Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2018 December 27

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. Consensus is clear that subject meets WP:AUTHOR. (non-admin closure) Ifnord (talk) 02:37, 3 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Peggy_J._Kleinplatz

Peggy_J._Kleinplatz (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 PROF Banglange (talk) 23:28, 27 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. IntoThinAir (talk) 23:35, 27 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. IntoThinAir (talk) 23:35, 27 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Psychology-related deletion discussions. IntoThinAir (talk) 23:35, 27 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sexuality and gender-related deletion discussions. IntoThinAir (talk) 23:36, 27 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Bakazaka (talk) 00:19, 28 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep per WP:AUTHOR based on reviews of the books listed in the article. I added several of the reviews to the article. The first book already has its own wikipedia article. Thsmi002 (talk) 01:14, 28 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. GS h-index of 25 just adequate to pass WP:Prof#C1 in the very highly cited field of pop-psychology/sexology. Nominator's rationale is unexplicit and inadequate. I feel a WP:Trout coming on. Xxanthippe (talk) 02:13, 28 December 2018 (UTC).[reply]
• Keep I helped improve the article in the last AfD. There are plenty of reviews of her work WP:AUTHOR in addition to her passing the h-index as indicated above. Megalibrarygirl (talk) 03:01, 28 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Multiple reviews of multiple books apiece add up to a pass of WP:AUTHOR. The case for passing WP:PROF#C1 also looks pretty good. XOR'easter (talk) 20:21, 28 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. I'm not entirely convinced by the case for WP:PROF but WP:AUTHOR looks clear enough. —David Eppstein (talk) 20:43, 28 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep, meets WP:NAUTHOR, as multiple WP:RS reviews of her works (disclosure: i created article on one of her books, New Directions in Sex Therapy), i would like to thank Banglange for nominating this article leading to the snowy confirmation of Kleinplatz's notability. Coolabahapple (talk) 23:09, 28 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: Banglange is a WP:Sock of Starburst9 (talk · contribs), who nominated this article for deletion with an identical rationale in May 2017. I recently called the editor out as a sock at Talk:James Cantor. I am thinking on what to do since it's clear to me that there is no WP:LEGITSOCK reason for the editor to have both accounts. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 20:36, 30 December 2018 (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. -- Scott (talk) 01:28, 4 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Miss Virginia (film)

Miss Virginia (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)

Generally, WP:NFILM suggests films which have not yet released are only notable enough for a dedicated article when their production is itself notable. The film's production appears to have received less than significant coverage; the articles used as sources generally either simply mention some of the cast and give a terse plot summary, or they discuss the woman the film is based on -- not the film directly. Two sources (in Deadline and Variety) contain verbatim copies of the same paragraph, which suggests they are copying existing press releases. —0xf₈e₈ (talk) 02:21, 20 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

To address the issues being raised by 0xf₈e₈:

1. A film not yet released is notable when their production is itself notable.

I believe that this film has attracted significant coverage as evidenced by the number of references used. Some of the sources, namely Variety and Deadline were questioned because of the impression that these included information taken from press release. Customarily, press releases are sources of information for journalists. Otherwise, no person or organization would bother writing and releasing these documents. Let us be clear: this article did not source from a press release but from independent sources you believe to be sourced from a press release. The reason why Wikipedia requires independent source is the need for editorial integrity. Editors of Variety and Deadline must have found the alleged press release information notable so that they published it in their respective digital platforms. Variety and Deadline are not affiliated with the producers of the film so that at least should address the independence variable, which is the main argument against the use of press release as reference.

Also, in my view, the film production is notable because it is Aduba's first ever lead role in a feature film.^[1]

2. What is significant coverage?

Significant coverage according to the notability guideline "addresses the topic directly and in detail so that no original research is needed to extract the content." This article does not have original research. All information were taken from sources.

3. But some sources "either simply mention some of the cast and give a terse plot summary"

According to the General notability guideline: "Significant coverage is more than a trivial mention, but it does not need to be the main topic of the source material." Can we say that the reportage about the inclusion of new cast members or the citation of the plot summary, however terse, is trivial? The bulk of the upcoming film entries for 2019 published in the mainspace suffer from this issue. If we must nitpick about the notability of the production itself - that an entire news report must be devoted to the film's production - I would like to draw your attention to the Washing Post article cited, which reported Aduba shooting some scenes in Washington D.C..^[2]

4. Some sources discuss the woman the film is based on.

Naturally, it will be discussed because that is where the film's narrative was taken from.

Some relevant information from the Notability guideline, which I hope you will consider as well:

• Editors evaluating notability should consider not only any sources currently named in an article, but also the possibility or existence of notability-indicating sources that are not currently named in the article.
• Wikipedia articles are not a final draft, and an article's subject can be notable if such sources exist, even if they have not been named yet. If it is likely that significant coverage in independent sources can be found for a topic, deletion due to lack of notability is inappropriate.

OT: Sorry about the formatting of this reply. I am not that well-versed with the Wiki markup. Thanks! Darwin Naz (talk) 11:19, 20 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment Thank you for taking the time to comment. As mentioned your quote of WP:SIGCOV, sources should address the topic directly and in detail. The sources used do not address the topic in detail; brief articles which announce casting choices for one among several other movies constitute routine coverage that is not sufficient basis for an article. Per WP:NEWSORG, Press releases from the organizations or journals are often used by newspapers with minimal change; such sources are churnalism and should not be treated differently than the underlying press release.. The press release I am specifically concerned about is this MPI press release from November of last year. The paragraph in both articles is quite literally identical to that press release; it is not simply a matter of my belief. Finally, "the production of the film must be itself notable" means that there should be significant coverage dealing with the production—one brief WaPo article which says "actress X was spotted filming here" is insufficient. Wrt existence of sources, I performed the normal checks as well as searching through Newsbank + other academic databases and found little which convinced me of notability. (Also see WP:MUSTBESOURCES; articles are kept because the existence of sources has been demonstrated, not postulated.) —0xf₈e₈ (talk) 01:01, 21 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

As you have mentioned, "there should be significant coverage dealing with the production." And yet you are diminishing the value of the reportage of the casting announcement as routine coverage. Can this be considered coverage of the production process as well? Maybe you can cite an example from the list of the upcoming film entries for 2019 what information qualifies as significant coverage specifically for film production so we can learn something out of this. I was told by a helpful editor once that conversations are learning opportunities here. True, we can cite entries from the guidelines (we certainly have no shortage of such information) and I am sure they are sensible, but let us see an actual example. I am a little disappointed that your main concern was two sources considered "identical" as press releases and that you determined that the entire article has no merit and should be deleted because of these. Furthermore, news about the casting announcement was not used as the basis for this article. The article included information such as the plot, cast, filming progress and these information can be verified by other sources. Even this source you cited: WP:NEWSORG stipulated that even the reporting of rumors has a limited encyclopedic value, although in some instances verifiable information about rumors may be appropriate (i.e. if the rumors themselves are noteworthy, regardless of whether or not they are true). This is not to say that that the subject of this article is a rumor because it is currently in production. This article is not perfect and, again, the Wiki guideline stressed that "Wikipedia articles are not a final draft, and an article's subject can be notable if such sources exist, even if they have not been named yet." Darwin Naz (talk) 04:55, 21 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Weak delete It doesn't meet notability guidelines right now, but it almost certainly will once it's released. Still, WP:CRYSTAL, this article shouldn't be in mainspace. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 02:35, 20 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 02:24, 21 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. This isn't an article about a notable -- by Wikipedia standards -- film, but a reheated press release for a project that's not even finished. --Calton | Talk 03:58, 28 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete The author of this article can try again once the film has established its notability, however.TH1980 (talk) 02:49, 30 December 2018 (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. -- Scott (talk) 01:32, 4 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Anna Slynko

Anna Slynko (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)

