

Spokesperson for a state-wing of a political party, author of a few investing books, and one of the hundreds of writers for a major newspaper. None of the above directly qualify him as a notable person. Fails WP:ANYBIO Daiyusha (talk) 06:00, 27 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 06:14, 27 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Economics-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 06:14, 27 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 06:15, 27 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per nom Fails WP:GNG ,WP:NPOL and WP:PROF.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 20:04, 4 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - Lack of RS sourcing suggests that the article fails V/NOR. Smmurphy^(Talk) 00:39, 8 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Speedy delete as spam. 2601:188:180:1481:6C38:7734:5599:B3E5 (talk) 13:19, 9 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The spam has been cleared away as copyright violation, so the article is currently a stub. 2601:188:180:1481:6C38:7734:5599:B3E5 (talk) 06:38, 10 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Consensus is that the subject does not meet our notability standards since the sourcing is inadequate. This is not a reflection on the veracity of any controversy that the subject is involved in. -- Patar knight - ^chat/_{contributions} 20:44, 21 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Clayton Jennings (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 this merely scratch the surface of notability? This is some preacher who barely got any coverage before he was being, you know, accused of doing, you know, things with other people's bodies. As valereee, put it, "He's literally in the MIDDLE of the biggest news of his life and it's getting coverage only in ChristianPost.com and CharismaNews.com and GospelHerald.com". That's a good argument for deletion: lack of coverage of the subject in reliable sources. What we have now is a subject about whom nothing can be written except for negative BLP information, and that from sources which are themselves hardly acceptable. Drmies (talk) 15:33, 14 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete: Yep. The sources here are weak sauce. There's no reason we need this article in the encyclopedia. No WP:SIGCOV, basically a WP:SINGLEEVENT situation too. Marquardtika (talk) 15:35, 14 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sexuality and gender-related deletion discussions. Icewhiz (talk) 15:49, 14 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. Icewhiz (talk) 15:49, 14 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Indiana-related deletion discussions. Icewhiz (talk) 15:49, 14 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete: I have been editing this page once the edit warring started. Aside from a few small mentions in Christian news sources and a whole lot of mentions in blogs, I can't find much. Currently, it seems to be a place for the man's fans to come and expound on his greatness and his critics to try to make his transgressions as bad as possible. Nothing is being posted that shows much notability besides this controversy and a couple of tours he had. It should be deleted. I've tried to find some more notable subjects that this subject could be mentioned in. There is a connection to Tim Tebow, and maybe the rapper NF. The blogger JD Hall that has been mentioned and deleted a few times on this page would be a more notable subject Gospelforhawaii (talk) 16:19, 14 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. In its current form, close to speedy delete as an attack page. StAnselm (talk) 20:36, 14 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete He does seem to have a following, but the notability seems to be within a very small community. --valereee (talk) 20:49, 14 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Not sufficiently notable as an evangelist, and thus the "nasty stuff about a non-notable person" does not make the person notable. Collect (talk) 22:49, 14 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep it — Preceding unsigned comment added by Shardware99 (talk • contribs) 02:53, 15 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Agree with User:Collect's reasons. SJK (talk) 05:07, 16 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete -- Another NN cleric who has misbehaved. Peterkingiron (talk) 16:57, 17 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per WP:OUTCOMES. I would keep it if it were my choice, but we have deleted articles of far more notable, dangerous, and heinous persons. Bearian (talk) 17:56, 17 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per BLP1E and very poor sourcing. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 21:11, 18 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, BLP1E problems.E.M.Gregory (talk) 15:19, 20 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Randykitty (talk) 21:03, 21 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Latin University of Theology (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)

Impossible to even be certain which "school" is intended (I have found examples in Lomita, Torrance and Inglewood), never mind establish notability (which neither of these three seem to have). Fram (talk) 14:47, 14 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Speedy Delete - The "official page" is a foreign language site unrelated to theology; WP page appears to be {{db-hoax}}.--Georgia Army Vet Contribs Talk 14:53, 14 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

  Not an outright hoax [1]. Seems like it was a former school, and the domain lutusa.com was bought out by some Chinese game maker — MusikAnimal ^talk 15:36, 14 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. Icewhiz (talk) 15:00, 14 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Religion-related deletion discussions. Icewhiz (talk) 15:00, 14 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. Icewhiz (talk) 15:00, 14 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. No independent sources have been provided. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 04:45, 15 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. -- Patar knight - ^chat/_{contributions} 20:42, 21 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Max Wotell (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)

