Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2019 April 1

Recent AfDs: Today Yesterday

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

< 31 March	2 April >

Guide to deletion

Purge server cache

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

The result was delete. — JJMC89 (T·C) 01:36, 9 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Cascade (company)

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

Fails WP:NCORP. Sources are passing mentions, sponsorship announcements, blogs or otherwise affiliated sources. – Teratix ₵ 23:14, 1 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. – Teratix ₵ 23:17, 1 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. – Teratix ₵ 23:17, 1 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. – Teratix ₵ 23:17, 1 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I fail to find any sources to show that this meets WP:NCORP. --bonadea contributions talk 18:07, 4 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was soft delete. WP:REFUND applies. — JJMC89 (T·C) 01:36, 9 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

International Conference on Applied Informatics

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

Fails WP:EVENTCRIT, WP:ORGSIG and WP:ORGCRIT. Completely unsourced, and no coverage outside of the routine announcements within academic circles of the conference's existence and call for papers. No in-depth coverage, and no indication of importance. This conference is not related to any identically-named conferences held before 2018. Richard3120 (talk) 21:52, 1 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. Richard3120 (talk) 21:52, 1 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. Richard3120 (talk) 21:54, 1 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Colombia-related deletion discussions. Richard3120 (talk) 21:54, 1 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. Richard3120 (talk) 21:56, 1 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. — JJMC89 (T·C) 01:37, 9 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Blackstone Battery Codes

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

I can't find any coverage in independent reliable sources about this subject, searching both the internet and Google Scholar. In addition to the primary sources cited in the article, I was able to find this press release, but that doesn't demonstrate notability. Does not meet WP:GNG. The initial editor also appears to have a conflict of interest, as their username invokes the name of the author of one of a provided primary source, and they appear to have side-stepped the AfC process after having the article rejected there. Finally, note that a significant amount of the article had a copyvio which I have removed, but there's enough content left over that it felt inappropriate to CSD on copyvio grounds. _signed,Rosguill ^talk 21:47, 1 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. _signed,Rosguill ^talk 21:50, 1 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - not notable, all I can find are press releases and primary sources. ST47 (talk) 22:41, 1 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. --mikeu ^talk 06:29, 3 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - very specific coding system, with no widespread notability.Onel5969 ^{TT me} 11:58, 3 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. — JJMC89 (T·C) 01:37, 9 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Brad Chalk

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

Appears to fail WP:NBASE. GPL93 (talk) 21:35, 1 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 21:42, 1 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Baseball-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 21:42, 1 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of South Carolina-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 21:43, 1 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Previous AfD seems to have been mistaken, but it was 11 years ago. All-Americans do not automatically meet WP:NBASE. Little coverage of his career, fails WP:GNG. – Muboshgu (talk) 21:49, 1 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete a clear example of the mistakes of 2008.John Pack Lambert (talk) 04:17, 2 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom, fails WP:NBASE. Cubbie15fan (talk) 14:48, 2 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. My ears pricked up when I heard that Chalk was an All-American, however, upon closer examination, it turns out that Chalk was actually a high school All-American, which does not meet either WP:NBASE, WP:NCOLLATH, or WP:YOUNGATH. The coverage currently in the article does not suggest that either WP:GNG or WP:BASIC has been met, though I'd be open to changing my mind if additional sources of significant coverage could be produced. Ejgreen77 (talk) 21:05, 5 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Although if someone yells at me and says I should have closed as "no consensus", I wouldn't spend a lot of time arguing with them. There is some consensus that NMUSICIAN is met through #1 and #7, as well as some consensus that GNG is met. There is certainly not unanimous agreement that any given source meets these criteria, but that is an editorial judgement call, and not something that can be set in stone. 78.26 _{(spin me / revolutions)} 17:19, 9 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Kitty Crimes