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

• A non-notable Russian actress. --RTY9099 (talk) 22:09, 27 December 2018 (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/2018 December 27. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 22:20, 27 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Bakazaka (talk) 00:20, 28 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Bakazaka (talk) 00:20, 28 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. Bakazaka (talk) 00:20, 28 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Russia-related deletion discussions. Bakazaka (talk) 00:20, 28 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete lacks multiple significant roles in notable productions.John Pack Lambert (talk) 14:04, 28 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete: Certainly fails the WP:GNG and WP:NACTRESS. -- LACaliNYC✉ 20:16, 30 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. No substantial sourcing from independent, reliable sources to evidence notability provided, or to be found. --Hobbes Goodyear (talk) 23:14, 1 January 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 deleted, without prejudice, of course, to recreation if new and better sources are found. bd2412 T 02:54, 4 January 2019 (UTC)

Angie Vu Ha

Angie Vu Ha (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)

Excessively promotional in nature. power~enwiki (π, ν) 04:47, 6 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 04:59, 6 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Vietnam-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 04:59, 6 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 04:59, 6 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete an overly promotional article.John Pack Lambert (talk) 02:33, 7 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak Delete Weak Keep - The article is indeed an attempt at promotion, but it turns out that spinning records in her underwear is not her only occupation. While most of the article's sources are routine media listings, she has gotten some fairly legitimate press for Playboy shoots and an appearance on America's Got Talent. She also made the news for something in her personal life that is suspiciously absent from the article: a prison sentence for parental kidnapping, though that was only covered in less-than-stellar sources (e.g. [1], [2], [3]). Her accomplishments are cheesy but I would not be surprised if other voters find evidence of basic notability in the trashier side of WP:CELEBRITY. ---DOOMSDAYER520 (Talk|Contribs) 15:06, 7 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Changed vote after finding Bullamore's statement below a little more convincing. Quality of sources is more important than quality of her achievements. ---DOOMSDAYER520 (Talk|Contribs) 16:25, 7 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Weak keep - The article has its faults, not least its promotional slant. Also, all of the sources quoted may not be of the finest quality - nevertheless, she has amassed a serious number of references, for someone who is deemed to be non-notable. It needs toning down but there seems to be sufficient coverage of her across several distinct subject matters. Surely the New York Daily News and New York Post, for example, are strong enough sources. - Derek R Bullamore (talk) 15:31, 7 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • First, I'm not sure that New York newspapers covering the arrest of a person in New York is sufficient for notability. Second, the promotionalism is so bad that this should be deleted per WP:DEL4 and WP:DEL9 even if it is notable, unless somebody fixes it. power~enwiki (π, ν) 18:58, 7 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

If the article is kept, I hereby volunteer to help clean it up. You could put on an edit tag in the meantime. ---DOOMSDAYER520 (Talk|Contribs) 19:28, 7 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 23:36, 8 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep some News coverage results suggest sufficient notability. Mmcele (talk) 18:01, 23 December 2018 (UTC) Blocked sock. GSS (talk|c|em) 09:13, 26 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. Leaning delete always for a borderline-notable person who has been WP:Reference bombed. In checking sources for notability, I find they too many are not reliable, and the include BLP issues or violations. There was a burst of coverage 2011-12, sexiest DJ, followed by personal legal troubles that kept her in the gossip newspapers. She is not a private person and this page should be deleted. It is not so much "promotion" as an old old fans relic. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 03:57, 3 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Browsing the many sources that are completely unsuitable for Wikipedia, it is very clear that there is indeed a promotional aspect. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 04:01, 3 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. The coverage on her all appears to be routine. Claiming the subject is 'the world's sexiest DJ' is not a good enough claim for notability, and that epithet is inherently subjective. Jip Orlando (talk) 22:05, 3 January 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. -- Scott (talk) 01:39, 4 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Fly Casual

Fly Casual (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)

Looks like a non-notable company that fails WP:NCORP. Discogs notes on 21 records published, and I can't find any third party sources discussing the company in any detail whatsoever. — Insertcleverphrasehere ^{(or here)}_{(click me!)} 14:35, 20 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. Bakazaka (talk) 18:56, 20 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Bakazaka (talk) 18:56, 20 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. Bakazaka (talk) 18:56, 20 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as per above. Unsourced and unnotable. –eggofreason^talk 19:16, 20 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

There are only 7 noted Discogs releases under Fly Casual Recordings. This now defunct Electronic label is not to be confused with 'Fly Casual Records', a hip-hop label. MrDachshund99 (talk) 00:44, 21 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete: does not meet WP:NCORP; significant RS coverage not found. K.e.coffman (talk) 03:29, 28 December 2018 (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. -- Scott (talk) 01:45, 4 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

David Kahn (Krav Maga instructor)

David Kahn (Krav Maga instructor) (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)

Other editors before me have cast doubt on this gentleman's notability. He appears to be great at what he does but the article looks like an attempted promotion of his books and videos. The article's existing sources are actually about larger events in which his presence was mentioned briefly, though he was named several times in the New Yorker article. That may not be enough for independent notability, as I can find no other significant coverage in reliable sources about him in his own right. ---DOOMSDAYER520 (Talk|Contribs) 19:48, 27 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Martial arts-related deletion discussions. ---DOOMSDAYER520 (Talk|Contribs) 19:49, 27 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. ---DOOMSDAYER520 (Talk|Contribs) 19:49, 27 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete As per nominator.PRehse (talk) 20:17, 27 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete As per nominator. The whole thing reads like an ad.--Georgia Army Vet Contribs Talk 20:24, 27 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete As above, also because none of the sources tick all the boxes in terms of WP:GNG. MrMarkBGregory (talk) 21:49, 27 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete for lack of significant coverage. Exactly why I tagged the article for notability previously. Jmertel23 (talk) 22:59, 27 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nomination. Mr Kahn does not appear to meet WP:BIO. Nick-D (talk) 23:16, 27 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of New Jersey-related deletion discussions. ...William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 01:39, 28 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete There is a credible claim of notability, but the sources to establish the claim aren't in the article, nor could they be found in a Google search. Alansohn (talk) 05:12, 28 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - searches did not turn up enough in-depth coverage to show they pass WP:GNG.Onel5969 ^{TT me} 15:28, 28 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - No sources available to verify notability. Stefka Bulgaria (talk) 07:23, 3 January 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. -- Scott (talk) 01:51, 4 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Jerod Howard