Journeyman minor-league player. Nothing but routine coverage, so doesn't meet either WP:GNG or WP:BASEBALL. Was a redirect to Cincinnati Reds minor leaguers, but that is no longer applicable. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 14:04, 14 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 14:04, 14 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Baseball-related deletion discussions. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 14:04, 14 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Florida-related deletion discussions. Icewhiz (talk) 14:05, 14 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of North Carolina-related deletion discussions. Icewhiz (talk) 14:05, 14 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - Fails WP:BASEBALL per nom. Cubbie15fan (talk) 16:15, 14 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Non-notable minor leaguer who never played higher than A-level. Has just the typical coverage expected from any minor leaguer. Fails both WP:GNG and WP:NBASEBALL. Papaursa (talk) 00:33, 19 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - Fails WP:BASEBALL....William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 23:26, 20 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Xymmax ^{So let it be written} _{So let it be done} 20:48, 21 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Digisay (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 makes quite the claim of notability with 20 million subscribers but there's nothing to back it up. Nothing more than corp/WP:ARTSPAM that lacks in any in depth, meaningful coverage in English or Arabic (I asked a native speaker, Alaa, to help.) While we don't use follower count for anything, I would expect a company claiming such significant clients and subscribers to have more than 230 twitter followers, it's basically a scam utilizing wikipedia to legitimize itself. Praxidicae (talk) 14:01, 14 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. Icewhiz (talk) 14:02, 14 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Icewhiz (talk) 14:02, 14 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Egypt-related deletion discussions. Icewhiz (talk) 14:02, 14 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete This is a scam company which using enwiki article to said "we are trusted"! through an advanced search, I found that there's no sources about this company, with Facebook page (around 18K followers), and two sources (1 + 2) that said it's a scam company! (Advance-fee scam). Thanks @Praxidicae: --Alaa :)..! 14:11, 14 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom and lacks third party sources.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 20:43, 21 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. -- Patar knight - ^chat/_{contributions} 20:42, 21 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Pratik Sinha (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)

A puff piece about a subject that fails WP:GNG and coverage is either mainly about his father Mukul Sinha or his website Altnews.in. See WP:NOTINHERETED. ML ^talk 13:59, 14 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Journalism-related deletion discussions. Icewhiz (talk) 14:03, 14 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. Icewhiz (talk) 14:03, 14 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Icewhiz (talk) 14:03, 14 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment The Hindu and the Times of India are reliable independent sources. I don’t know about the others. Mccapra (talk) 15:39, 14 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment Here [2] is one a little more than passing mention, but the source is good. Business Standard seems fairly solid, though I can't read it because paywall. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 16:07, 14 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per WP:NOTINHERETED. Sources appear to be only or mainly discussing Altnews.in or that he is giving interview for this website. Shashank5988 (talk) 10:37, 17 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete The very few sentences on him or his interview about his website do not pass WP:GNG. There is a lack of significant coverage in independent sources. --RaviC (talk) 20:42, 20 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per WP:NOTINHERETED and WP:SIGCOV.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 01:45, 21 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Also, next time please wait a bit before starting an AfD discussion, to give a creator time to expand an article to an acceptable form. (non-admin closure) Tymon.r Do you have any questions? 15:10, 21 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Duke of Kent School (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

