Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2019 May 3

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

The result was merge to Great Expectations. T. Canens (talk) 23:35, 10 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Satis House (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 minor detail that doesn't satisfy the great expectations of notability. Clarityfiend (talk) 23:08, 3 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 23:50, 3 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 23:50, 3 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 23:50, 3 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Redirect or merge with Great Expectations. Article is basically a WP:DICDEF, except from within a work of fiction. The article mostly describes where the name came from and that's content better suited for the main article. I'm probably going to get slapped with WP:RUBBISH, but I think if this really warranted its own article, many of the problems with the article would've been addressed by now. This article is more than ten years old and there still aren't enough sources other than for where the name came from. Even the sources in the article are practically useless.—Mythdon (talk • contribs) 00:29, 4 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• So you can't get no Satis-facts-ion, though you've tried, and you've tried, and you've tried, and you've tried? Clarityfiend (talk) 19:39, 4 May 2019 (UTC) [reply]

• Redirect to Great Expectations. First, kudos to the verbiage of the nomination by Clarityfiend. Merging this def into the target would not be remiss either.Onel5969 ^{TT me} 14:41, 4 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect as suggested; trivia and fancruft. --Orange Mike | Talk 20:08, 4 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect as proposed. Not notable enough for a standalone article, but a redirect to Great Expectations would make sense as it is plausible that someone might search for the house (either the fictional one or the real one that inspired the name). Dunarc (talk) 22:44, 4 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge or, alternatively, redirect - "Satis House" is written 16 times in the article on Great Expectations, so while I agree that the subject is not notable on its own it may make sense to have a section for it --DannyS712 (talk) 20:12, 5 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge per DannyS712. The content in this article is worth keeping, even if the article itself isn't. —⁠烏⁠Γ ^(kaw) │ 06:03, 06 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect or merge with Great Expectations per above. Aoba47 (talk) 18:43, 7 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep or merge - if there was more on the real Satis House, I'd be firmer for Keep. Actually plenty of adequate sources, both on the real house and Dickens' fictional confection. Whatever happens, this afd should record that an article on the real house can be created. Johnbod (talk) 16:26, 9 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. T. Canens (talk) 23:35, 10 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

This Side of Jordan (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)

Album which neither states nor sources any claim to passing WP:NALBUMS -- it literally just states that the album exists, references the fact to a discogs.com entry, and then that's it. As always, albums are not automatically deemed notable just because they exist: they need notability claims that go beyond simply existing, such as critical response in media and/or notable music awards. Bearcat (talk) 22:36, 3 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 23:05, 3 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep I found a few reviews: AllMusic Public Radio East Austin Chronicle Christian Century Indy Week, although I don't know how good the last two are. Walter Görlitz (talk) 00:07, 4 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 05:18, 4 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep Besides what Walter Görlitz stated, the article is written in a non-promotional, non-advertising manner.--Epiphyllumlover (talk) 16:31, 4 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Per Walter Gorlitz and existance of even more reviews eg [1]. I also see no attempt made to try an alternative to deletion which in this case would be redirecting to the group page. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 01:19, 5 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Keep. (non-admin closure) Crystallizedcarbon (talk) 12:29, 10 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The Self-Sufficient-ish Bible (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)

See Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Dave Hamilton (author)

Another non-notable book in a growing walled garden of self-promotion. Andy Dingley (talk) 22:13, 3 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep per WP:NBOOK. This book has received reviews from publications including Library Journal, Resource Magazine, Publishers Weekly, Bristol Post, and The Times (all cited in the article). This meets WP:BOOKCRIT #1. MarkZusab (talk) 22:17, 3 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment. This article is not self-promotion, as it was not created and has not been edited by the subject of the article or anyone with a personal connection to the author of the book. This article also does not fit Wikipedia's definition of a walled garden. (See Wikipedia:Walled garden and WP:SELFPROMOTE). MarkZusab (talk) 22:24, 3 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep added book reviews from the Bristol Post and The Times. Passes WP:NBOOK.E.M.Gregory (talk) 22:39, 3 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 23:09, 3 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep, another waste of time for afd editors of a notable book that is neither part of a walled garden nor of self-promotion, meets WP:NBOOK with numerous reviews in reliable sources that are listed in the article, a perfunctory WP:BEFORE would have found these. Coolabahapple (talk) 23:14, 3 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - A review by The Times is good enough for me. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 06:55, 5 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Coolabhapple is exactly correct that this is the sort of nomination that a BEFORE should avoid. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 20:00, 5 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep per NBOOK (The Times, among other sources) and above --DannyS712 (talk) 20:13, 5 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. Enough said. --Doncram (talk) 17:46, 8 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect to List of Criminal Minds characters#Recurring. T. Canens (talk) 23:34, 10 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Jordan Todd (Criminal Minds) (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)

Biography of a minor character in a television drama series, written entirely in-universe with no real-world context for why she would be a notable character and no reliable sourcing -- the only "references" here are circular citations to the plot descriptions in the show's Wikipedia episode list, not actual media coverage. I'm not convinced that a character who appeared in just four episodes of a TV series that's had over 300 episodes to date (and is still on the air, so that number is going to get even larger) is even significant enough to warrant a redirect to the character list -- so I'm proposing deletion, but I'd be willing to accept it if consensus lands on redirection instead. Either way, however, there's no properly demonstrated or properly sourced reason for a standalone article here. Unfortunately, however, there's a bigger problem brewing: I just checked the fifteen other characters in this franchise who have standalone biography articles linked in {{Criminal Minds}}, and virtually none of them is showing any real-world context or citing very much significant non-circular sourcing either. Bearcat (talk) 21:34, 3 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Redirect to List_of_Criminal_Minds_characters#Recurring. Main characters have some precedence in keeping, but minor characters should just redirect to the master list. Would be willing to delete if there are no articles linking to this one. 400spartans (talk) 22:08, 3 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 23:24, 3 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 23:24, 3 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Redirect to List_of_Criminal_Minds_characters#Recurring. Both the nom and the above editor make the case quite clearly. Not enough real world notability to show they pass WP:GNG.Onel5969 ^{TT me} 14:42, 4 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect Nothing to add that Onel, Bearcat, and Coolabhapple haven't already said as to why this is the correct WP:ATD. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 01:20, 5 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect to List_of_Criminal_Minds_characters#Recurring per above. Aoba47 (talk) 16:26, 7 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect to List_of_Criminal_Minds_characters#Recurring per above. - GretLomborg (talk) 18:24, 9 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 21:06, 10 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

Poorly written with a lot of unsourced info. Notability is not shown from the references; the only third party source that talks about the subject is a tabloid. CoolSkittle (talk) 20:11, 3 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. CoolSkittle (talk) 20:12, 3 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. CoolSkittle (talk) 20:12, 3 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. CoolSkittle (talk) 20:12, 3 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. CoolSkittle (talk) 20:12, 3 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - reads like a promo piece WP:NOTPROMOTION - does not meet WP:BASIC - most of the cited references are to YouTube, not reliable sources - Epinoia (talk) 04:11, 9 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete The very limited coverage I could find was about a single event - apparently he was to provide commentary for a boxing match, and got into a Twitter debate with one of the boxers beforehand - so even if we accept The Sun as a reliable source, WP:BLP1E would apply. GirthSummit _(blether) 17:04, 9 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Keep. (non-admin closure) Crystallizedcarbon (talk) 12:35, 10 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

Article about a state level politician with a single reference, which is a broken link to a PDF titled "list of MLAs from Tamil Nadu 2011". No evidence of substantial coverage in independent sources, fails WP:GNG at this time. ST47 (talk) 20:08, 3 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 20:09, 3 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 20:09, 3 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. Passes Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Common_outcomes#Politicians as both an elected state-level politician and a former national-level elected politician. See this article, for example. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 20:18, 3 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. Obviously passes WP:POLITICIAN per sources that take less time to find than it takes to write a deletion nomination. And the nominator's tagging of an article that said that the subject was a current MLA and former member of parliament for speedy deletion per WP:A7 is very difficult to interpret as anything other than racism. Would you have dreamt of doing the same with an equivalent article about a former member of the US House of Representatives or the UK House of Commons? The fact that the nominator is an administrator makes it even less likely that this was an innocent mistake. Phil Bridger (talk) 20:31, 3 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. Yes, the article needs some sourcing improvement — but people who have verifiably held seats in national and state legislatures pass WP:NPOL #1 right on its face, and we ultimately evaluate notability based on the existence of suitable sources and not solely on how many of them are already present in the current version of the article. Legislators do get media coverage, and Google News is your friend — there are media hits out the wazoo here, more than enough for a keep regardless of the article's current state, and heaven knows I could easily find even more if I could read or write Tamil. Bearcat (talk) 23:20, 3 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 21:03, 10 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