Jerod Howard (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 non-notable actor who has appeared in minor roles in several films and episodic television. His most major role was in a borderline notable film, October Moon, where this has been redirected for a while. An IP insists on creating an article for this actor. Only other major credit was on the direct to DVD sequel to October Moon. The IP has incorrectly stated that Howard is set to appear in the upcoming version of Into the Devil's Reach, however that is a short film, in which the actor had a minor role, and was released in 2017. Fails WP:GNG and WP:NACTOR. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 19:26, 27 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 19:26, 27 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• The grounds for deletion mentioned above are base opinion. His role was in the film, October Moon, where this has been redirected for a while, was valid and as notable as other actors credited who also have wikipedia articles themselves. An IP insists on creating an article for this actor for that fact and editors keep ignoring the references or choose to only acknowledge part of the reference as suits grounds for immediate deletion instead of editing and or suggesting corrections. Only other major credit was on the direct to DVD sequel to October Moon - incorrect as there are other notable credits listed on IMDb.com and online to be contributed. The IP has incorrectly stated that Howard is set to appear in the upcoming version of Into the Devil's Reach, however that is a short film, in which the actor had a minor role, and was released in 2017- correct and incorrect as the film is being extended into a full feature pending release in 2019 and will be updated. The IP has suggested this article is a stub and should have reasonable time to be contributed to instead of being deleted and redirected completely simply because of editor opinion. The "major" "minor" comments by editor seem to be a personal opinion and not principle and there are no misquotes, false information or invalid links or other issues with the stub article. The IP is not claiming to be an editor but has a valid right to contribute and open the door to discussion instead of deletion — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.145.171.28 (talk)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Illinois-related deletion discussions. Bakazaka (talk) 00:58, 28 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. Wikipedia isn't a warmed-over version of IMDB. --Calton | Talk 03:56, 28 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete : No indication of Wikipedia notability per WP:NACTOR, WP:BIO or even WP:GNG. Moreover, trying to argue that the article should be kept because subject is likely to be notable in the future is not really a good argument to make for the reasons given in WP:TOOSOON. Neither is trying to argue WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS since it's quite possible that those articles about those other actors should not exist as well. If the actor's career takes off in 2019 and he starts to receive significant coverage in reliable sources (IMDb is generally not considered to be a reliable source per WP:RS/IMDB and WP:UGC.), then perhaps the article can be re-created. Personally, I think restoring the redirect back to October Moon is probably OK per WP:CHEAP, but there appears to have been some edit warring by IP 24.145.171.28 over the redirect as well as a removal of the AfD template from the article by the same IP which might mean deletion is the surest way to stop any further disruption. -- Marchjuly (talk) 05:13, 28 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete none of the sources fit the Wikipedia definition of indepdent, reliable 3rd party sources. IMDb is not reliable, his website is clearly not indepdent, and an interview is not considered to add towards this measure of notability. The film he was in was at best borderline notable, and he clearly falls short of the multiple, significant roles in notable productions which is the main metric for judging actor notability. He is not even close to any other metric of actor notability.John Pack Lambert (talk) 14:50, 28 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete: Undoubtedly fails the WP:GNG and WP:NACTOR. WP:TOOSOON applies in this case. -- LACaliNYC✉ 20:19, 30 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete fails WP:N and WP:GNG.-TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 19:49, 2 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. -- RoySmith (talk) 01:32, 4 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

List of unused highways in South Korea

List of unused highways in South Korea (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)

For the same reasons as Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of abandoned highways in the United States. Predominantly WP:OR. Most of the only properly referenced content is the definition of an Unused highway which should belong in that article anyhow. Ajf773 (talk) 19:12, 27 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of South Korea-related deletion discussions. Ajf773 (talk) 19:12, 27 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. Ajf773 (talk) 19:12, 27 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. Ajf773 (talk) 19:12, 27 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - original research and zero evidence of notability Spiderone 10:57, 28 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per WP:TNT. There is enough original research that warrants deletion. MapSGV (talk) 17:14, 28 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as no evidence of notability and clearly Original Research. –Davey2010 ^{Merry Christmas / Happy New Year} 19:08, 28 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete—as above and per the consensus at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of unused highways in California. Imzadi 1979 → 07:13, 29 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. -- RoySmith (talk) 01:32, 4 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

List of unused highways in New Zealand

List of unused highways in New Zealand (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)

For the same reasons as Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of abandoned highways in the United States. Predominantly WP:OR with only one entry properly sourced and another using Google Map satellite images Ajf773 (talk) 19:12, 27 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of New Zealand-related deletion discussions. Ajf773 (talk) 19:12, 27 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. Ajf773 (talk) 19:12, 27 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. Ajf773 (talk) 19:12, 27 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - original research and zero evidence of notability Spiderone 10:57, 28 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per WP:TNT. There is enough original research that warrants deletion. MapSGV (talk) 17:19, 28 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as no evidence of notability and clearly Original Research. –Davey2010 ^{Merry Christmas / Happy New Year} 19:08, 28 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete—as above and per the consensus at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of unused highways in California. Imzadi 1979 → 07:13, 29 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment No objection to deletion. MBisanz ^talk 22:02, 29 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak keep This is more than just a list; it also explains why each section of highway is now unused, and/or repurposed. OTOH, it needs references, and should perhaps be renamed "List of unused roads in New Zealand" (and perhaps also include things like the Bridge to Nowhere). I'd rather see it stay, but won't shed a tear if it goes. Ross Finlayson (talk) 15:58, 30 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. -- RoySmith (talk) 01:32, 4 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

List of unused highways in Germany

List of unused highways in Germany (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)

For the same reasons as Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of abandoned highways in the United States. Predominantly WP:OR. Most of the only properly referenced content is the definition of an Unused highway which should belong in that article anyhow. Ajf773 (talk) 19:11, 27 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Germany-related deletion discussions. Ajf773 (talk) 19:11, 27 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. Ajf773 (talk) 19:11, 27 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. Ajf773 (talk) 19:11, 27 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - original research and zero evidence of notability Spiderone 10:54, 28 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per WP:TNT. There is enough original research that warrants deletion. MapSGV (talk) 17:22, 28 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as no evidence of notability and clearly Original Research. –Davey2010 ^{Merry Christmas / Happy New Year} 19:08, 28 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete clear WP:OR issues. Sdmarathe (talk) 00:35, 29 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete—as above and per the consensus at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of unused highways in California. Imzadi 1979 → 07:14, 29 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment No objection to deletion. MBisanz ^talk 22:02, 29 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment I don't object to deletion either, as the list is only four entries, but the stubs should be moved to their respective road pages, like I am doing with the former US abandoned roads list. Xninetynine (talk) 23:57, 31 December 2018 (UTC)X99[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. -- RoySmith (talk) 01:33, 4 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

List of unused roads in the United Kingdom

List of unused roads in the United Kingdom (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)

For the same reasons as Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of abandoned highways in the United States. Predominantly WP:OR issues with references to google maps satellite images. Most of the only properly referenced content is the definition of an Unused highway which should belong in that article anyhow. Ajf773 (talk) 19:11, 27 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. Ajf773 (talk) 19:11, 27 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. Ajf773 (talk) 19:11, 27 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. Ajf773 (talk) 19:11, 27 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Weak Delete - Seems like not only original research, but also an indiscriminate list. However, I think it could be improved if was rewritten. Foxnpichu (talk) 19:14, 27 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak Keep - I agree with Foxnpichu's points but rather than deleting it, I feel it would be better to allow it to be improved. Rillington (talk) 18:50, 28 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - original research and zero evidence of notability Spiderone 10:54, 28 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per WP:TNT. There is enough original research that warrants deletion. MapSGV (talk) 17:28, 28 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - I think this list is pretty damn cool although I'm biased being from the UK & all, Anyway Delete as unfortunately there's no evidence of notability and clearly this is all Original Research. –Davey2010 ^{Merry Christmas / Happy New Year} 19:08, 28 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete—as above and per the consensus at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of unused highways in California. Imzadi 1979 → 07:14, 29 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment No objection to deletion. MBisanz ^talk 22:03, 29 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as original research.Charles (talk) 10:23, 31 December 2018 (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. -- Scott (talk) 01:54, 4 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Bala K. Srinivas

Bala K. Srinivas (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

Not notable local politician who fails WP:NPOL. ...William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 19:10, 27 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. ...William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 19:11, 27 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Texas-related deletion discussions. ...William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 19:11, 27 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete and the sources for this article are where exactly...? MrMarkBGregory (talk) 21:52, 27 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete He was mayor of an enclave surrounded by Sam Antonio, Texas. The enclave has less than 5,000 inhabitants. The mayor of Hamtramck, Michigan has a stronger claim to notability, and I am fully convinced she is not notable.John Pack Lambert (talk) 14:10, 28 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Smalltown mayors are not extended an automatic presumption of notability just for existing, but this is not referenced anywhere even close to well enough to make him more notable than the norm among a not inherently notable class of topic. Bearcat (talk) 17:35, 1 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete fails WP:NPOL, WP:GNG. SportingFlyer talk 00:48, 2 January 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) Sheldybett (talk) 07:02, 3 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Lac Sante