The school does not appear to meet WP:GNG as I could not find a significant amount of coverage from independent, reliable sources. AmericanSoil (talk) 12:12, 14 March 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 March 14. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 13:32, 14 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. Icewhiz (talk) 14:04, 14 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. Icewhiz (talk) 14:04, 14 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. I have added to the article; school has an interesting history. Tacyarg (talk) 12:50, 16 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Article is sufficiently sourced. Markvs88 (talk) 16:09, 16 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - article was nominated 8 minutes after creation! This has hardly allowed much time to carry out due diligence! In any case, this is a school that has secondary streams that occupies a listed building. It is clear that sufficient sources exist to meet WP:GNG. Just Chilling (talk) 23:29, 16 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - The school is named after Duke of Kent, which definitely makes it harder to search for coverage from independent, reliable sources. Given more time, as what some above had done, more notable details and reliable sources can be found. 8 minutes between article creation and nomination is definitely not enough time to flesh out the article. robertsky (talk) 07:30, 20 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Xymmax ^{So let it be written} _{So let it be done} 20:47, 21 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Culebra (automobile) (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 recently put this article up for PROD because I don’t think it passes general notability requirements. It is supported by a single source and I have not been able to find any others. The factual accuracy of the article has been disputed in the talk page since 2007 but in the absence of traceable sources I don’t imagine that issue can be resolved. Mccapra (talk) 13:31, 14 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. Icewhiz (talk) 14:04, 14 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. Icewhiz (talk) 14:04, 14 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• delete Probably one of the many UK kit cars around at that time. Which isn't enough to make it notable, unless people were talking about it. Andy Dingley (talk) 14:26, 14 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete: I was just about to nominate this. Doesn't seem to pass WP:NPRODUCT after quite a few searches. SITH (talk) 15:37, 16 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 speedy keep. WP:SK1, nom withdrawal. (non-admin closure) Alpha3031 (t • c) 05:29, 17 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Ipa-Nima (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)

Unsourced and not notable Mccapra (talk) 21:17, 27 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fashion-related deletion discussions. – The Grid (talk) 21:49, 27 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Hong Kong-related deletion discussions. – The Grid (talk) 21:49, 27 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Vietnam-related deletion discussions. Matthew hk (talk) 22:25, 27 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Has anything changed to the article since the first AfD? Notability was established in the first AfD. – The Grid (talk) 22:16, 27 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment apologies I realised there had been a PROD and an attempted speedy delete before but failed to spot the previous AfD. However I did look for sources myself today and did not find any of the ones referred to in the previous AfD. Maybe there are Vietnamese sources I’m missing. Mccapra (talk) 22:47, 27 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Thsmi002 (talk) 04:00, 6 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Weak keep Did have coverage about her and her brand in an interview in South China Morning Post (included in the previous AfD) the dominant English newspaper in Hong Kong (to bad WSJ Asia edition ceased to publish and no one care China Daily). Despite interview is a primary source and the current state of the wiki article is unsatisfactory. Matthew hk (talk) 13:37, 6 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep The last nomination found significant coverage in reliable sources. Too bad no one expanded the article with them back then. I'll see what I can do now. Dream Focus 15:47, 7 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

  I have added in some references to the article and expanded it a bit with what English language sources were found in the previous AFD. Dream Focus 16:01, 7 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Withdraw nomination. with thanks to other editors who have found and added sources which I believe now support the notability of the topic. Mccapra (talk) 13:39, 14 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Another User:Billy Hathorn page Catfish Jim and the soapdish 11:42, 21 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Morgan W. Walker Jr. (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

Fails WP:GNG. Only sources used are Walker's obituary in the local newspaper and a post on a personal blog about the Walker's family history. GPL93 (talk) 11:14, 14 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Louisiana-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 11:26, 14 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 11:26, 14 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Fails WP:GNG....William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 19:32, 18 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Xymmax ^{So let it be written} _{So let it be done} 20:46, 21 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Victoria Jancke (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)

German model, presenter and influencer with (not yet) real coverage in reliable sources. This and this are the only possibly RS sources I can find and both are mostly interview. Apart from that, all other sources I can find merely mention her in passing as a guest at some event or other. Might be a case of WP:TOOSOON but at this point she fails WP:BIO and WP:BASIC as well as WP:GNG. Regards SoWhy 10:42, 14 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Icewhiz (talk) 10:43, 14 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. Icewhiz (talk) 10:43, 14 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Germany-related deletion discussions. Icewhiz (talk) 10:43, 14 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. Icewhiz (talk) 10:43, 14 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Thsmi002 (talk) 02:34, 15 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - Was unable to find notable coverage apart from the two you mentioned. Too soon for now. Greyjoy ^talk 07:09, 21 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Was able to find one more addition article [phttps://boulewahr.de/victoria-jancke-so-erobert-sie-jetzt-die-us-schauspiel-branche/] — Preceding unsigned comment added by Darrellbrett (talk • contribs) 07:24, 21 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) Tymon.r Do you have any questions? 15:06, 21 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Ita O'Brien (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)