GIBS Business 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)

Completely unreferenced article about a business school, which just states that it exists without suggesting or sourcing a reason why its existence would be noteworthy. It is not listed in Bangalore University as an affiliated school, so the listing of "MBA - Bangalore University" under the programs header here is neither a notability guarantee nor a reason to redirect it to the university -- we would need reliable source verification that it's actually affiliated with the university, and not just falsely clamed as such for PR purposes, to make that statement mean anything. (The article also formerly listed more programs than just an MBA stream, but none of them have ever been referenced either.) Also, this was recently totally blanked by an editor who apparently thought they were helping Wikipedia combat unreferenced content -- but the proper way to deal with unreferenced content is to either find adequate references or list it for deletion, not just to erase the entire article in the hopes that it eventually gets speedied as a blank page. Bearcat (talk) 20:04, 3 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 20:10, 3 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 20:10, 3 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 20:10, 3 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - I do not believe this college meets WP:NCOLLEGE 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 and is just a free advertisement for the recently started up college. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 08:40, 5 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - does not meet WP:NSCHOOL or WP:ORGSIG - "If the individual organization has received no or very little notice from independent sources, then it is not notable" - Epinoia (talk) 04:16, 9 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Seems like a consensus to keep developed after the relist, grounded on substantial new sourcing Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 21:05, 10 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Kathie-Ann Joseph (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

No evidence of notability. No doubt an excellent surgeon but the sources don't support notability of WP:BLP. The most likely looking source is actually a wedding announcement  Velella  ^{Velella Talk}   18:16, 26 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 20:44, 26 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 20:44, 26 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 20:44, 26 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Caribbean-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 20:45, 26 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep there are enough sources citations to merit inclusion. Natureium (talk) 03:01, 28 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - unfortunately, sheer numbers of sources does not equate to RS. Can you point out what you believe are the independent reliable sources that demonstrate notability? They are not apparent to me  Velella  ^{Velella Talk}   12:24, 28 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I believe 650 citations is enough for NPOF C1. (Although that's my least favorite standard.) Natureium (talk) 13:36, 28 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

But this has only 8, including one which is a wedding announcement...... am I missing something here?  Velella  ^{Velella Talk}   17:31, 28 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Velella, what? See the GScholar and Scopus profiles. I am declining to !vote since I have strong doubts as to whether an h-index of 13 is remarkable enough. ∯WBG^converse 15:42, 29 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep She has substantial news coverage, excellent credentials, and several awards. There's a nice summary in this that suggests material to be added and sourced to clearly establish notability. The lead could make the case for notability more clearly. Mary Mark Ockerbloom (talk) 00:14, 2 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Having accomplishment and notability are not the same thing. Otherwise, every Ivy League graduate and every doctor would get an article. Heck, my aunts would get articles. Y’all managed to dig 23 years for a wedding announcement but can’t do the same for actual sigcov? Trillfendi (talk) 19:56, 3 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep I've rewritten the lead to indicate sources that establish notability. They were easy to find; most of them were mentioned in the summary source I noted previously. More could be written about her work. Mary Mark Ockerbloom (talk) 18:59, 4 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Strong keep - note that I've stricken MMO's 2nd keep !vote, but having doubled the content of the article recently, perhaps she deserves 2 !votes :D . It's now an obvious keep. The two sources Crain's New York Business 40 under 40 and Essence (magazine) 25 Most Influential African Americans 2009 are enough by themselves to establish notability. The 20 or so other refs are quite reasonable sources, I'll even include the wedding announcement - since it's from the New York Times, it's quite enough to establish her early history (high school, university, medical school, etc.) Smallbones_(smalltalk) 14:50, 5 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep per Natureium and Smallbones. Passes NACADEMIC based on citations, awards, and impact. – bradv🍁 16:00, 5 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep for demonstrated awards and impact based upon the expanded article with additional citations. Dorevabelfiore (talk) 17:52, 5 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep because it passes NACADEMIC, also it seems all the reasons for nomination have been fixed in the interim. Horse Eye Jack (talk) 08:24, 7 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep I have added a couple more sources. She meets WP:BASIC and possibly WP:NACADEMIC too. RebeccaGreen (talk) 14:33, 10 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Redirects may be added at editorial discretion Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 21:03, 10 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Fluctuate (Catfish and the Bottlemen single) (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)

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

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

Two separate poorly referenced articles about the same song, with no evidence provided that it would clear WP:NSONGS. The notability test for songs is being the subject of reliable source coverage, not just being verifiable as existing -- but both articles literally just state that the song exists, the end, rather than suggesting a reason why its existence would be encyclopedically noteworthy. Peaking #84 on the charts is not a high enough chart position to grant it a presumption of notability in the absence of adequate sources either — note that NSONGS explicitly states that charting suggests that a song may be notable, and does not in and of itself guarantee that a song is notable: the test is still the depth of reliable source coverage that the song does or doesn't have about it, not just technical verification of a low chart position. But one short blurb about the song in one music magazine is not enough coverage to get a song over the bar all by itself — it takes quite a bit more than just one source to make a song notable enough to have its own article separately from its parent album, but the only other source shown by either article is its Spotify stream. Note as well that in addition to these two duplicate articles, there's also a redirect to the album in place from the form "Fluctuate (Catfish and the Bottlemen song)" — meaning editors really need to be more careful that they're not reduplicating and retriplicating existing content. Ordinarily I would just redirect a poorly sourced article about a song to its album and be done with it, but with two separate articles and an already existing redirect, I don't believe we need to hold onto three separate redirects for the same song — we should just pick one title to retain as a redirect, while deleting the other two as redundant. Bearcat (talk) 19:13, 3 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. Ceethekreator (talk) 19:55, 3 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. Ceethekreator (talk) 19:55, 3 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete this article, and keep the other redirect in place to The Balance – as the nominator says one week on the UK charts at the lowly position of number 84 and no other information about it is not enough to warrant a separate article for the song. The standard Wikipedia naming system would be for "song" instead of "single", so that should be kept as the disambiguation title, and there is no need for this article to be kept as a redirect as well, since anyone starting type the name of the song to search for it will come up with "Fluctuate (Catfish and the Bottlemen song)" anyway. Richard3120 (talk) 22:08, 3 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect. There is really no reason for this article to have not been redirected when it was found, as Fluctuate (song) already existed. That song and article also barely has any coverage, so redirect it to the parent album as well. Ss112 22:31, 6 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

  We don't need all three of the titles involved here to be maintained alongside each other as parallel redirects representing the same song. One redirect is enough, and the question is which one is worth retaining and which two should just be deleted as redundant. Bearcat (talk) 15:46, 7 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

  WP:Redirects are cheap. —⁠烏⁠Γ ^(kaw) │ 09:27, 09 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - duplicate article of Fluctuate (song) - not enough unique content for a Merge and no need for a Redirect - Epinoia (talk) 04:23, 9 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. T. Canens (talk) 23:37, 10 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

CandyRat 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)

Article about a record label, not reliably sourced as clearing WP:NCORP. Notability is not inherited, so record labels are not handed an automatic notability freebie just because they might have one or more notable artists on them -- a record label's notability remains contingent on whether or not it is the subject of enough reliable source coverage to clear WP:GNG and WP:CORPDEPTH. But pretty much right across the board, the sources here are all either primary sources that are completely irrelevant to establishing notability at all, or glancing namechecks of its existence in coverage of other people — the only one that's more than trivially about the label at all is from a digital news startup whose status as a reliable or notability-making source is uncertain at best (I cannot, for instance, find a clear editorial masthead on its website, but only a directory of its advertising sales staff), and reads suspiciously more like either a press release or a thinly veiled rewrite of one than it does like real journalism. This is not the kind of sourcing it takes to make a record label notable.Bearcat (talk) 15:39, 26 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 15:43, 26 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Wisconsin-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 15:43, 26 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. This nomination is directly inspired by the conversation at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ewan Dobson, which may also be of interest. As I have argued elsewhere, the application of WP:CORP to record labels is a Procrustean bed that makes little sense as a yardstick, and WP:NOTINHERITED arguments are ultimately red herrings. WP:MUSIC has language - the only language specifically addressing record labels in our guidelines - about what constitutes an important record label, and it suggests two indicators: length of operation and prominence of roster (clearly intended to be taken holistically - a longstanding label with no notable acts probably wouldn't qualify unless it somehow also met the GNG). CandyRat, I think, ranks - it's been around for about 15 years and has signed quite a few notable acts (acts not notable merely for having been signed to the label), the most well-known of which are probably Michael Manring, Don Ross, Preston Reed, and The Reign of Kindo (not to mention, of course, Ewan Dobson). The prior nomination, closed as keep about two years ago, is also instructive. Chubbles (talk) 20:31, 26 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Record labels most certainly can and do get reliable source coverage about the label, so there's no legitimate reason to deem CORP somehow a poor gauge for the notability of a record label. Your argument in the past discussion, that "whether or not a record label is notable ought to be decided by experts in music, not experts in business", is the real red herring here, because nothing in NCORP indicates that the coverage necessarily has to be financial reportage in the business section, and somehow can't be news or arts coverage about the company's cultural or artistic significance. NCORP merely mandates that coverage about the company has to exist, and nothing about NCORP suggests or even implies that said coverage somehow has to come from business writers and can't come from music writers.