Lac Sante (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 think this meets WP:NGEO. I can't find any reliable sources referring to it online, and of course there's no references in the article as stands, plus the article contains very little information in the first place. | Naypta^✉ opened his mouth at 17:59, 27 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. | Naypta^✉ opened his mouth at 18:02, 27 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Alberta-related deletion discussions. | Naypta^✉ opened his mouth at 18:04, 27 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 19:25, 27 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. wp:BEFORE was apparently not performed. To the nominator, you need to try to see if there are valid sources supporting the topic before nominating it for deletion. Clicking on the Google search links leads to multiple valid-type sources, for me. This is a natural feature, so I think it is obviously notable. I think it is wp:NGEO which expresses the policy/practice on natural geographic features like this. --Doncram (talk) 07:00, 29 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

  @Doncram: Thank you for trying to find references. Could you please post some of the references here? I think actually posting the references will be more convincing and also useful to those who are trying to improve the article.--DreamLinker (talk) 09:45, 29 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. One of the sources that I just cited in our article confirms that this is a 10-square-kilometre lake. Phil Bridger (talk) 12:44, 29 December 2018 (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. -- Scott (talk) 02:01, 4 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Oliver the 2nd

Oliver the 2nd (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

This article has no independent references as written and no indication as to how it satisfies musical notability. Google search only indicates that he exists, and does not find any third-party coverage. Robert McClenon (talk) 16:54, 27 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 18:47, 27 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - He has gotten his tracks onto the usual streaming sites, but so has everyone else. This article is an attempt at promotion, possibly with a conflict of interest, and there has been no reliable and independent coverage from anyone else. ---DOOMSDAYER520 (Talk|Contribs) 18:56, 27 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Unsourced recreation of an article previously deleted. Pure and simple vanity page, creation by a user name editor that is presumably close to the subject, who is also an SPA that also created a page for the subjects father (See: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Phil_Perry), which should now be in the AfD crosshairs. ShelbyMarion (talk) 02:37, 28 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Delte nothing here even approaches a reliable source.John Pack Lambert (talk) 13:57, 28 December 2018 (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. -- Scott (talk) 04:58, 4 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Aleksandra Pileva

Aleksandra Pileva (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)

Aleksandra fails WP:NMUSIC, WP:GNG and WP:BIO, as there is lack of reliable significant coverage from reliable sources (no awards, charting, won competitions to help her). Massive amount of WP:OR about her biography in the article, tagged for issues for 8 years now, the article linked as reference is a short mention and it is citing what she said. Nothing much to find in my searches. Jovanmilic97 (talk) 15:56, 27 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Happy holidays~! ^{Babymissfortune} 16:38, 27 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Macedonia-related deletion discussions. Happy holidays~! ^{Babymissfortune} 16:39, 27 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Happy holidays~! ^{Babymissfortune} 16:39, 27 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep - I think subject passes WP:MUSIC. Article just needs to be cleaned up & citations added. Skirts89 (talk) 17:27, 27 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment You think? Which citations to add (when they don't exist), on which grounds do you think she passes the criteria? I have to say I am surprised at how shallow this vote is considering how I see that you are experienced in AfDs. Jovanmilic97 (talk) 17:57, 27 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - For someone who has been in music for such a long time, she has received almost no independent media coverage, even in her country's language. I suspected that maybe a search went wrong because coverage could be under her native-born name Александра Пилева, but even when searching for that name I found almost nothing beyond the usual retail/streaming sites. Note how often the article uses "most popular" and "very popular" etc. with nothing to back it up. So the article boils down to an attempt at promotion. Also note that she has an album article at Sonce i Mesečina that can probably be speedy-deleted if this artist article is deleted. ---DOOMSDAYER520 (Talk|Contribs) 19:04, 27 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Fails, WP:NMUSIC, WP:GNG. WikiNorm12 (talk) 06:51, 3 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. The existence of a deplatforming campaign does not indicate notability without significant coverage by reliable, independent sources. -- Scott (talk) 05:11, 4 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Cum Town

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

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

This isn't substantially identical to the version deleted at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Cum Town so WP:G4 doesn't apply, but all the same arguments apply; in particular the near-total dearth of third-party independent coverage.  ‑ Iridescent 15:22, 27 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Insufficient independent, reliable sources from either news outlets or the literature required to pass NORG. ——SerialNumber54129 15:31, 27 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Essentially, the only coverage is a short mention by The Cut[4] (they call it "Cumtown"), short overview in a Vox article about a different subject[5] and a Cleveland Scene article[6]. The other sources are unacceptable, like Patreon, Twitter and their podcast host website. This is not enough. Also for what's it's worth, this is a magnet for newcomers as evidenced by six contestations to the speedy deletion on the talk page. --Pudeo (talk) 15:38, 27 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. Happy holidays~! ^{Babymissfortune} 16:38, 27 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep For what it's worth, there is supposedly a campaign to deplatform them from Patreon (and other platforms) going on right now. https://twitter.com/FluctibusFludd/status/1076550243116896258 Jonathan Williams (talk) 02:59, 28 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • For what it's worth, they appear to have one of the most popular podcasts on patreon https://graphtreon.com/top-patreon-creators Jonathan Williams (talk) 03:07, 28 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom, can't find significant coverage in sources. GirthSummit _(blether) 19:38, 29 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep due to the ongoing attempts to remove the podcast from Patreon 99.120.225.147 (talk) 23:46, 31 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep and rework, podcast is clearly notable, with an ongoing controversy and deplatforming campaign, and the show is in top 4 of podcasts on Patreon with nearly 10,000 subscribers, more than The Last Podcast on the Left, Tell 'Em Steve-Dave!, Doughboys, all which have their own pages and have never been considered for deletion (just three of many examples) Pinchofhope (talk) 00:10, 1 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Suggest an argument based on reliable sources rather than other stuff not having been deleted. ——SerialNumber54129 11:19, 1 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete There are impressive-looking references here (e.g. New York Times, Paste Magazine), however, on close examination of each they contain only the most fleeting mentions, or no mentions at all, of this podcast. Those references that do are either not WP:INDEPENDENT or not WP:RS. To the argument that we should keep it "due to the ongoing attempts to remove the podcast from Patreon" ... WP is not an outlet to extract revenge. Chetsford (talk) 07:56, 2 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep per Pinchofhope.--MainlyTwelve (talk) 21:17, 2 January 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. -- Scott (talk) 02:04, 4 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Pancreatic lipase inhibitors from natural sources

Pancreatic lipase inhibitors from natural sources (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:FRINGE, WP:CONTENTFORK and WP:OR. This is a classic "how fruits can cure cancer" article presenting claimed herbal remedies to cure gut problems. Although it claims to cite a paper repeatedly, none of the claimed content about herbal remedies such as rosemary is included in the paper.

If this article had genuine content, it would still need to justify why it's a separate article to the pancreatic lipase article, which has a short section on inhibitors already. It doesn't. Blythwood (talk) 15:21, 27 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. Happy holidays~! ^{Babymissfortune} 16:37, 27 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Totally unsubstantiated content. Fails WP:V and WP:N. None of the claims were in the one reference which had been repeated 15 or so times throughout the article. A dangerous piece or original research or, perhaps, blatant promotion. No place for it on Wikipedia. Nick Moyes (talk) 23:18, 27 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per nom. Very much a bad combination of WP:FRINGE and WP:OR. Ifnord (talk) 02:44, 3 January 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. -- Scott (talk) 02:05, 4 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Warren Jeffs: Prophet of Evil

Warren Jeffs: Prophet of Evil (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

This A&E Biography special has not received enough significant coverage in independent sources to merit a stand alone article. The sources I can find are:

• The Salt Lake Tribune in Utah is a local newspaper review that focuses on the difference between LDS and FLDS; this is arguable local coverage
• Heavy is a one-sentence mention in an article otherwise about Warren Jeffs the person, not the A&E documentary
• In Touch just quotes A&E's press release
• Fox News is a three-sentence mention of the biography film; the rest of the article is an extensive interview with one of the abuse survivors
• Independent is a one-sentence mention in an article reporting on the Fox News interview with one of the survivors Levivich (talk) 06:41, 13 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. Levivich (talk) 06:44, 13 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. Levivich (talk) 06:44, 13 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Levivich (talk) 06:44, 13 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Utah-related deletion discussions. Levivich (talk) 06:44, 13 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Prior AfD (group): Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Jonestown:_The_Women_Behind_the_Massacre — Preceding unsigned comment added by Levivich (talk • contribs) 04:28, 14 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete not enough coverage of this work to justify an article.John Pack Lambert (talk) 15:04, 14 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Pinging editors who were involved in recent prior AfD discussions.@Mrschimpf, Coolabahapple, Jovanmilic97, and Atlantic306: Levivich (talk) 00:57, 20 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Non-notable doc in every way possible. Nate • (chatter) 23:48, 27 December 2018 (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 Righteous Among the Nations by country. -- Scott (talk) 02:08, 4 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

List of Serbian Righteous Among the Nations

List of Serbian Righteous Among the Nations (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

This list of people only has one notable entry. It looks like three or four but turns out that they redirect to the same article: Milenković family. No prejudice to recreating if notability can be established for at least five entries; Yad Vashem is WP:PRIMARY for an award that it bestows. Catrìona (talk) 08:23, 13 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. CASSIOPEIA^(talk) 08:52, 14 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Serbia-related deletion discussions. CASSIOPEIA^(talk) 08:52, 14 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Merge and redirect to List of Righteous Among the Nations by country, where Serbia already has a line. Clarityfiend (talk) 10:49, 17 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists of people-related deletion discussions. Bakazaka (talk) 09:07, 20 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Merge into List of Righteous Among the Nations by country. Similar AfD was closed recently with the same resolution. Ifnord (talk) 02:46, 3 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment: There isn't anything to merge, now that I've added the only notable entry to List of Righteous Among the Nations by country. buidhe (formerly Catrìona) 06:18, 3 January 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. -- Scott (talk) 04:04, 4 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Manité

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

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

This page is about a cooperative that was active for 5 years created by 3 members. The one point that can be considered notable is the claim that Museum of Contemporary art presented an exhibition(permanent or not?) regarding this group. That claim though is improperly cited.

The main issue that bothers me is that individual pages are being created of its founding members, that ,if I am right about deletion, could become a self-fulfilled notability loop. Daiyusha (talk) 11:44, 13 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment thing is, the Museum of Contemporary Art exhibition and publication(s) seem to meet WP:ARTIST: "The person's work (or works) has: ... (b) been a substantial part of a significant exhibition". Either we mean what we say when we say that sort of thing, or we do not; on that basis I lean to keep although I agree that it seems to have been a small and short-lived thing. --Tagishsimon (talk) 13:47, 13 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. Azkord (talk) 17:18, 13 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Norway-related deletion discussions. Azkord (talk) 17:18, 13 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment, this article looks similar to that in the NorwegianWP, maybe a translate tag is needed. Coolabahapple (talk) 07:38, 21 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• ps. in case editors don't realize, "the Museum of Contemporary Art" in the article is the National Museum of Art, Architecture and Design so the group having a major exhibition there is "significant". Coolabahapple (talk) 08:57, 21 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Photography-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 09:28, 21 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep Meets WP:Artist because of exhibition at Museum of Contemporary Art (in Norway). Article needs to be cleaned up, not deleted. Aurornisxui (talk) 17:29, 27 December 2018 (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 11:30, 4 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

List of Northeastern University presidents

List of Northeastern University presidents (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

As much as I like NEU I don't think such a narrow topic merits its own page. Not even older schools like MIT have pages like this EoRdE6^{(Come Talk to Me!)} 06:37, 13 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I do also like the idea of merging to list of people more so than deletion now. EoRdE6^{(Come Talk to Me!)} 20:58, 31 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep Such articles are perfectly routine and encyclopedic. Se Category:Lists of university and college leaders. Rather than deleting the ones that are to be found we would be better creating the ones that are missing. Thincat (talk) 14:04, 13 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, we do have List of Presidents of the Massachusetts Institute of Technology but, sadly, it is unreferenced. So much for scholarship. Thincat (talk) 14:06, 13 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. XOR'easter (talk) 15:55, 13 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. XOR'easter (talk) 15:56, 13 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Merge to Northeastern University. No real need for a separate list article. Ajf773 (talk) 17:26, 13 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge to List of Northeastern University people, where this would fit in quite well since it's such a small list. -- Tavix ^(talk) 17:28, 13 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment Yes (I !voted above), I'd be happy with either of those merge suggestions though I still think keeping would be all right – I'd not like it thinking these type of lists are unencyclopedic or too narrow to warrant an article. List of Vice-Chancellors of the University of Oxford would not be a good list to merge! Thincat (talk) 09:23, 14 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep - I don't feel that presidents at a major university is too narrow a field, as per WP:SALAT.Onel5969 ^{TT me} 20:29, 26 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep I agree with the above keep recommendations. Article is well sourced and well categorized so that anyone could find it. Aurornisxui (talk) 17:33, 27 December 2018 (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. -- Scott (talk) 05:00, 4 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Artemy Lebedev

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

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

Not a notable person, references are his own websites and his appearance on "The Best Travelled Master List". Also claims to be a blogger known for his rather provocative views and frequent usage of obscene language. power~enwiki (π, ν) 05:24, 20 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. Bakazaka (talk) 08:30, 20 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Russia-related deletion discussions. Bakazaka (talk) 08:30, 20 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment - Have added several Russian sources that I have found. He is all over Google if you do a search with his Russian name. --TheDomain (talk) 06:07, 21 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Strong keep. He is actually a very, very famous person in Russia and easily passes WP:GNG. A Google News search for "Артемий Лебедев" gives 19,900 hits.
  You can say he is an icon of web design. Well, maybe not actually because of his magnificent designs (although they are great), but because his company designed some major sites as Yandex. And he wrote an interesting book on design, titled Mandership [ru]. --Moscow Connection (talk) 02:59, 24 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep Meets WP:GNG based on articles on Google news (in Russian) and work on Yandex. Aurornisxui (talk) 18:19, 27 December 2018 (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) Jovanmilic97 (talk) 13:43, 3 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Thu Riya

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

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

There doesn't appear to be much in the way of in-depth coverage in independent reliable sources and those included in the article are questionable at best (and some patently unreliable), non-trivial support and Some of this article is not written in a very encyclopaedic style. LGBTMyanmar (talk) 17:13, 20 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep I have revised the article so that it is more encyclopaedic style, I am happy to discuss this further if you spot anything else that needs attention. Also sources are from websites such as popularnews.com, pyoneplay.com and myanmarload.com, which are pretty popular websites among people of Myanmar especially with the celebrity news.(User:Kzshein(talk) 18:13, 24 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Myanmar-related deletion discussions. bonadea contributions talk 17:33, 25 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. bonadea contributions talk 17:33, 25 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep Article could do with some more cleaning up, but appears to meet notability criteria now. Bondegezou (talk) 15:37, 27 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep I did some clean up/improvement and Re-write WP:Manual of Style. He is a notable actor in Myanmar who has played lead and major featured roles in several Burmese films, and big screen movies easily passing WP:NACTOR. This press from local newspaper The Popular Journal gives further background.SuMyat (talk) 13:39, 3 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. -- RoySmith (talk) 01:31, 4 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

List of unused highways in Canada

List of unused highways in Canada (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)