Entertainment industry professional. Probably fails WP:GNG. The cited sources are not about her, but about the wider topic of intimacy coordinator (I wrote that article, so I am familiar with the topic). O'Brien is generally only quoted or mentioned. Sandstein 17:14, 7 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. Icewhiz (talk) 17:26, 7 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sexuality and gender-related deletion discussions. Icewhiz (talk) 17:26, 7 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. Icewhiz (talk) 17:26, 7 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Icewhiz (talk) 17:27, 7 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Weak Keep Seem to be a fair number of name drops on three continents, indicating an industry professional doing her job. Also found this: [3] on an editorially controlled site. I think it is changed to weak keep, from delete. scope_creep^Talk 11:00, 8 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• • Keep per Ita's work
• Keep - Article is cited with reliable sources. The subject clearly meets notability guidelines and passes WP:BIO and WP:BASIC. -AuthorAuthor (talk) 07:36, 21 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - reliable sources have specifically covered her work. William Avery (talk) 09:10, 21 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. -- Patar knight - ^chat/_{contributions} 20:41, 21 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Ryan Berry (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)

Career minor league baseball player who fails GNG. Lepricavark (talk) 17:39, 7 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Lepricavark (talk) 17:40, 7 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Baseball-related deletion discussions. Lepricavark (talk) 17:40, 7 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Texas-related deletion discussions. ...William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 18:31, 7 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete non-notable minor league baseball player.John Pack Lambert (talk) 01:24, 9 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Non–notable minor league player, fails WP:NBASE Cubbie15fan (talk) 16:35, 14 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete fails WP:NBASE. Best, GPL93 (talk) 22:04, 18 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Fails to meet WP:NBASE or WP:GNG. Coverage is routine sports reporting. Papaursa (talk) 00:21, 19 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. -- Patar knight - ^chat/_{contributions} 20:41, 21 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Rahuldeep Gill (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)

Based on their ResearchGate page, Gill does not have the level of citations needed to meet WP:NACADEMIC. Searching online, I was unable to find any significant, independent coverage in reliable sources, does not meet WP:GNG. Gill has contributed articles to several notable media outlets, but I don't think this is sufficient to make up the lack of independent coverage or academic citations. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 19:36, 7 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. Icewhiz (talk) 20:17, 7 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Religion-related deletion discussions. Icewhiz (talk) 20:17, 7 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Icewhiz (talk) 20:17, 7 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. Icewhiz (talk) 20:17, 7 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete does not meet the inclusion criteria for academics.John Pack Lambert (talk) 01:23, 9 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
•  Comment:: Being the creator of the article, I would like to stress on the fact that book written/translated by the author has been published by OUP. I found another book by OUP about Sikh Studies which includes a chapter by the author. --Satdeep Gill (talk • contribs 05:37, 9 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 09:54, 14 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. I found two published reviews of his book [4] [5] but I don't think two academic-journal reviews of one book is enough for WP:AUTHOR. And the reviews make clear that the book is mostly translations rather than original content. —David Eppstein (talk) 06:53, 20 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete for now. It may be a case of WP:TOOSOON - he is apparently writing some books, and if these books receive significant academic attention and reviews, or when he has achieved greater academic prominence (e.g. a chair in a prestigious institution), then the article can be recreated. As it is, being primarily the translator in a single book that is not widely reviewed, he may not be qualify under WP:NACADEMIC or WP:NAUTHOR. Hzh (talk) 15:20, 21 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) 21:03, 21 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Heal (corporation) (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 do not believe this company meets WP:CORPDEPTH as I can find no substantial coverage in reliable independent sources. The article has been created by a single-purpose account with a likely conflict of interest, aided and abetted by an IP and another single purpose account and is just a free advertisement for the recently formed company. It was nominated for speedy deletion as A7 by @Jikaoli Kol: but the IP removed the speedy tag. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 13:37, 27 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. ~SS49~ {talk} 13:47, 27 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. ~SS49~ {talk} 13:47, 27 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. ~SS49~ {talk} 13:47, 27 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• (Article author). Heal is a credible organization and meets Wikipedias WP:CORPDEPTH criteria. The page contains multiple sources that meet WP:RS. The following sources cover the company in-depth, and are from reliable sources. CNBC, Home Health Care News , Med City News , and the Journal of Medicine. Zezetiger (talk) 19:33, 28 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment - User Zezetiger seems to be another undeclared CoI editor actively pushing this article. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 19:58, 28 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Weak Keep Subject has enough notability to warrant this, but the article could be expanded and polished a little.TH1980 (talk) 05:42, 3 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete: fails WP:NORG / WP:ORGDEPTH. Promotional 'cruft. --K.e.coffman (talk) 03:47, 10 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak keep Could be built out more. Gr88scott (talk) 18:16, 13 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Xymmax ^{So let it be written} _{So let it be done} 20:43, 21 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hico Ice Cream (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)