Being the subject of notability-supporting coverage is not a test that record labels have a pattern of being consistently unable to meet, because record labels most certainly can and do get coverage about them. As I noted, the references here are all either glancing namechecks of the label's existence in coverage of other things or primary sources that do not constitute support for notability at all — if this type of sourcing were all it took to make a record label notable enough for inclusion, then there would be never be any such thing as a non-notable record label anymore, because no record label in the entire history of music has ever gone completely unverifiable in at least some of these kinds of sources.

And anyway, even if we did have a consensus that record labels were exempted from having to pass CORP and just had to satisfy NMUSIC instead, even NMUSIC also explicitly states that the inclusion test is not just the thing being claimed, but still hinges on the quality of the referencing being used to support the claim. A record label is not automatically "culturally or artistically significant" just because you say it is — reliable sources have to establish its cultural or artistic significance by covering it as a subject. Bearcat (talk) 12:45, 27 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 03:18, 27 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

This seems part of a larger campaign to supplant SNG's with the GNG, which I have disagreed with in the past. We could just as well declare that a band needs to meet NCORP to be included, but we do not - we never do that, even though a band is most certainly an organization (usually a profit-seeking one, to boot) organized together for a purpose, as CORP states. WP:MUSIC suggests a few criteria that indicate whether a label is important enough to merit inclusion, and I think we should look to those rather than to some broad guideline that may result in impoverished conprehensiveness of coverage (just as we do for musicians, and for athletes, and for populated places, et cetera). Once we've determined that an entity meets an SNG, it is not a requirement that we find half-a-dozen longform articles about it to establish that importance, because that would mean the only way to have an article, de facto, is the GNG. We merely have to ensure that what is in the article is verifiable, as a matter of policy - and it is rarely difficult to verify artist rosters and discographies, especially for twenty-first-century labels. Chubbles (talk) 12:05, 28 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The problem is that we regularly see people or organizations make false claims about themselves designed to make them sound like they clear the SNG: musicians falsely claimed to have bigger chart hits than they've ever really had; writers falsely claimed to have nominations for awards they were never really shortlisted for; politicians claimed to have held offices they didn't really hold; and on and so forth. So getting a topic over an SNG is never just a matter of saying that the topic passes an SNG — the topic still has to have some evidence of GNG-worthy coverage which verifies that its claim to passing the SNG is true, and is never automatically exempted from having to have any reliable source coverage at all just because of what the article claims. SNGs don't exempt topics from having to have any reliable source coverage just because passage has been asserted, and GNG doesn't mean we exempt unsigned bands from having to pass NMUSIC just because they've gotten their name into their local newspaper three times and can thus claim to pass NMUSIC #1 in lieu of actually achieving anything noteworthy — every topic always has to have both a notability claim that passes an SNG and a GNG-worthy volume of reliable source coverage to support it, not just one thing or the other. SNGs exist to clarify what counts as a notability claim, and GNG exists to clarify how the notability claim has to be supported in order to translate into a keepable article — they work together, not as alternative paths that cancel or replace each other. Bearcat (talk) 16:32, 28 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I think that is a reading at variance with the actual text of WP:N, but ultimately I guess that's a topic for a different and much wider conversation somewhere else. Chubbles (talk) 00:55, 29 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The core definition of notability is the existence of reliable source coverage about the topic. There are exactly zero things in the entire universe that are so critically important for us to have an article about that they're exempted from having to meet the basic definition of notability just because of what they claim about themselves. Bearcat (talk) 19:14, 2 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• keep one of the "more important independent labels" because of numerous notable artists by NMUSIC#5. Also meets GNG, additional sources [2] [3] 78.26 _{(spin me / revolutions)} 13:24, 1 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Those aren't reliable sources. Bearcat (talk) 19:10, 2 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

You're right about Mint, it is an advertisement. Just plain missed it. 78.26 _{(spin me / revolutions)} 20:22, 2 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I'm right about "Ever Widening Circles" too. Bearcat (talk) 20:33, 2 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• comment I think the Article is good enough and also it is notable itself, and the only think that I think the Article need, it is more expanding... so I think keep the Article is my mind.Forest90 (talk) 21:16, 3 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete As much as I sympathize with Chubbles viewpoint above, the criteria for establishing the notability of record labels is not tackled within WP:NMUSIC. The entire purpose of having policies and guidelines is to establish a "procrustean bed" so that we can consistently apply the same rules and guidelines across a wide variety of different articles on wildly different topics. There is not a single SNG that is not seen as a subject-related clarification of GNG and not one waters down the requirements of GNG. Therefore it starts with a requirement of (at least) two independent and significant sources. NCORP does a great job of explaining what types of sources are required for any type of organization. None of the references provided meets the requirement, therefore not only does this topic fail NCORP, it also fails GNG. It is unfortunate that some specialised topics (which are obviously notable to specialists in their field) means some article fall through the cracks, but the minimum standard of two independent and significant sources must be met regardless of the topic. As such, this topic fails GNG. HighKing⁺⁺ 16:21, 7 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep I have found and added some more sources. While one of the sources with the most significant coverage in the article is not considered independent because it is an interview, I don't see why the LiveMint source would not be considered RS. As for the other sources, while they may not be significant, I do not believe that the coverage in articles about its artists or tours is trivial - for example that the style of playing used by many of its artists has become known as the CandyRat style, or movement. And that coverage is from several countries, including the US, Canada, Italy, Australia and New Zealand. I think there is enough to meet WP:GNG. RebeccaGreen (talk) 16:18, 10 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@RebeccaGreen: thank you for adding sources. The LiveMint "article" is an advertisement. It says so (not exactly conspicuously) right on the page. It is content paid for by the record company. It can be used for basic factual information, but it doesn't help establish notability. I still think the encyclopedia is better off with this article than without it for reasons I may or may not have time to get to. 78.26 _{(spin me / revolutions)} 17:19, 10 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@78.26 and Bearcat: Please explain how the LiveMint article is an advertisement. It has advertisements intermixed with the article but I not sure whereIt says so (not exactly conspicuously) right on the page. StrayBolt (talk) 20:27, 10 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@StrayBolt: The words "Advertisement" are placed within the article four times. However, it appears that all their articles are formatted like this, see [4], and if the space isn't sold, then the word "advertisement" appears and nothing else. However, this State Bank of India article is written by a reporter with many, many contributions, while the CandyRat article's author has only this singular contribution, which almost certainly means he is not a staff writer for the newspaper and which raises suspicions. 78.26 _{(spin me / revolutions)} 20:49, 10 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The word "Advertisement" appears inside a box in which ads appears. It does not say the article is an ad. You can't say any page with an ad intermixed with ads makes an article an advertisement. Also, maybe the LiveMint contributors with many articles are really pseudonyms for ad generated content or the salesperson who made the sale and the ones with only a few contributions are the real "reporters". Maybe the article didn't generate enough ad revenue so LiveMint didn't accept any more. Maybe the contributor found something that paid better. We don't know. StrayBolt (talk) 21:34, 10 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep I think it has enough to pass StrayBolt (talk) 21:38, 10 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. T. Canens (talk) 23:39, 10 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

WordWise (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)