For the same reasons as Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of abandoned highways in the United States. Predominantly WP:OR issues with references to google maps satellite images. The only properly referenced content is the definition of an Unused highway which should belong in that article anyhow. Ajf773 (talk) 10:16, 27 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. Ajf773 (talk) 10:16, 27 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. Ajf773 (talk) 10:16, 27 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. Ajf773 (talk) 10:16, 27 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete This list is entirely WP:OR, each entry being "sourced" to satellite imagery. Most of the document sources refer to highways in the United States. There is no indication that unused highways in Canada are necessarily actually still highways - the list may thus include highways, former highways, and road sections that were never highways. There is no way to tell because the sources aren't present. Also fails WP:GNG, no indication that unused highways in Canada are notable as a collective entity.--Pontificalibus 11:05, 27 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - original research Spiderone 11:18, 27 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as no evidence of notability and clearly Original Research. –Davey2010 ^{Merry Christmas / Happy New Year} 19:05, 28 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete—as above and per the consensus at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of unused highways in California. Imzadi 1979 → 07:14, 29 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment No objection to deletion. MBisanz ^talk 22:02, 29 December 2018 (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. No additional discussion after final relisting. -- RoySmith (talk) 04:03, 4 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Committee room

Committee room (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)

UK political terminology, supposedly. Fails WP:DICDEF and, to the extent it may not, is very banal, as it merely recounts the activities involved in organizing an election campaign, with some legal minutiae mixed in. Also substantially unverifiable (WP:V), because the definition is unsourced and sources are not readily found given how generic the term is. If sources can be found, perhaps some snippets can be reused in Elections in the United Kingdom or the like. Sandstein 20:51, 12 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per nom, fails WP:DICDEF. Unable to find reliable sources for this generic term. -AuthorAuthor (talk) 18:50, 13 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 06:45, 14 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per all of the above WP:DICDEF SalmanZ (talk) 23:19, 16 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment. I can tell that none of the participants so far have ever been directly involved with a UK election campaign (at least at local level), because this is definitely UK political terminology and has been for over 200 years, from the days when British political parties had no formal local organisation, and parliamentary candidates depended on committees of influential local people to help organise their election campaigns. And since at least the Corrupt and Illegal Practices Prevention Act 1883, it has been the officially-used term for almost any premises used for organising their election campaigns by candidates for parliament or local councils, which are subject to a number of legal requirements about what must and must not be done in committee rooms. These days, British political parties tend to refer to their main premises in an area as "campaign headquarters" or similar, and use the term "committee room" just for smaller premises (often rooms in members' homes) used on election day itself - but legally, they are all committee rooms. Reliable sources will certainly exist (mostly, admittedly, probably legal textbooks or books about how to organise an election campaign without breaking the law - and sometimes several decades old) and should enable the article to be expanded well beyond a WP:DICDEF, but mostly either don't seem to be online at all or only in snippet form. A couple of sources which are good practical guides (if probably not Wikipedia reliable) are this and this. And this more reliable source should put things a little more into context. PWilkinson (talk) 00:19, 17 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep As per PWilkinson, this is a real thing with a specific meaning in UK politics that goes beyond a DICDEF. Bondegezou (talk) 23:14, 17 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. Per PWilkinson. --Bsherr (talk) 02:50, 26 December 2018 (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. -- Scott (talk) 02:18, 4 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Ronald Allen (basketball)

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

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

This article is undersourced and no claim of significant coverage even he played at professional level from 2007-2012 do not how the article survive this deletion discussion. Sheldybett (talk) 08:18, 27 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Happy holidays~! ^{Babymissfortune} 09:36, 27 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Basketball-related deletion discussions. Happy holidays~! ^{Babymissfortune} 09:36, 27 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Fails WP:GNG with lack of significant coverage from multiple, independent sources. Does not meet WP:NBASKETBALL either.—Bagumba (talk) 04:01, 28 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete does not pass the general notability guidelines.John Pack Lambert (talk) 14:48, 31 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Fails WP:GNG and WP:NBASKETBALL>. CASSIOPEIA^(talk) 10:42, 3 January 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. -- Scott (talk) 02:20, 4 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Christopher Shawn Rech

Christopher Shawn Rech (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)

Tried to improve this article since December 2016, but no coverage. Fails WP:SIGCOV and WP:BIO scope_creep^Talk 01:18, 13 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 05:46, 13 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 05:46, 13 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete a non-notable film maker.John Pack Lambert (talk) 22:02, 14 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete: Clearly fails the WP:GNG and WP:FILMMAKER. -- LACaliNYC✉ 22:43, 30 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was soft delete. WP:REFUND applies. -- Scott (talk) 02:21, 4 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Dragons of Camelot

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

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

Fails WP:NFILM and WP:GNG. It exists, sure, but not notable. Not even able to find reviews that are not coming from blogs. References in the article are a primary source and a review which does not even go in depth about the movie per WP:SIGCOV. Jovanmilic97 (talk) 12:42, 13 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 09:53, 14 December 2018 (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. -- Scott (talk) 02:27, 4 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Painting the Invisible Man

Painting the Invisible Man (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:NBOOK. No reliable secondary sources, no claims of notability. Rogermx (talk) 15:26, 13 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 10:08, 14 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 23:40, 15 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment, i have found a few refs, I'm not sure about their quality, so I'm not voting at this time. [7] [8]. Szzuk (talk) 19:29, 18 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete, does not meet WP:NBOOK or WP:GNG, WorldCat shows it being held by 5 libraries which probably reflects the lack of useable sources from a gsearch (including the reviews mentioned above), did find this from the Midwest Book Review but more is needed. ps. a redirect to the author, Rita Schiano may be appropriate? Coolabahapple (talk) 11:19, 27 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. I gave this a chance but I'm not seeing anything which would make me think this passes gng or nbook. I've just tagged the authors page with notability because it doesn't have any RS refs, hence delete rather than redirect. Szzuk (talk) 14:34, 27 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was soft delete. WP:REFUND applies. -- Scott (talk) 02:28, 4 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Yevgeny Fyodorov (actor)

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

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

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

A non-notable Soviet and Russian actor. Honored Artist of the RSFSR, Since 1945, he plays at the Vakhtangov Theatre--RTY9099 (talk) 04:55, 12 December 2018 (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/2018 December 13. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 00:04, 13 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 05:44, 13 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 05:44, 13 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Russia-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 05:44, 13 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was soft delete. WP:REFUND applies. -- Scott (talk) 02:31, 4 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Manson: Inside the Mind of a Mad Man

Manson: Inside the Mind of a Mad Man (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

This A&E Biography special that aired on The History Channel has not received enough significant coverage from independent sources to merit a stand alone article. I can't find any sources beyond those cited in the article:

• Monsters and Critics: Six sentences: two are about the documentary, four about Manson
• BT: From the cable company that is airing the program, stating at the bottom: "Manson Speaks: Inside the Man of a Madman begins Tuesday December 12 at 9pm on History, BT Channel 327"
• Radio Times: Listing with no content (unless my browser is not working)
• Realscreen: Perhaps not independent because A&E was the primary sponsor of Realscreen's summit in 2019, 2018, 2017, 2016, 2015, 2014 and that's as far back as I looked
• UPROXX: Not about A&E's documentary at all, makes no mention of it Levivich (talk) 07:02, 13 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. Levivich (talk) 07:03, 13 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. Levivich (talk) 07:03, 13 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Levivich (talk) 07:03, 13 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Prior AfD (group): Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Jonestown:_The_Women_Behind_the_Massacre Levivich (talk) 04:28, 14 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Pinging editors who were involved in recent prior AfD discussions.@Mrschimpf, Coolabahapple, Jovanmilic97, Atlantic306, and Johnpacklambert: Levivich (talk) 00:58, 20 December 2018 (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) Jovanmilic97 (talk) 10:28, 3 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

HomeStreet Bank

HomeStreet Bank (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)

Most of the subject's coverage is local, thus lacking notability. Meatsgains^(talk) 01:23, 13 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

HomeStreet Bank is a publicly traded company on the NASDAQ. More content will be entered with citations as well. It is also the 13th largest mortgage lender in the country.—Preceding undated comment added 16:38, 13 December 2018 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Finance-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 08:01, 14 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Finance-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 08:01, 14 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Jack Frost (talk) 07:07, 15 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep Notable with significant coverage. I have added sources including the The Wall Street Journal.--Pontificalibus 08:49, 27 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep per the significant coverage in multiple independent reliable sources.
  