Nothing significant in coverage. Fraudulent company, now sealed per [6] for using harmful ingredients. Fails WP:CORPDEPTH. Störm (talk) 21:13, 7 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 22:39, 7 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 22:40, 7 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Food and drink-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 22:40, 7 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as per nomination.TH1980 (talk) 03:42, 10 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. Per norm. Lapablo (talk) 20:39, 14 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect to Charmed merchandise#Other merchandise. Randykitty (talk) 19:24, 21 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Charmed (video game) (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 game does not appear to meet WP:GNG as I could not find a significant amount of coverage from independent, reliable sources. Aoba47 (talk) 19:30, 28 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Video games-related deletion discussions. Aoba47 (talk) 19:32, 28 February 2019 (UTC) [reply]

• Merge/redirect to Charmed merchandise. --Izno (talk) 20:25, 28 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Thank you for the comment. Aoba47 (talk) 19:40, 1 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Redirect to Charmed merchandise#Other merchandise as a WP:ATD. It fails WP:GNG by a large margin, nothing to find from significant coverage in reliable sources in searches or in the article (Mobygames, GameRankings pages and passing mentions in press releases don't establish notability). There is already a sentence on Charmed merchandise, and that is just enough for this. Jovanmilic97 (talk) 10:28, 19 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Thank you. And that makes sense to me. I was unaware of the merchandise article when I nominated this. Aoba47 (talk) 17:22, 19 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Randykitty (talk) 19:21, 21 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Netrality (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 don't see any coverage other than the standard business churnalism. There appears to be some non-trivial coverage in Data Center Frontier regarding Netrality and other companies' performance during Hurricane Harvey, but I can't find any information on their editorial policies leading me to suspect that this source is not reliable. The article as written is a rather impressive length given the lack of citable information, but on closer inspection it almost entirely consists of listing various properties that the company has acquired. Does not meet WP:NORG, WP:GNG. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 19:08, 28 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. As a co-creator of this article, I oppose its deletion. In reference to meeting notability guidelines (WP:NORG, WP:GNG), Netrality has seen substantial coverage from multiple independent sources requiring editorial integrity (BizJournals, Data Center Knowledge, Data Center Frontier). I believe this coverage more than proves that Netrality Properties is a sufficiently notable organization, and is a valid subject for a Wikipedia article dedicated solely to it. I would contest that Rosguill's nomination for deletion is based more on challenging the size and reputation of the publications covering Netrality than the content of the article itself--yet under the notability guideline that they reference, it is made clear that arbitrary standards should not be used to create a bias which favors larger organizations. Other real estate investment trust organizations similar to Netrality with equal or less press coverage have yet to be marked for deletion, which leads me to believe that this article may have been targeted solely because it was in the New Pages Patrol.

If there are any steps that can be taken to improve the article's encyclopedic status, please let me know.

Thank you, Mikiepc (talk) 23:33, 28 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• I have no issue with the size of the publications being used, my problem with them is that they seem to be trade magazines with opaque editorial policies that are largely republishing comments from PR statements from the company–such sources are regularly ignored at AfD, and WP:NORG specifically saysTrade publications must be used with great care. While feature stories from leading trade magazines may be used where independence is clear, there is a presumption against the use of coverage in trade magazines to establish notability as businesses frequently make use of these publications to increase their visibility. I would appreciate the opinions of other editors as to whether or not the sources are reliable, but have seen little evidence of their reliability based on reviewing the pieces attached to the article. Regarding the idea that this article was singled out for deletion because it was in the new page queue, well, that is the purpose of the goggles virtually all new articles go through NPP, articles that are not judged to be notable are nominated for deletion, sometimes things slip through, WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 00:19, 1 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Thank you for your reply. I understand the suspicion of media coverage from trade publications, yet have seen no evidence of the aforementioned pubs lacking clear independence or editorial integrity. And though articles do occasionally slip through, WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS also states that "identifying articles of the same nature that have been established and continue to exist on Wikipedia may provide extremely important insight into the general concept of notability". In this spirit, I would encourage you to consider the numerous other real estate investment trust articles present on Wikipedia with equal or less media coverage. I believe that if these many articles exist in accordance with the WP:NORG & WP:GNG guidelines, the Netrality article is more than notable enough to exist. Thank you, Mikiepc (talk) 23:28, 1 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 20:59, 28 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 20:59, 28 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Illinois-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 21:00, 28 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete: fails WP:NORG / WP:ORGDEPTH. The section "Expansion" comes across as promotional. --K.e.coffman (talk) 03:48, 10 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete: basically this is completely lacking in decent reliable sources (as there aren't any to include) independent of the company's PR statements. NORG, ORGDEPTH etc etc, but WP:N has it in a nutshell. Chiswick Chap (talk) 16:43, 14 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect to Vincent and Me. Participants agree to the redirect and redirects are cheap. (non-admin closure) Tymon.r Do you have any questions? 15:03, 21 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Christopher Forrest (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 does not seem to make Wikipedia requirements for notability. Only 2 roles (IMDB has just one though it looks like), one of them does not even have a page. So either delete or a redirect to Vincent and Me Wgolf (talk) 04:48, 14 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I agree, either delete or redirect. I made this article back in high school and completely forgot about it. Not even sure why I made it.