Seems to fail WP:NSOFT. Passing coverage in best, plus the usual official documentation. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 08:50, 26 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment WP:HOUND and WP:POINTY and WP:BAIT by nom. ? Is this going to be good for Wikipedia ???? Djm-leighpark (talk) 09:12, 26 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • I suggest you try to present argument about the topic, not me. WP:NPA is not the best deletion argument by far... --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 01:46, 27 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 09:37, 26 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 09:37, 26 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment: I notice Talk:WordWise#Plausible merge ... I wonder if the volunteer might have given an option to see if he could find a bandwidth and a window to investigate and execute that merge rather than bringing to AfD.Djm-leighpark (talk) 08:52, 29 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • I am ok with soft delete to LetterWise. Not that the target article is a great improvement, including on implied notability... --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 11:09, 29 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment: I will support a merge but can only be the first person to propose a merge if I am prepared to execute that merge within a reasonable timescale. Certainly if I was writing from scratch I would I think write a merged article with redirects. It is possible WordWise would be the base article with LetterWise the merged in re-direct but I have not investigated that fully. I'd argue WordWise has sufficient references as sits, but I suspect some may disagree. Combined LetterWise and WordWise are different. But LetterWise is under thread of AfD .... so that's a gunpoint of a possible wsated effort for some plonker. .... considering. Anyway all this keypad predictive text stuff has no relevance in the smartphone age ... Djm-leighpark (talk) 21:06, 29 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. The 168 hours is nearly up and no-one else has contributed. If concensus is not to Keep will most very reluctantly and disgruntle volunteer to do a merge to Letterwise. A merge to Predictive text where this is mentioned would ultimately be trivial or disruptive and in practice stiffle further development. Of course predictive text on dogs might not be notable. We have good but primary stuff on these with lots passing references to it. Djm-leighpark (talk) 15:14, 2 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • There's not much to merge, a single sentence is referenced. Not much work. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 04:29, 3 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per nom. It does fail WP:NSOFT, and its companion LetterWise probably fails it as well. —⁠烏⁠Γ ^(kaw) │ 08:07, 05 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect to LetterWise, as the article is insufficiently referenced (per WP:GNG due to lack of significant coverage), is short (per WP:MERGEREASON), and has considerable overlap with the proposed target. I note that WP:NSOFT is not a guideline, as it has not been ratified. — Newslinger talk 23:57, 8 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - does not meet WP:NSOFTWARE - has not been "discussed in reliable sources as significant in its particular field," has not been "recognized as having historical or technical significance by reliable sources." - Epinoia (talk) 04:01, 9 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment: redirect as is would cause WP:SURPRISE. For redirect to make sense WordWise content has to be added to letterwise and I prefer official attributed copy rather than copyvio/plagarism risk and to keep the attributions rightful and respectful. WordWise stands alone on its own merits but to be frank if I was doing a new article I'd probably do one of the pair and redirect the other. However I am lazy and there is better things to be doing in Wikipedia and RL. The failing to meet [WP:NSOFT]] assertions seems pretentious as is pretty impossible to search all the 2,320,000 Google hits on the link above let alone behind paywalls and offline resources especially as Wordwise can have a handful of different context meanings.Djm-leighpark (talk) 09:23, 10 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • A better soft delete/redirect/merge target would be Predictive_text#Companies_and_products. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 10:26, 10 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    • I respectfully disagree. This argument means content has to be developed continuously remaining without WP:UNDUE weight on the target article. This stiffles the development. It is merge into obscurity. Merges proposed by people who have had a negative view of the article are generally a bad thing. Merges are best performed by people who are merging with a positive approach on the content. Good merges are actually often quite difficult but sweet when they occur nicely. But a bad merge is a bad job. Maybe if an article matures and can get towards GA standard on a high importance article things may be a different matter ... 10:49, 10 May 2019 (UTC)

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. T. Canens (talk) 23:31, 10 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Panorama (GIS) (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:NORG/WP:NSOFT. WP:BEFORE failed to locate any good sources - a few mentions in passing. Perhaps some sources exist in Russian? _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 10:25, 26 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 10:30, 26 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 10:30, 26 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 10:31, 26 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Russia-related deletion discussions. Djm-leighpark (talk) 09:24, 29 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. Djm-leighpark (talk) 09:27, 29 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Article in current state fails way below what is required for Wikipedia from views of content and sources. Was dePRODd by myself as might have has potential if website to be believed (though non-English some indication of international note). Was added to appropriate WikiProjects but has not been improved and rightfully if not improved should be deleted. NB: I personally am not looking to rescue this one unless something magics out of somewhere.Djm-leighpark (talk) 09:33, 29 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - does not meet WP:GNG, has not "received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject" - Epinoia (talk) 03:54, 9 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. RL0919 (talk) 18:57, 10 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Mary Queen of Heaven (Erlanger, Kentucky) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

Non-notable Catholic church. Article contains no sources. Willthacheerleader18 (talk) 18:29, 3 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Kentucky-related deletion discussions. Willthacheerleader18 (talk) 18:31, 3 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. Willthacheerleader18 (talk) 18:31, 3 May 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 May 3. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 18:39, 3 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete the Article because it's not notable itself.Forest90 (talk) 21:18, 3 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment Even if this article is deleted, Mother of God Roman Catholic Church (Covington, Kentucky) ought to be kept, as the article is more substantial.--Epiphyllumlover (talk) 16:34, 4 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • That church has nothing to do with this deletion nomination.. -- Willthacheerleader18 (talk) 19:23, 5 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete -- One cannot really tell with a one-line stub. There is nothing in the article to show this is more than a typically NN local Church. Peterkingiron (talk) 15:51, 5 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Suburban parish with a very attractive brick campus and an active congregation. However, the best I can do for sourcing notability is that regional newspapers rate this parish's annual fish fry as amount the top fish frys in the regions annual fish fry season - and notices of routine holiday and fundraising events. E.M.Gregory (talk) 21:00, 7 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. RL0919 (talk) 18:58, 10 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Dinda Academy of Pace Bowling (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

Poorly sourced article about a niche social media meme with no evidence of passing the ten year test for enduring significance. This describes its subject as a "hypothetical cricket academy created by a facebook page", but that's not really an accurate description -- it's just a phrase used to mock people, in exactly the same way as any person whose errors of behaviour or skill resemble somebody else's can be mocked as having attended "Other Person School": "the Donald Trump school of Twitter diplomacy", the "Justin Trudeau school of public relations crisis management", the "Theresa May school of leadership", the "Angela Merkel school of public speaking", etc. And there aren't nearly enough references to actually get the phrase over WP:GNG as a phrase; two mention the phrase in the process of being about the people who are being labelled rather than about the phrase per se, and the third just tangentially verifies a stray fact about the namesake's cricket stats without even mentioning the phrase at all. None of this adds up to a reason why a Wikipedia article about this phrase would be necessary. Bearcat (talk) 18:39, 3 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Cricket-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 19:07, 3 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 19:07, 3 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 19:08, 3 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete This is verging on WP:ONEDAY. Non-notable / unsourced meme. Spike 'em (talk) 19:12, 3 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete the Article because it's not notable itself.Forest90 (talk) 21:25, 3 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - what an utter disaster. Preferably deleted as rapidly as possible and whatever sanction necessary placed on the editor who created this piece of utter trash. Blue Square Thing (talk) 10:49, 4 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Wow, one of the worst articles I've ever seen on here. They could at least troll this overrated guy who steals a living! StickyWicket (talk) 16:51, 4 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. This page should not be delete. It is a real page on the name of a "trolling" academy in India. It describes all the incidents which happend on social media during IPL 2019. And Cricket fans trolled some bowlers after their poor performance in IPL 2019. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mirza.shoaib.baig.321 (talk • contribs) 18:25, 9 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

But why is this notable? Please see a list of what wikipedia is not, including not a social network, not a newspaper, not a fansite, and particularly here not for something made up one day. Spike 'em (talk) 10:09, 10 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. Sandstein 18:38, 10 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Ruth Kinuthia (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: ANYBIO lacks any independent reliable secondary sources. Is the winner of a national beauty pageant, whilst unreferenced is still only WP:1EVENT. Insufficient notability with no significant achievements since the beauty pageant winner - didn’t even rank at international level. Dan arndt (talk) 12:15, 19 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 12:20, 19 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Beauty pageants-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 12:20, 19 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Kenya-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 12:20, 19 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete a non-notable beauty pageant contestant.John Pack Lambert (talk) 02:30, 20 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - won the national title and competed at an international level at one of the "big 4" international beauty pageants. As in sports, participating in the premier international competition indicates notability. In addition, has gone on to win a national award in her industry. MurielMary (talk) 08:50, 20 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment, I can’t believe that are you are comparing a pageant based purely on a persons appearance against a sporting contest, which requires physical and mental skills. Besides in most cases, apart from the Olympics, an individual needs to have at least placed in an international competition, to be considered notable. Dan arndt (talk) 11:19, 20 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

And I absolutely cannot believe that you have nominated these articles for deletion when you clearly have such limited knowledge of the subject matter! Beauty pageants are *not* judged purely on appearance; there are multiple sections for talent performance, presenting a charity the contestant has been involved with, completing an interview, completing a sports event and actual modelling tasks. It's an all-round competition and the winners are celebrities in their own countries. You seem to have also ignored that this subject has gone on to an award-winning career post-pageantry. MurielMary (talk) 08:03, 21 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