  From Wikipedia:Notability (organizations and companies)#Publicly traded corporations (my bolding):

  There has been considerable discussion over time whether publicly traded corporations, or at least publicly traded corporations listed on major stock exchanges such as the NYSE and other comparable international stock exchanges, are inherently notable. Consensus has been that notability is not automatic in this (or any other) case. However, sufficient independent sources almost always exist for such companies, so that notability can be established using the primary criterion discussed above. Examples of such sources include independent press coverage and analyst reports. Accordingly, article authors should make sure to seek out such coverage and add references to such articles to properly establish notability.

  Analyst reports

  1. This 30 April 2015 article^archive.is from Benzinga notes:

     In a report published Thursday, analyst Jacquelynne Chimera of Keefe, Bruyette & Woods initiated coverage of HomeStreet Inc with an Outperform rating. The price target was set to $28.

     Although HomeStreet's stock is trading at a discount to its peers, the analyst expects the gap to narrow as the company's profitability and earnings diversity improve, driven by efficient growth.

     According to Keefe, Bruyette & Woods, "The downward movement in long-term rates that spurred an increase in refinance volume is a benefit to HomeStreet's earnings stream given its robust mortgage banking platform."

  2. This 9 May 2018 article^archive.is from Business Wire notes:

     As Sandler O’Neill and Partners noted in an April 25, 2018 research report, “… [HomeStreet] has weathered many mortgage cycles in the past and it remains extremely well capitalized and well prepared to adjust as needed and move on.”

  3. This 10 July 2018 article^archive.is from Smarter Analyst notes:

     B.Riley FBR analyst Steve Moss reiterated a Buy rating on HomeStreet (NASDAQ: HMST) yesterday and set a price target of $35. The company’s shares opened today at $28.50. Moss observed: “HomeStreet (HMST) recently announced the sale of mortgage servicing rights (MSRs) for $4.9B of single-family mortgages, which represents 21% of total mortgages serviced by HMST, as of March 31, 2018. The transaction will free up regulatory capital over the near term to support loan growth at the bank, which we view as a net positive as HMST seeks to improve banking revenue that carries a higher valuation relative to mortgage banking–related income. The transaction will represent an earnings headwind: It reduces mortgage servicing revenue— though we expect HMST will likely rebuild its mortgage servicing book back to current levels over the next 12 to 24 months. On balance, we view the transaction as a modest positive for HMST shares, which trade at 1.1x TBV, given the emphasis on growing the commercial bank. We reiterate our Buy rating and $35 price target.”

  https://www.marketbeat.com/stocks/NASDAQ/HMST/price-target/^WebCite contains a list of analyst reports available under a paywall:

  Date	Brokerage	Action	Rating	Price Target	Impact on Share Price	Details
  12/20/2018	DA Davidson	Lower Price Target	Neutral	$26.00	High	View Rating Details
  10/15/2018	B. Riley	Set Price Target	Buy	$36.00	Medium	View Rating Details
  9/12/2018	FIG Partners	Set Price Target	Hold	$30.00	Low	View Rating Details
  4/25/2018	Keefe, Bruyette & Woods	Reiterated Rating	Hold	$29.00	Medium	View Rating Details
  3/29/2018	Sandler O'Neill	Set Price Target	Hold	$31.00	N/A	View Rating Details
  10/25/2017	FBR & Co	Reiterated Rating	Hold	$30.00	N/A	View Rating Details

  There is sufficient coverage in reliable sources to allow HomeStreet Bank to pass Wikipedia:Notability#General notability guideline, which requires "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject".

  Cunard (talk) 11:03, 1 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• The analyst reports from DA Davidson, FBR Capital Markets, FIG Partners, Keefe, Bruyette & Woods, and Sandler O'Neill and Partners are sufficient to establish notability per Wikipedia:Notability (organizations and companies)#Publicly traded corporations.

  Cunard (talk) 11:03, 1 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep Analyst reports with in-depth reviews of the company are regarded as meeting the criteria for establishing notability, meets the requirements of WP:NCORP. HighKing⁺⁺ 17:02, 1 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was soft delete. WP:REFUND applies. -- Scott (talk) 04:33, 4 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Immersion Games

Immersion Games (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:NCORP and WP:GNG. My WP:BEFORE search brings nothing. Issues are there for 8 years now. Jovanmilic97 (talk) 17:36, 13 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 12:23, 14 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Video games-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 12:23, 14 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• There are definite mentions in the VGSE, and that's just in English. I don't think this is a good target for deletion. Not a keep, but not a delete either. --Izno (talk) 20:00, 14 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Colombia-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 23:35, 15 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Mexico-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 23:35, 15 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Agree with nom, I cannot locate any references that meet the criteria for establishing notability, fails WP:NCORP and GNG. HighKing⁺⁺ 17:07, 31 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment To add my comment on the Izno's post, companies are held to a bigger standards per WP:CORPDEPTH. It is just not a notable company. Those are the links I have found as well, which are:
• 1. https://www.ign.com/articles/2008/08/04/immersion-games-annouces-new-studio is a PR piece (has even their email posted!)
• 2. https://www.gamesindustry.biz/articles/immersion-games-expansion-co-developer-of-cellfactor-and-monster-madness-opens-mexico-studio Press release which is not independent of the company
• 3. https://www.gamasutra.com/view/news/110648/Immersion_Games_Expands_in_Mexico.php It is not in depth of the company which fails WP:SIGCOV and I am pretty much sure it is based on the press release posted at *2. Jovanmilic97 (talk) 19:13, 31 December 2018 (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. -- Scott (talk) 04:49, 4 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Datalogic S.p.A.

Datalogic S.p.A. (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)

• Queried speedy delete as spam Anthony Appleyard (talk) 16:19, 13 December 2018 (U||TC)
• @Riccardo Bigazzi: See here. Anthony Appleyard (talk) 16:20, 13 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Certainly the article is spammy but if even a small proportion of the claims are true it is surely notable; it was speedied as irredemiable spam but imo simply needs a good haircut. Or possibly two.TheLongTone (talk) 16:27, 13 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 23:38, 15 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Italy-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 23:38, 15 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 23:38, 15 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Anthony Appleyard and TheLongTone, I beg your pardon for bothering you! I saw (and enjoyed) the new haircut of the page - and I hope I answered correctly to the requirements of clarification inserted. Which will be the iter of the AfD, from now on? Is there anything else I could do to help? (Just to know, really - simple curiosity, I'm really interested in learning as much as possible about "best practices" and procedures!) Thank you in advance! --Riccardo Bigazzi (talk) 10:44, 18 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you, Kpgjhpjm ! Summing up:

• the page topic has been labelled as "encyclopedic" since its opening - always with the clause of "textual tendentiousness to advertising";
• the page has been recovered from speedy deletion with an opinion of "Keep" from an admin, who also realized a new cut of the text to better fit the Wikipedia guidelines;
• the clarifications highlighted as needed were updated and inserted.