Dpm12 (talk) 05:05, 14 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 06:48, 14 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 06:48, 14 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete (redirect also acceptable, though I don't see him as a likely enough search term in his own right to really make that necessary.) Actors, as always, are not automatically guaranteed Wikipedia articles just because they have IMDb profiles — and that's especially the case for actors who had just one role as a child before deciding not to stick with acting. If he had a stronger notability claim, such as having won or been nominated for a Genie Award for the performance, then things would be different — but if only notability claim he's got is "was in a film", then we need a lot more than just a profile in a film directory to make him notable for that. Bearcat (talk) 19:00, 15 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Per WP:BLPPROD Catfish Jim and the soapdish 11:39, 21 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

D. J. Sackmann (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

No indication of notability, no reliable third-party sources, largely unreferenced. The article suffers the same problems it was deleted for back in 2012 but is different enough to not quite meet my standards for G4. Huon (talk) 04:10, 14 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Basketball-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 07:17, 14 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 07:17, 14 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Reads like an advertisement. Best, GPL93 (talk) 23:06, 14 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Fails WP:GNG with lack of significant coverage in multiple independent sources. Does not meet WP:NHOOPS. I'm not sure if his training partner Micah Lancaster is notable either, but at least he has more coverage.—Bagumba (talk) 09:33, 17 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Doesn't appear to meet any SNG and lacks the significant indpendent coverage in reliable sources needed to meet WP:GNG. Article reads more like an ad than an encyclopedia. Papaursa (talk) 00:39, 19 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Randykitty (talk) 19:10, 21 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Alan Tafoya (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 was deleted once before via AfD; recreated again with claims to demonstrate more notability. The sources still don't satisfy WP:BIO; no significant coverage in an RS, just mentions in the context of productions he's been involved with. OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 02:16, 14 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. -- Marchjuly (talk) 02:37, 14 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. -- Marchjuly (talk) 02:37, 14 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of New Mexico-related deletion discussions. -- Marchjuly (talk) 02:37, 14 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. -- Marchjuly (talk) 02:37, 14 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Martial arts-related deletion discussions. Marchjuly (talk) 06:21, 14 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• There are very few Native American actors of note in Hollywood and it can be quite difficult for them to get any traction in that industry. Tafoya is both an actor and a champion knife fighter who is recognized for both his acting roles and as himself on perhaps the most popular episode of Deadliest Warrior. He also recently starred in a touring musical theatre production about Sitting Bull. These things may not be that impressive compared to a Tom Cruise, but in the Native American community he is a person worthy of some recognition on Wikipedia. I am looking to source more material and citations with better references where possible. Would appreciate for the sake of Wiki diversity some leeway on letting this Article continue. That is my suggestion, though I know it is not up to me. Thank you for considering this. --Jay Odin (talk) 02:49, 14 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • That may be how his publicists promote him, but sources that are both independent and reliable sources are required. --Ronz (talk) 02:53, 14 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    • I have also sourced both a documentary movie and an article which detailed his two victories in martial arts knife fighting championships which keeps getting deleted, so I wonder if that aspect of his career is somehow not notable enough for Wiki to include. --Jay Odin (talk) 03:00, 14 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
      • This page is not for general discussion. The sources offered are unreliable or publicity pieces. --Ronz (talk) 03:44, 14 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
        • Thus far, there are four notable publications and IMDB. Sites dedicated to Deadliest Warrior mention him frequently, with reference to the martial arts championships. Again, it must be kept in perspective that full blooded Native American talent often appears in productions directly related to that lineage and as such usually in featured roles. The major publications that draw specific reference to them are often limited. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jay Odin (talk • contribs) 04:40, 14 March 2019 (UTC) --Jay Odin (talk) 05:04, 14 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as promotional and more likely than not made by an associated/paid editor. ‡ Єl Cid of ᐺalencia ^ᐐT₳LKᐬ 12:17, 14 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per a lack of any independent coverage. A partial merge to the notable people section of Jicarilla Apache might be good to do, if there is a consensus he is on the verge of notable on a local level. Definitely not national or state-wide, however. MidwestSalamander (talk) 13:44, 14 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Fails WP:BIO. Preaky (talk) 22:59, 15 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Fails to meet WP:GNG, WP:MANOTE, or WP:NACTOR. Coverage is either not independent or consists of passing mentions. Most significant coverage appears to come from his appearing on Deadliest Warrior, but even that doesn't appear to be independent. Papaursa (talk) 23:52, 18 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 03:31, 21 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Jhar (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)