This is not at all true. We had a long lasting RfC discussion on beauty pageants, and an attempts to create a list of competitions that entering made people default notable was rejected. MurialMary's proposal is against community consensus.John Pack Lambert (talk) 21:13, 21 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Redirect to the pageant's page (if any). --Rsrikanth05 (talk) 19:14, 26 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete As far as I'm concerned when it comes to beauty pageants, if they didn't win or be a runner-up in one of the important ones like Miss Universe, Miss USA, Miss World etc. then it's no point of them being here. Too many articles on this website are only 3 sentences because of NO notability. Trillfendi (talk) 20:38, 26 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. She passes the WP:GNG. gidonb (talk) 06:53, 28 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment, how does this pass GNG? GNG requires significant coverage in multiple independent secondary sources. This clearly doesn’t. Dan arndt (talk) 07:44, 28 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Clearly??? Can you explain? And to your question: WP:NEXIST. gidonb (talk) 09:13, 28 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep as per MurielMary. Our personal feelings about these beauty pageants are irrelevant. Personally, I feel these beauty pageants and football are equally useless but my personal feelings are irrelevant. All I care about is adhering to our policies. She has won the national title and competed at an international level and for me that's good enough.Tamsier (talk) 10:22, 2 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Sources are not substantive enough to establish notability. Reywas92^Talk 18:14, 3 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - Per WP:ANYBIO. Won national pageant, and hassince hadan established career outside of the pageant world as well. Also WP:GNG. BabbaQ (talk) 05:34, 7 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak keep, person is just acceptable for inclusion. Davidgoodheart (talk) 10:32, 9 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Sandstein 18:38, 10 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Oxana Zubakova (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 still believe, besides the blatantly, flamingly unambiguous advertising going on here, and the BLP violations, that this woman is unnotable. One minor scandal doesn’t equal notability. And “supermodel” is laughable. Trillfendi (talk) 17:14, 3 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fashion-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 18:13, 3 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 18:14, 3 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Russia-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 18:14, 3 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 18:15, 3 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - does not meet WP:BASIC (has not "received significant coverage in multiple published secondary sources that are reliable, intellectually independent of each other, and independent of the subject.") - Epinoia (talk) 03:48, 9 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Sandstein 18:33, 10 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Arlene Stuart (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 presenter with hardly any reliable sources. - Funky Snack (Talk) 16:24, 3 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Radio-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 16:33, 3 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 16:34, 3 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 16:34, 3 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - does not meet WP:ANYBIO - no significant achievement or contribution - having a job is no basis for notabiltiy - Epinoia (talk) 03:30, 9 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Sandstein 18:33, 10 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

George Bowie (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 radio presenter. No RS. Page has potential, but not at the moment. - Funky Snack (Talk) 16:19, 3 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. CASSIOPEIA^(talk) 16:24, 3 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. CASSIOPEIA^(talk) 16:24, 3 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Radio-related deletion discussions. CASSIOPEIA^(talk) 16:37, 3 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Scotland-related deletion discussions. AllyD (talk) 16:43, 3 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete: For now there aren't really any in-depth sources about the subject, possible WP:TOOSOON Ceethekreator (talk) 21:45, 3 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - does not meet WP:ANYBIO - no significant achievements to establish notability - essentially the article just says the guy has a job - Epinoia (talk) 03:21, 9 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Sandstein 18:33, 10 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Steve Smart (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 radio presenter, although on a national station. The sources provided are not reliable. Article overall fails WP:BASIC. - Funky Snack (Talk) 16:11, 3 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. CASSIOPEIA^(talk) 16:21, 3 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. CASSIOPEIA^(talk) 16:21, 3 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Radio-related deletion discussions. CASSIOPEIA^(talk) 16:40, 3 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - does not meet WP:ANYBIO - having his Saturday night show extended to be finished at 12am is hardly a significant achievement - Epinoia (talk) 03:16, 9 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Sandstein 18:33, 10 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Coilback (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)

Semi-advertorialized article about a band whose notability claims are not reliably sourced. With the exception of four separate citations to the same non-notable webzine, this is otherwise referenced entirely to primary sources that are not support for notability at all: the band's own PR materials, the social networking profiles of the band members, a Q&A interview in which they're speaking about themselves on a non-notable YouTube channel, and directly affiliated people's personal e-mail fan newsletters. As always, bands are not automatically entitled to have Wikipedia articles just because their self-published web presence verifies that they exist: they need to be the subject of real media coverage which verifies passage of a notability criterion, and are not exempted from that just because they're active on Facebook or ReverbNation or YouTube. Bearcat (talk) 16:10, 3 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. CASSIOPEIA^(talk) 16:19, 3 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Texas-related deletion discussions. CASSIOPEIA^(talk) 16:21, 3 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - obvious promotion WP:NOTPROMOTION - does not meet WP:BAND, no notable recordings or coverage - Epinoia (talk) 03:10, 9 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Sandstein 18:33, 10 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Cockburn (film) (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)

Stub article about a short film, with no actual notability claim besides existing and no actual evidence of reliable source coverage. As always, every film that exists is not automatically entitled to a Wikipedia article just because it has an IMDb page: the notability test for films requires evidence of critical or media attention and/or noteworthy awards, not just single-sourced verification of existence. Making a film notable enough for inclusion here requires saying more about it than just that it exists, and sourcing it to more than just IMDb. Bearcat (talk) 15:56, 3 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. CASSIOPEIA^(talk) 16:18, 3 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete I looked for sources for the film, as well as the director, and was completely unsuccessful on both counts. There does not appear to be any sources on this movie, aside from IMDB, which of course is not valid for establishing notability. Rorshacma (talk) 17:25, 3 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Unconcerned I created the stub rather than delete a dab entry, having established its authenticity. But I did find it available on a streaming video site with two genuine reviews "likes". Doug butler (talk) 22:01, 3 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - does not meet any of the criteria of WP:NFILM - Epinoia (talk) 03:03, 9 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Sandstein 18:33, 10 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Daniel Pinder (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)

Props to Pinder's PR team for getting a handful of semi-reliable to reliable sources to republish the same press-release like puff pieces, repeatedly, about the same non-notable film. This article is nothing more than a puff piece/vanity spam and I seriously question the integrity of every single source that "reported" or mentioned his role in Chicago PD as being "significant" or "well known." I don't know if those are written by contributors or if they lack any fact checkers but I can find no real coverage of this role and even his own iMDb lists it as a completely insignificant, one time character, "Skateboard kid." All of the sources that have written about him are actually in this article, which doesn't leave me any hope that he is actually notable. More than half of the sources are about a film that isn't notable and are basically copied with a few words rearranged from the other.

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 15:57, 3 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Fails NACTOR, no notable roles. Reywas92^Talk 18:16, 3 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - does not meet WP:ANYBIO (no "widely recognized contribution") - does not meet WP:NACTOR (no "significant roles in multiple notable films, television shows, stage performances, or other productions.") - Epinoia (talk) 03:00, 9 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom. Fails WP:NACTOR and WP:ANYBIO. Nice work on the source evaluation table. - GretLomborg (talk) 18:29, 9 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete I accepted this at AfC but didn't leave any notes as to why on this one. I have reviewed the sources both in the article and on the talk page and I can;t make a good case for notability. ~Kvng (talk) 01:44, 10 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Sandstein 18:32, 10 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Joe Saturday (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 supposed ten minute long TV show, whose article has no sourcing. I could not find a single reliable source even mentioning this one at all, let alone establishing notability. The most I was able to find was an entry on IMDB, which of course is not a valid reliable source. I initially WP:PRODed this, but the PROD was contested with the explanation that the article had already been deleted once via PROD, and then re-created. Rorshacma (talk) 15:40, 3 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

To clarify, your attempt at PRODing the article was not "contested". It was simply reverted because the article is ineligible for PRODing since it has already been the subject of a contested PROD in the past. Ben · Salvidrim! ✉ 07:13, 5 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 15:55, 3 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Speedy delete Not a real TV show, doesn't even mention a network it supposedly airs on. Reywas92^Talk 18:18, 3 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• You don't mention which CSD criteria you think this falls under? If you meant WP:G3 {{Db-hoax}}, then clearly not: http://www.joesaturday.com, you can watch the pilot yourself. "Doesn't mention what network it airs on" is not a rationale for deletion (especially since it's an unaired pilot); I'd encourage you to revise your !vote with an explanation of why you feel this article subject meets deletion criteria. I'm not defending the article, I'm just trying to improve the quality of the AfD result for the benefit of the closer and future reviewers. Ben · Salvidrim! ✉ 07:13, 5 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - The article subject fails meet the English Wikipedia's threshold for inclusion, whether it is evaluated against the narrow guideline WP:NTV or the broader WP:GNG. The article features zero evidence of significant coverage in reliable, independent sources (WP:42). Ben · Salvidrim! ✉ 07:13, 5 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Fenix down (talk) 14:50, 10 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Ryan Zabinski (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)

See Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Cody Reinberg (2nd nomination), now making a separate nomination. Ymblanter (talk) 15:38, 3 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 15:53, 3 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 15:53, 3 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Pennsylvania-related deletion discussions. CASSIOPEIA^(talk) 16:36, 3 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete No substantive sources. Reywas92^Talk 18:20, 3 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. GiantSnowman 08:30, 4 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - what a clusterfuck of an AFD journey. In the middle of the first discussion the nominator decided to try and change the notability parameters, and the second discussion was a wholly inapproproriate bundle which was procedurally kept. Rant over. Fails WP:NFOOTBALL and no evidence (despite all the time at AFD for sources to be found) that WP:GNG can or will be met. GiantSnowman 08:41, 4 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete – Fails GNG, fails NFOOTY. Concerned the snowman is stuck in some kind of time loop. Leviv ich 03:25, 6 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Fails GNG. It always failed NFOOTY (as FPL is not part of NFOOTY, but merely a separate essay) - however NFOOTY is of little consequence for a very modern player in an English speaking country (in an era with online sources in English available) for which the rule of thumb imputed by NSPORTS-NFOOTY can be simply checked vs. available sources (contrast this with Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Josep Raich - a Spanish player in the 30s and 40s for which NFOOTY carries weight, as sourcing for this period in Spain can get tricky). Regardless - it is rather evident that coverage for this individual does not rise up to SIGCOV. Icewhiz (talk) 13:12, 6 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Low level, modern-era, minor league soccer player, who played professionally in a country where the sport is not popular. Fails WP:NFOOTY, WP:GNG, and WP:BASIC. Ejgreen77 (talk) 23:46, 7 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Fenix down (talk) 14:49, 10 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Tucson Brown (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)

See Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Cody Reinberg (2nd nomination), now making a separate nomination. Ymblanter (talk) 15:37, 3 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 15:53, 3 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 15:53, 3 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Massachusetts-related deletion discussions. CASSIOPEIA^(talk) 16:36, 3 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - A player of the third-tier semi professional, USL Second Division league, a non-WP:FPL. Fails WP:NFOOTY. CASSIOPEIA^(talk) 17:00, 3 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. GiantSnowman 08:29, 4 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - what a clusterfuck of an AFD journey. In the middle of the first discussion the nominator decided to try and change the notability parameters, and the second discussion was a wholly inapproproriate bundle which was procedurally kept. Rant over. Fails WP:NFOOTBALL and no evidence (despite all the time at AFD for sources to be found) that WP:GNG can or will be met. GiantSnowman 08:41, 4 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per Cassiopeia. Leviv ich 03:24, 6 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Fails GNG. It always failed NFOOTY (as FPL is not part of NFOOTY, but merely a separate essay) - however NFOOTY is of little consequence for a very modern player in an English speaking country (in an era with online sources in English available) for which the rule of thumb imputed by NSPORTS-NFOOTY can be simply checked vs. available sources (contrast this with Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Josep Raich - a Spanish player in the 30s and 40s for which NFOOTY carries weight, as sourcing for this period in Spain can get tricky). Regardless - it is rather evident that coverage for this individual does not rise up to SIGCOV. Icewhiz (talk) 13:11, 6 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Low level, modern-era, minor league soccer player, who played professionally in a country where the sport is not popular. Fails WP:NFOOTY, WP:GNG, and WP:BASIC. Ejgreen77 (talk) 23:46, 7 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Fenix down (talk) 14:47, 10 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Bryan Zobre (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)

See Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Cody Reinberg (2nd nomination), now making a separate nomination. Ymblanter (talk) 15:36, 3 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 15:53, 3 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 15:53, 3 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Connecticut-related deletion discussions. CASSIOPEIA^(talk) 16:35, 3 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete No substantive sources. Reywas92^Talk 18:21, 3 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. GiantSnowman 08:29, 4 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - what a clusterfuck of an AFD journey. In the middle of the first discussion the nominator decided to try and change the notability parameters, and the second discussion was a wholly inapproproriate bundle which was procedurally kept. Rant over. Fails WP:NFOOTBALL and no evidence (despite all the time at AFD for sources to be found) that WP:GNG can or will be met. GiantSnowman 08:40, 4 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete – per GS. Leviv ich 03:23, 6 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Fails GNG. It always failed NFOOTY (as FPL is not part of NFOOTY, but merely a separate essay) - however NFOOTY is of little consequence for a very modern player (in an era with online sources in English available) for which the rule of thumb imputed by NSPORTS-NFOOTY can be simply checked vs. available sources (contrast this with Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Josep Raich - a Spanish player in the 30s and 40s for which NFOOTY carries weight, as sourcing for this period in Spain can get tricky). Regardless - it is rather evident that coverage for this individual does not rise up to SIGCOV. Icewhiz (talk) 13:11, 6 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Low level, modern-era, minor league soccer player, who played professionally in a country where the sport is not popular. Fails WP:NFOOTY, WP:GNG, and WP:BASIC. Ejgreen77 (talk) 23:47, 7 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Fenix down (talk) 14:46, 10 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Matt Langton (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)

See Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Cody Reinberg (2nd nomination), now making a separate nomination. Ymblanter (talk) 15:35, 3 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 15:53, 3 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 15:53, 3 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Maryland-related deletion discussions. CASSIOPEIA^(talk) 16:32, 3 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Pennsylvania-related deletion discussions. CASSIOPEIA^(talk) 16:34, 3 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. GiantSnowman 08:29, 4 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - what a clusterfuck of an AFD journey. In the middle of the first discussion the nominator decided to try and change the notability parameters, and the second discussion was a wholly inapproproriate bundle which was procedurally kept. Rant over. Fails WP:NFOOTBALL and no evidence (despite all the time at AFD for sources to be found) that WP:GNG can or will be met. GiantSnowman 08:40, 4 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete – per GS. Leviv ich 03:22, 6 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Fails GNG. It always failed NFOOTY (as FPL is not part of NFOOTY, but merely a separate essay) - however NFOOTY is of little consequence for a very modern player (in an era with online sources in English available) for which the rule of thumb imputed by NSPORTS-NFOOTY can be simply checked vs. available sources (contrast this with Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Josep Raich - a Spanish player in the 30s and 40s for which NFOOTY carries weight, as sourcing for this period in Spain can get tricky). Regardless - it is rather evident that coverage for this individual does not rise up to SIGCOV. Icewhiz (talk) 13:10, 6 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - article about semi-pro footballer which fails WP:GNG. Jogurney (talk) 14:18, 6 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete There's no significant coverage to meet WP:GNG and he also fails to meet WP:NFOOTY. Papaursa (talk) 23:06, 6 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Low level, modern-era, minor league soccer player, who played professionally in a country where the sport is not popular. Not notable as either an accountant or a soccer player. Fails WP:NFOOTY, WP:GNG, and WP:BASIC. Ejgreen77 (talk) 00:28, 8 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Fenix down (talk) 14:46, 10 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

David Feazell (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)

See Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Cody Reinberg (2nd nomination), now making a separate nomination. Ymblanter (talk) 15:33, 3 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 15:53, 3 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 15:53, 3 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. GiantSnowman 08:29, 4 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - what a clusterfuck of an AFD journey. In the middle of the first discussion the nominator decided to try and change the notability parameters, and the second discussion was a wholly inapproproriate bundle which was procedurally kept. Rant over. Fails WP:NFOOTBALL and no evidence (despite all the time at AFD for sources to be found) that WP:GNG can or will be met. GiantSnowman 08:40, 4 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete – per GS. Leviv ich 03:22, 6 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Fails GNG. It always failed NFOOTY (as FPL is not part of NFOOTY, but merely a separate essay) - however NFOOTY is of little consequence for a very modern player (in an era with online sources in English available) for which the rule of thumb imputed by NSPORTS-NFOOTY can be simply checked vs. available sources (contrast this with Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Josep Raich - a Spanish player in the 30s and 40s for which NFOOTY carries weight, as sourcing for this period in Spain can get tricky). Regardless - it is rather evident that coverage for this individual does not rise up to SIGCOV. Icewhiz (talk) 13:10, 6 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete I said at the first AfD discussion that he didn't meet WP:NFOOTY or WP:GNG. A month later nothing has changed. Papaursa (talk) 23:02, 6 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Low level, modern-era, minor league soccer player, who played professionally in a country where the sport is not popular. Fails WP:NFOOTY, WP:GNG, and WP:BASIC. Ejgreen77 (talk) 23:47, 7 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Fenix down (talk) 14:45, 10 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Ashleigh Townsend (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)

See Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Cody Reinberg (2nd nomination), now making a separate nomination. Ymblanter (talk) 15:32, 3 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. CASSIOPEIA^(talk) 16:26, 3 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. CASSIOPEIA^(talk) 16:26, 3 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. CASSIOPEIA^(talk) 16:26, 3 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Ohio-related deletion discussions. CASSIOPEIA^(talk) 16:31, 3 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete No notability is evidenced. (Aside: A man named Ashleigh? Jesus.) Trillfendi (talk) 17:54, 3 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. GiantSnowman 08:29, 4 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - what a clusterfuck of an AFD journey. In the middle of the first discussion the nominator decided to try and change the notability parameters, and the second discussion was a wholly inapproproriate bundle which was procedurally kept. Rant over. Fails WP:NFOOTBALL and no evidence (despite all the time at AFD for sources to be found) that WP:GNG can or will be met. GiantSnowman 08:39, 4 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per GS. Trill, haven't you heard of A Boy Named Sue? Leviv ich 03:25, 6 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Fails GNG. It always failed NFOOTY (as FPL is not part of NFOOTY, but merely a separate essay) - however NFOOTY is of little consequence for a very modern player in an English speaking country (in an era with online sources in English available) for which the rule of thumb imputed by NSPORTS-NFOOTY can be simply checked vs. available sources (contrast this with Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Josep Raich - a Spanish player in the 30s and 40s for which NFOOTY carries weight, as sourcing for this period in Spain can get tricky). Regardless - it is rather evident that coverage for this individual does not rise up to SIGCOV. @Levivich:, @Trillfendi: - as for Ashleigh and Sue - you ought to be careful not to mix up British and American practices - as you may see in Ashley (name) - in UK usage this is mainly male (and originally only male), harking back to at least Anthony Ashley Cooper, 1st Earl of Shaftesbury. Stateside, it seems that bored housewives watching The Young and the Restless (Ashley Abbott) - made this into a very popular female name. So - longstanding, upright, British tradition vs. American soaps. (however, contrast Rhoticity in English where American speakers preserve the original pronunciation or gotten (vs. British got) where Americans revived the past use (which survived on the fringes in the States before being revived) - [5] - however British purists may devolve into "backwater colonial mannerism" or some such discourse). Icewhiz (talk) 13:25, 6 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I understand the cultural differences, (also, apparently Brooklyn is much more popular for British boys than girls) but this spelling has a particularly feminine look so it gave me a double take. It’d be like, a guy named Jordyn or Kacie. Trillfendi (talk) 23:59, 7 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete I said at the first AfD discussion that he didn't meet WP:NFOOTY or WP:GNG. A month later nothing has changed. Papaursa (talk) 23:03, 6 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Low level, modern-era, minor league soccer player, who played professionally in a country where the sport is not popular. Fails WP:NFOOTY, WP:GNG, and WP:BASIC. Ejgreen77 (talk) 23:46, 7 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Fenix down (talk) 14:44, 10 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Ben Clark (footballer, born 1984) (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)

See Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Cody Reinberg (2nd nomination), now making a separate nomination. Ymblanter (talk) 15:31, 3 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 15:52, 3 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 15:52, 3 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. CASSIOPEIA^(talk) 16:30, 3 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of North Carolina-related deletion discussions. CASSIOPEIA^(talk) 16:30, 3 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. GiantSnowman 08:29, 4 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - what a clusterfuck of an AFD journey. In the middle of the first discussion the nominator decided to try and change the notability parameters, and the second discussion was a wholly inapproproriate bundle which was procedurally kept. Rant over. Fails WP:NFOOTBALL and no evidence (despite all the time at AFD for sources to be found) that WP:GNG can or will be met. GiantSnowman 08:39, 4 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete – per GS. Leviv ich 03:21, 6 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Fails GNG. It always failed NFOOTY (as FPL is not part of NFOOTY, but merely a separate essay) - however NFOOTY is of little consequence for a very modern player (in an era with online sources in English available) for which the rule of thumb imputed by NSPORTS-NFOOTY can be simply checked vs. available sources (contrast this with Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Josep Raich - a Spanish player in the 30s and 40s for which NFOOTY carries weight, as sourcing for this period in Spain can get tricky). Regardless - it is rather evident that coverage for this individual does not rise up to SIGCOV. Icewhiz (talk) 13:10, 6 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Low level, modern-era, minor league soccer player, who played professionally in a country where the sport is not popular. Fails WP:NFOOTY, WP:GNG, and WP:BASIC. Ejgreen77 (talk) 23:47, 7 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Fenix down (talk) 14:44, 10 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

David Tyrie (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)

See Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Cody Reinberg (2nd nomination), now making a separate nomination. Ymblanter (talk) 15:30, 3 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 15:53, 3 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 15:53, 3 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. CASSIOPEIA^(talk) 16:29, 3 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Massachusetts-related deletion discussions. CASSIOPEIA^(talk) 16:29, 3 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - A player of the third-tier semi professional, USL Second Division league, a non-WP:FPL. Fails WP:NFOOTY. CASSIOPEIA^(talk) 16:56, 3 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. GiantSnowman 08:28, 4 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - what a clusterfuck of an AFD journey. In the middle of the first discussion the nominator decided to try and change the notability parameters, and the second discussion was a wholly inapproproriate bundle which was procedurally kept. Rant over. Fails WP:NFOOTBALL and no evidence (despite all the time at AFD for sources to be found) that WP:GNG can or will be met. GiantSnowman 08:38, 4 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

  I'm just realizing you posted this on all of them. LOL. That's not true! My sterling reputation is unfairly sullied :-P Leviv ich 03:07, 6 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete – Fails NFOOTY, fails GNG. Leviv ich 03:07, 6 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Fails GNG. It always failed NFOOTY (as FPL is not part of NFOOTY, but merely a separate essay) - however NFOOTY is of little consequence for a very modern player (in an era with online sources in English available) for which the rule of thumb imputed by NSPORTS-NFOOTY can be simply checked vs. available sources (contrast this with Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Josep Raich - a Spanish player in the 30s and 40s for which NFOOTY carries weight, as sourcing for this period in Spain can get tricky). Regardless - it is rather evident that coverage for this individual does not rise up to SIGCOV. Icewhiz (talk) 13:09, 6 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Low level, modern-era, minor league soccer player, who played professionally in a country where the sport is not popular. Fails WP:NFOOTY, WP:GNG, and WP:BASIC. Ejgreen77 (talk) 23:48, 7 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Fenix down (talk) 14:43, 10 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Cody Reinberg (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)

See Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Cody Reinberg (2nd nomination), now making a separate nomination. Ymblanter (talk) 15:29, 3 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 15:33, 3 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 15:33, 3 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Pennsylvania-related deletion discussions. CASSIOPEIA^(talk) 16:27, 3 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - A player of the third-tier semi professional, USL Second Division league, a non-WP:FPL. Fails WP:NFOOTY. CASSIOPEIA^(talk) 16:55, 3 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Nothing approaching significant coverage. In the previous AfD, it was asserted that there was some coverage of this person, which is true—there are one or two news articles [6] [7] [8] [9]—but namechecks like that do not come anywhere close to counting towards sigcov. There is just no way to write an encyclopedia article from those sources without making our own content. The presumption of significant coverage in reliable sources would be discredited at this point even if he was a professional player that got such a presumption in the first place. Alpha3031 (t • c) 06:47, 4 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. GiantSnowman 08:28, 4 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - what a clusterfuck of an AFD journey. In the middle of the first discussion the nominator decided to try and change the notability parameters, and the second discussion was a wholly inapproproriate bundle which was procedurally kept. Rant over. Fails WP:NFOOTBALL and no evidence (despite all the time at AFD for sources to be found) that WP:GNG can or will be met. GiantSnowman 08:38, 4 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

  I did not decide to try and change the notability parameters. That was done by community consensus, and initiated by another editor. Ironically, both GS and I supported the change; one of the few things we've agreed on. Leviv ich 22:58, 5 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete – Fails NFOOTY, fails GNG. Leviv ich 22:58, 5 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Fails GNG. It always failed NFOOTY (as FPL is not part of NFOOTY, but merely a separate essay) - however NFOOTY is of little consequence for a very modern player (in an era with online sources in English available) for which the presumed notability can be simply checked vs. available sources (contrast this with Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Josep Raich - a Spanish player in the 30s and 40s for which NFOOTY carries weight). Regardless - it is rather evident that coverage for this individual does not rise up to SIGCOV. Icewhiz (talk) 13:04, 6 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Low level, modern-era, minor league soccer player, who played professionally in a country where the sport is not popular. Fails WP:NFOOTY, WP:GNG, and WP:BASIC. Ejgreen77 (talk) 23:48, 7 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Sandstein 18:32, 10 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