Is there anything else that could be done to go ahead with the two discussions (the one about tendentiousness and/or the other about deletion)? Thank you all in advance! --Riccardo Bigazzi (talk) 09:04, 27 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete: does not meet WP:NCORP; coverage is in passing, routine notices and / or WP:SPIP. Promotionalism only. K.e.coffman (talk) 03:04, 28 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment - should be moved — if the article is kept, thinking it should be moved to Datalogic (see WP:NCORP). --User:Ceyockey (talk to me) 17:40, 31 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment - recently deleted under another name, but not a re-creation — see https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Datalogic&action=history ... article was created as Datalogic S.p.A. to avoid re-deletion. In my opinion, this should not have been done this way. Nonetheless, the new article is not a re-creation as the content is substantially improved vs. the older. --User:Ceyockey (talk to me) 17:46, 31 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment - translation — I've added to the talk page {{translated page}} so that the origin of the article as a translation is better recognized. --User:Ceyockey (talk to me) 18:48, 31 December 2018 (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 Wrong venue. Listed at Wikipedia:Redirects_for_discussion/Log/2018_December_27#Blossum_(Powerpuff_Girls). (non-admin closure) –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 16:11, 27 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Blossum (The Powerpuff Girls)

Blossum (The Powerpuff Girls) (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)

An uncommon misspelling from what I've seen, this redirect is unnecessary. Paper Luigi ^{T • C} 03:43, 27 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. Happy holidays~! ^{Babymissfortune} 05:10, 27 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment on venue Looks like the nominator figured out that this goes at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion, but didn't withdraw/close this AfD nomination. Bakazaka (talk) 06:41, 27 December 2018 (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 (and CSD G7) delete Anthony Appleyard (talk) 09:14, 27 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Nutraceuptides

Nutraceuptides (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 concept coined in a 2018 paper: WP:TOOSOON. The article was created by AMtewa, while the originator of the concept was Andrew Mtewa. Pinging reviewers: Legacypac, Graeme Bartlett. Catrìona (talk) 02:20, 27 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• I did a search for references, and found zero mentions in Google scholar, and only the one paper by Andrew Mtewa published earlier this month in the full Google. So there is nothing independent yet. I added the (lack of) notability tag. This sort of thing could be transwikied to Wikiversity, but I do not think it is an appropriate topic for Wikipedia. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 02:25, 27 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Food and drink-related deletion discussions. Bakazaka (talk) 02:41, 27 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Health and fitness-related deletion discussions. Bakazaka (talk) 02:41, 27 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. Bakazaka (talk) 02:41, 27 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete lots of refs but too new it looks like. Creator should improve related pages until tie concept gains traction. I do appreciate efforts from academics. Legacypac (talk) 04:40, 27 December 2018 (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. -- Scott (talk) 02:34, 4 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Mohammed Tareq

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

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

This player has no title (especially not the grandmaster title as claimed in the article) as is thus far below notability. Steak (talk) 10:32, 23 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete random chess player article, 1899 ELO, world rank number 102555. I removed the "grandmaster" statement. There are some Google News results for the name, but they seem to be reporting about a different person who appears to be dead. I found nothing about chess. The current sources are rating list entries that only prove the insignificance of the player. Similar sources exist for every amateur chess player too. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 17:53, 23 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete: no secondary coverage and 1899 ELO is not even enough for a Candidate Master (not to insult the subject; it's a good ELO but not enough for notability). — Bilorv_(c)(talk) 20:03, 24 December 2018 (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/2018 December 27. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 00:50, 27 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Bakazaka (talk) 01:48, 27 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Games-related deletion discussions. Bakazaka (talk) 01:48, 27 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Iraq-related deletion discussions. Bakazaka (talk) 01:48, 27 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete being a chess player in and of itself is not a sign of notability, and that is all the article claims.John Pack Lambert (talk) 15:00, 28 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - fails WP:ANYBIO Chetsford (talk) 00:11, 29 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per WP:ANYBIO and WP:GNG and WP:SPORTBASIC.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  23:20, 30 December 2018 (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. -- Scott (talk) 02:35, 4 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Maduve Impossible

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

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

This movie is not notable. There are no enough citation. Since 2011 this movie do not have any progress. There are no news about movie was shot or not and released or not. --Gopala Krishna A (talk) 11:45, 17 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Fails WP:NFILM. Also no evidence it was ever released. Cesdeva ^(talk) 01:28, 19 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as a stalled project from 2011, doesn't pass WP:GNG thanks Atlantic306 (talk) 21:07, 22 December 2018 (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/2018 December 27. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 00:50, 27 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. Bakazaka (talk) 01:45, 27 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Bakazaka (talk) 01:45, 27 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per all of the above Spiderone 11:09, 27 December 2018 (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) Kpgjhpjm 02:09, 3 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Justin Athanaze

Justin Athanaze (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 one source is basically a mass directory listing bare statistics about people. This is not enough sourcing to establish notability. John Pack Lambert (talk) 15:57, 22 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. Very clearly passes WP:CRIN by appearing in 82 matches across the three major formats. It does however need expanding. StickyWicket (talk) 18:32, 23 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. First-class, List A and T20 cricketer who passes WP:CRIN. Johnlp (talk) 12:39, 27 December 2018 (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/2018 December 27. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 00:49, 27 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Bakazaka (talk) 01:44, 27 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Cricket-related deletion discussions. Bakazaka (talk) 01:44, 27 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Caribbean-related deletion discussions. Bakazaka (talk) 01:44, 27 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep I've added some brief career details / another ref which makes it clear he passes WP:NCRIC. Spike 'em (talk) 14:11, 27 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep clearly passes WP:NCRIC.--Binod Basnet (talk) 15:44, 27 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep, although it's surprising difficult to find very much written about him. I suspect that it's there in local sources however and in this case the presumption of notability seems valid enough. Blue Square Thing (talk) 18:31, 2 January 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) Kpgjhpjm 02:07, 3 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Eric Champion

Eric Champion (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 reliable sources, the only reliable source I found after google was allmusic and I couldn't find anything verifiable in the soundcloud bio Awsomaw (talk) 21:08, 26 December 2018 (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/2018 December 27. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 00:48, 27 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Bakazaka (talk) 01:42, 27 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. Bakazaka (talk) 01:42, 27 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Georgia (U.S. state)-related deletion discussions. Bakazaka (talk) 01:42, 27 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep More than a page covering the subject in Powell, Mark Allan (2002). Encyclopedia of Contemporary Christian Music. Peabody, Massachusetts: Hendrickson Publishers. ISBN 1-56563-679-1. and lots of print copies. At least one cover story in CCM Magazine when he was in his prime (will have to look it up). Walter Görlitz (talk) 01:55, 27 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Found one entry, but no text: https://openmusiclibrary.org/tag/eric-champion/articles/ and a second in fRoots, but the two entries may only share a name, and may not be the same subject. I'm sure that there were additional articles in publications that covered contemporary Christian music in the early to late 1990s such as Cornerstone, Campus Life and smaller publications. And the Encyclopedia of Contemporary Christian Music entry shows 17 Christian radio charting songs, including two No. 1 entries ("The Answer" for three weeks in 1993 and "Touch" in 1994, with "More About You" at No. 2 in 1995), which clearly meets WP:MUSICBIO No. 2 and with an album on Myrrh Records (Revolution Time in 1991 and Save the World in 1992) and Essential Records (Transformation in 1996) he meets No. 5 as well. It states that "In 2001 Champion was teaching at a music school in Florida with no announced intention of recording again. The book was published the following year and so it has nothing further on the subject, but it could be that part of his teaching led him to publish a work in fRoots. Finally looked at the AllMusic entry, and he has two reviews https://www.allmusic.com/album/vertical-reality-mw0000937189 is a one-sentence 4.5 start review of Vertical Reality (which I feel was his best album) and a two-star review of his self-titled album at https://www.allmusic.com/album/eric-champion-mw0000918305. Others were rated but not reviewed. Walter Görlitz (talk) 04:11, 27 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep as pass of WP:BASIC. Significant coverage can be found in Uncloudy Days: The Gospel Music Encyclopedia and The Billboard Guide to Contemporary Christian Music (both discovered in Google Books search), also Herrera, Dan (March 20, 1998). "Christian singer risks fans' displeasure". Albuquerque Journal. p. E22. Considered with already identified sources, those put the subject well past the minimum for WP:GNG, in addition to the subject apparently passing WP:MUSICBIO for charting albums/songs. Bakazaka (talk) 08:03, 27 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep as has coverage in multiple reliable sources detailed above and therefore passes WP:Basic as well as WP:NMUSIC criteria 1 (only one criteria is needed) Atlantic306 (talk) 21:20, 29 December 2018 (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.