Failed Notability. ~Moheen ^{(keep talking)} 17:13, 6 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Journalism-related deletion discussions. Icewhiz (talk) 18:01, 6 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Icewhiz (talk) 18:01, 6 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of News media-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 21:54, 6 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. Fails WP:GNG. --Hiwilms (talk) 13:25, 11 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. Long history of publication, but a Google search turns up nothing. Fails Wikipedia:Notability (periodicals). — Stevey7788 (talk) 02:18, 14 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Fails WP:GNG. Google search turns up nothing. — Nearly Headless Nick {c} 16:08, 17 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Catfish Jim and the soapdish 11:36, 21 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Elizabeth Haran (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)

A Woman For All Seasons (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, whose claims of notability are not reliably sourced, and an equally poorly sourced article about her debut novel. Her biography cites no independent references at all -- the only "reference" present here at all is her book's own advertising trailer on YouTube, which does not represent an independent or notability-conferring source as she was directly affiliated with its creation. This has been tagged for referencing problems since 2016 without improvement, and going back into the article history it has never contained any other references at all. Meanwhile, the novel article contains no sources whatsoever, and has been tagged for referencing and notability issues even longer than her BLP has.
As always, writers are not automatically entitled to have Wikipedia articles just because they exist: the notability test is the reception of media coverage (book reviews, etc.) which verifies that the notability claims are true. Furthermore, the article was created by an WP:SPA who has never made a single contribution to Wikipedia on any topic but Elizabeth Haran and her novels, so there's a potential (but not confirmed) conflict of interest here as well. (Note also that if this does get deleted, several of her other novels are in place as redirects, so don't forget to clean those out as G8s.) Bearcat (talk) 18:52, 6 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 21:37, 6 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Zimbabwe-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 21:37, 6 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 21:37, 6 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 21:38, 6 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep Delete both. I was unable to find any IRS even half supporting notability. Aoziwe (talk) 23:35, 6 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Changing to keep. Searches at TROVE and AUSTLIT and mutlilingual google search results definitely confirm that the subject is an accomplished AUTHOR with their books being translated into multiple languages, and held in mutiple languages in multiple libraries even in Australia. There are also reviews in multiple languages but with google translate it is very hard to ascertain the quality, reliability, and indendence of the review. For some reason there is just not much about the subject in English. The subject seems pretty well known to german, polish, french, spanish, and czech readers. Perhaps the subject should be "throwing a shrimp on the barbie" along with Paul Hogan. Some of the individual book articles can probably go, but the author's article I think is a definite keep. Aoziwe (talk) 05:05, 14 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Reluctant delete: although her books have been translated into a lot of other languages, I can find nothing independent written about her. Even her own "official website" at http://www.elizabethharan.com seems to have been hijacked - it's in a non-European language and doesn't look as if it relates to her at all. There are articles in German and Spanish wikipedias, both tagged as in need of references. Sad, but unless someone can find sources she doesn't appear to merit an article. PamD 17:10, 7 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • I've removed the "official website" because it was taken over by some unrelated entity and no longer has to do with this person. If the correct URL is found, it can be restored to the External Links section. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 03:30, 14 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Changing !vote to Keep after the splendid efforts of various editors. Now properly notable. PamD 09:32, 19 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Delete both. I could find no media coverage on the web, articles have no sources and there is nothing to support notability. Unoc (talk) 12:44, 10 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Rescission of delete both. My search skills are wavering. Any unique content from A Woman For All Seasons should be merged into bio... Unoc (talk) 08:55, 14 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment I have found some articles in newspapers from Adelaide. As her books were published initially in German, Russian, Czech and other European languages, I will try to check the titles in those languages for reviews or coverage of her. I find it hard to believe that an author of 17 books published in multiple languages does not have enough reviews or coverage somewhere, to enable her to meet WP:NAUTHOR. RebeccaGreen (talk) 13:30, 13 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