C. V. Narayanan Nair (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)

Heavily advertorialized biography of a person whose notability claims are not reliably sourced. Four of the five footnotes here are primary sources that do not count as support for notability at all, and the one that is a reliable source just glancingly mentions his name a couple of times in the process of being primarily about other people. (It's a dead link, but it was recoverable via Wayback.) And while there are two books being listed as "further reading" without being used as footnotes for anything, it's also unclear whether those books actually contain enough content about him to count toward getting him over GNG, or also just mention his name in passing. The article would have to be referenced better, and written more neutrally and objectively, than this to consider him notable enough for inclusion -- and the lack of an interlang link to the Malayalam Wikipedia, when his potential notability claim is specific to a Malayalam-speaking area, also implies a shortage of genuine notability. Bearcat (talk) 15:19, 3 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 15:36, 3 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Martial arts-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 15:36, 3 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per nom. Nominator has already exhaustively given evidence for deletion. I do not think subject passes WP:GNG - this is an advertorialized stub. Skirts⁸⁹ 17:01, 3 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Doesn't appear to meet any of the criteria at WP:MANOTE. More importantly, there's a lack of significant independent coverage of him. I did find a couple of mentions of him in books, but they were all one line mentions--often in a list of names. I found nothing to convince me that WP:GNG is met. Papaursa (talk) 00:34, 7 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Fenix down (talk) 14:42, 10 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

Article about amateur footballer who has played 1 match in the fully-pro Hungarian first division 5 years ago. He's been playing in the amateur regional leagues ever since and the only non-routine online coverage from a source other than his former employer is a brief snippet in the Hungarian version of FourFourTwo that basically says he was viewed as a talented prospect for five years, but now his dream of professional football appears to have ended. There is long-standing consensus (e.g., Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Phakamani Mngadi) that a minimal amount of play in a fully-pro league doesn't satisfy WP:NFOOTBALL when the article comprehensively fails WP:GNG as this article does. Jogurney (talk) 15:12, 3 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Hungary-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 15:38, 3 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 15:38, 3 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 15:38, 3 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. GiantSnowman 08:28, 4 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per nom, fails WP:GNG which is more impotant than scraping by on WP:NFOOTBALL. GiantSnowman 08:35, 4 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Concur the soccer player (as opposed to other people with the same name and more coverage) fails GNG, and prospects of future soccer related coverage here are slim given he's no longer professional. Icewhiz (talk) 13:36, 6 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete – per nom, fails GNG. Leviv ich 04:09, 7 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Sandstein 18:31, 10 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

Poorly referenced article about a band with no strong claim to passing WP:NMUSIC. Their only listed releases were demo cassettes, tracks on non-notable compilation albums and one 7" single, with no evidence of any full albums -- and the only other apparent notability claim here is that some of its members went on to become associated with more notable bands later on, but the "notability by membership" test in NMUSIC requires members who are independently notable as individuals, not just members who also get mentioned in other band articles without having earned their own standalone BLPs. And the only reference cited here at all is a deadlinked database entry in an unreliable source, not notability-supporting media coverage. Bearcat (talk) 15:00, 3 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sweden-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 15:41, 3 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 15:41, 3 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - no significant recordings, coverage or impact - does not meet WP:BAND - Epinoia (talk) 02:52, 9 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Sandstein 18:31, 10 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Kingston University (Los Angeles) (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)

Unaccredited commercial place of education that is failing WP:ORG. Apparently no independent secondary coverage beyond confirmation of existence in trivial sources. _pseudonym Jake Brockman ^talk 14:51, 3 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. _pseudonym Jake Brockman ^talk 14:51, 3 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. _pseudonym Jake Brockman ^talk 14:51, 3 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. _pseudonym Jake Brockman ^talk 14:51, 3 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. _pseudonym Jake Brockman ^talk 14:51, 3 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment Most of the article's content has been removed since nomination as copyvio. _pseudonym Jake Brockman ^talk 08:00, 5 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - does not meet WP:NSCHOOL or any other notability guideline - Epinoia (talk) 02:49, 9 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Sandstein 18:31, 10 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Ethiopian-Eritrean Student Associations (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 sources used don't speak to the notability of this student union. The first two simply show it exists, the third is by an official of the organisation.[10] Searching I see only trivial mentions. Doug Weller talk 14:34, 3 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. John M Wolfson (talk) 14:39, 3 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 15:45, 3 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 15:45, 3 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Ethiopia-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 15:45, 3 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Africa-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 15:45, 3 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - I've found sources in Google News and Books but they are only passing mentions, not significant/in-depth coverage of the subject. The organisation certainly exit, but that is not enough to satisfy our notability guidelines. This book is slightly better, but only just.Tamsier (talk) 16:25, 3 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. This isn't even really an article about a specific student organization, it's a generic concept article about a type of student organization present at many universities or colleges. But the fact is that absolutely any ethnic group on earth can form an ethnocultural student organization if there are enough people of that ethnic background on campus to form one — and there's no reason why the Ethiopian-Eritrean version of the concept would be inherently more notable than the Kenyan, Russian, Vietnamese, Chinese, Italian, Arabic, Pakistani, Hispanic, Lithuanian, Indonesian, Japanese, Filipino, Indian, Burmese, Afghan, etc., versions of the concept. And the references aren't reliable source coverage about the concept — they're all either the primary source websites of EESAs, or glancing technical verification that other universities have EESAs, which is not how you demonstrate the notability of EESAs as a concept. Bearcat (talk) 20:22, 3 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 14:26, 10 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Issa family (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 claims to notability. First (Hourani) and third (Parwej) source don't even mention Issa, second source (forebears) has been repeatedly determined at WP:RSN to be unreliable in any case, and doesn't give notability as it is just a database of surnames, and final source (Sharja-e-Nasab) is a family tree for a different family. Searching for Issa Mesghara gives no reliable sources. No idea if this is a hoax or not, but it is unverifiable and lacks all notability. Fram (talk) 14:08, 3 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Ethnic groups-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 14:37, 3 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Middle East-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 14:37, 3 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Unless better sources can be used. शिव साहिल/Shiv Sahil (talk) 07:01, 5 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - notability not established - not mentioned in the linked articles Husayn ibn Ali, Ali ibn Abi Talib, Quraysh, Sayyid or Husseini - the Hashemites article lists a descendent of Fatimah & Ali named Issa, but provides no information beyond the name - Epinoia (talk) 02:44, 9 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 14:26, 10 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Ranveer Allahbadia (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 how this person meets WP:NBIO standards, largely fan/promotional content. creffett (talk) 14:07, 3 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 14:40, 3 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Health and fitness-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 14:40, 3 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 14:40, 3 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete lacks coverage to pass either WP:GNG or WP:ENT. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 01:31, 5 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - promotional article, "trained so many celebities" WP:NOTPROMOTION - does not meet WP:ANYBIO - not notable by any criteria - Epinoia (talk) 02:24, 9 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 14:26, 10 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

Does not meet WP:GNG because of the lack of significant coverage from reliable sources. Besides the routine announcements to be found in searches, only thing that stands out is what was included in the article [11] and even that isn't WP:SIGCOV. The other reference is a GameSpot listing which doesn't contribute to GNG. Jovanmilic97 (talk) 14:00, 3 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Video games-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 14:43, 3 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete While an interesting title, the sources are lacking, and the article's author certainly couldn't find much. Does not seem like it passes GNG._{ZXCVBNM (TALK)} 07:15, 5 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - does not meet WP:NVIDEOGAMES - has not "been the subject of significant commentary or analysis in published sources that are independent of the game developer." - Epinoia (talk) 02:18, 9 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was merge to South Sudanese Civil War. T. Canens (talk) 08:28, 10 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

South Sudan: Peace Status (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

Poorly written fork of South Sudanese Civil War, specifically sections 2.3 to 2.6. Confusingly, this article's scope appears to be about both the 2015 peace agreement and the 2018 peace agreement, but not the conflict that occurred between those dates. I definitely could see articles being written about those two peace accords individually, but lumping them together into one article as is the case here is not the way to go about doing that. While deletion is not cleanup, I think it would be less work to write brand new articles about these subjects (using content in South Sudanese Civil War as a starting point) rather than to try to adapt the material in this article into two new articles. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 18:33, 19 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 18:34, 19 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 18:34, 19 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Africa-related deletion discussions. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 18:34, 19 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]