My thoughts too - maybe I did not look far enough... Aoziwe (talk) 14:10, 13 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

User:Aoziwe, User:RebeccaGreen spelling her name with an s - Elisabeth - helps with German searches.

Thanks, I had thought about trying that, though German sources with the z spelling were coming up, just not reliable ones. I might try Der Spiegel again with the s spelling. RebeccaGreen (talk) 00:44, 14 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I found her in the Münchner Merkur, but sort of by luck. I've never tried to run a news archive search in German. But maybe I'll try doing that . There must be more sources in countries where she's a best-seller. E.M.Gregory (talk) 01:02, 14 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• WP:HEY sources added to page during this discussion.Keep Successful novelist, of very popular historical novels, I think there is enough sourcing to keep. She seems to be very popular in Spanigh, at least, libraries in the U.S. own a lot of her books in Spanish.E.M.Gregory (talk) 20:36, 13 March 2019 (UTC) The Advertiser (Adelaide): Largs Bay native Elizabeth Haran has written 16 novels mostly set in Australia but is little know in SA.E.M.Gregory (talk) 15:27, 13 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete her novel , it lacks significant sourcing sufficient ot support a freeseanding article, but is included in BIO page, so no need to redirect this title, a phrase that which had had many other used over the years.E.M.Gregory (talk) 16:13, 13 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep per WP:HEY. In addition to the significant improvements already done following the nomination, I've just added a few additional refs. With regard to her novel, consider either a delete or a merge. Note: I had never seen two AFDs that link to a single AFD page. Interesting! XavierItzm (talk) 10:47, 14 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. As per WP:PROD Catfish Jim and the soapdish 11:35, 21 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Spun Records (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)

Absolutely no coverage of this record label during its existence. The only mention I could find was a 2017 closure of a completely different business. Fails WP:NCORP. Jalen D. Folf (talk) 01:58, 14 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. I found this page that fits under the trance label, but one source doesn't constitute notability and even if it did, I don't think this source would. Willsome429 (say hey or see my edits!) —Preceding undated comment added 04:17, 14 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 06:55, 14 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 22:23, 15 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment, gsearch "Seth Hoffmann spun records" brings up some info eg. Discogs listing, Mushroom Magazine, album release with info on spun records, Beatport lists releases, another Mushroom Magazine article, but none of these make it wikinotable (not enough to meet WP:CORP), so a Delete from me. ps. if Hoffman had an article (and is wikinotable) i would suggest a "redirect", he doesnt so i wont. Coolabahapple (talk) 22:42, 15 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Another User:Billy Hathorn page Catfish Jim and the soapdish 11:35, 21 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Morgan W. Walker Sr. (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

Fails WP:GNG. Of the four sources used in the article, one is an untitled and unlinked local newspaper article, one is a passing mention in a book on the history of Alexandria, LA (2 total mentions over 305 pages); and the other two are from a personal family history blog. GPL93 (talk) 00:20, 14 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. See WP:MEMORIAL. Local Louisiana landowner who doesn't seem to be notable, especially if you're not from that specific rural region. Same issues with the article about his son Morgan W. Walker Jr. (also should be nominated for AfD), which has only 2 sources and reads like an obituary from a local non-notable newspaper. — Stevey7788 (talk) 02:06, 14 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Stevey7788: Good call, I've now nominated his son's article for deletion as well. Best, GPL93 (talk) 13:41, 14 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Louisiana-related deletion discussions. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 03:18, 14 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 03:19, 14 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 06:57, 14 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 06:57, 14 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]