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

WP:BLP, with some advertorial undertones, of a musician with no strong claim to passing WP:NMUSIC and no evidence of anything more than purely local coverage. Seven of the eight footnotes here are to either an alt-weekly or a music scene blog in Denver's local media, and the only source that expands so much as one mile beyond the local at all just gives her a very short blurb in a listicle. Nothing stated in the article passes any of NMUSIC's accomplishment-based inclusion criteria, so the only criterion in play here is #1 -- but even #1 still requires a musician's media coverage to expand beyond just local scene coverage in her own city. Obviously, no prejudice against recreation in the future if and when she has a stronger notability claim and wider coverage to properly verify it -- but neither the sourcing here, nor the substance of what they're supporting, are enough to already get her into Wikipedia today. This is not the kind of sourcing it takes to have resolved the first discussion (which I didn't know about until after completing this one) as a keep — and even if it does get kept again, it still requires some rewriting to deadvertorialize it. Bearcat (talk) 21:23, 1 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 21:25, 1 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sexuality and gender-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 21:25, 1 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 21:25, 1 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Colorado-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 21:25, 1 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Reading Wikipedia:Notability (music)#Criteria for musicians and ensembles we could debate #1 in terms of coverage, but #7 would also apply. Would say it passes WP:GNG either way. As a native Coloradan, I also take exception with terms in the nomination used to describe Westword and other Colorado periodicials that have covered this artist. Would be happy to have that discussion on the reliable source noticeboard. - Scarpy (talk) 22:13, 1 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

My nomination statement did not disparage Westword in any way (Ultra5280, on the other hand...) — the problem with Westword isn't that it's unreliable in principle, it's that if a person hasn't accomplished anything of nationalized significance, then the existence of a few pieces of purely local coverage in their own local media market is not enough to get them over the "notable just because media exists" bar. It's the same as the reason why we would accept Denver's mayors as notable, but not necessarily its city councillors even though they have local coverage in the local media too: the context of what a city councillor is getting coverage for is of far less nationalized interest than the context of what the mayor is getting coverage for. As I've said many times, if the existence of two or more pieces of purely local media coverage, in a context of purely local interest, were enough coverage in and of itself to get a person over WP:GNG and exempt them from having to actually pass a subject-specific inclusion criterion on their accomplishments, then we would have to keep articles about presidents of church bake sale committees, elementary school dance coaches, winners of high school poetry contests, my mother's neighbour who got some local coverage a few years ago for finding a pig in her front yard, every single person in the world whose house ever burned down, and me. So if a musician doesn't have anything on her résumé that passes an NMUSIC achievement criterion, then it takes a lot more than just a few pieces of coverage in her own city's own local alt-weekly to get her over the "notable because media coverage" bar. Bearcat (talk) 22:57, 1 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I originally had no opinion, but in reading the discussion, I agree with Bearcat that local review sources for a local musician are generally just PR, and cannot be considered independent. This I think is true for all performers and artists and writers, even more so that for local establishments. DGG ( talk ) 05:13, 2 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - I also voted in the last AfD, which by the way was closed as KEEP just three hours before this new AfD. That was an act of community WP:CONSENSUS that has a certain amount of merit. In any case, the singer has fairly in-depth coverage from regional music sources (as noted by a previous voter) plus some notice from the LGBT press. Here are some more from both realms: [1], [2], [3]. Enough for WP:NMUSICIAN #1 for some independent media notice that really is about her music, and #7 for coverage as an LGBT representative of a local scene. ---DOOMSDAYER520 (Talk|Contribs) 13:19, 2 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Forgot to mention that the article does need to have some promotional language removed, but the nominator said that too. ---DOOMSDAYER520 (Talk|Contribs) 13:20, 2 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

As I said above, if a person hasn't achieved anything that gets them over NMUSIC's achievement-based criteria, then the existence of a few pieces of purely local coverage in their own city's local media is not in and of itself enough to get them over #1. If you're shooting for "notable just because media coverage exists", then that coverage has to break wider than just a single city. And as for #7, that's still a criterion that absolutely every musician who exists at all can always try to claim they pass, if three or four hits in the local media was all they had to show to get there — it's still a criterion that requires much more coverage than this shows before it actually gets satisfied. Bearcat (talk) 15:49, 2 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per Doomsdayer520. I found the same sources when having a look, and I believe there's enough there to be able to write a suitable article. Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 10:38, 9 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Snow Keep. The overwhelming consensus is snow keep. (non-admin closure) Dusti ^{*Let's talk!*} 07:19, 7 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Christ Presbyterian Church (Edina, Minnesota)

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

No evidence that this passes WP:ORG. Bneu2013 (talk) 21:21, 1 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 21:26, 1 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Minnesota-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 21:27, 1 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep This church played a role in Presbyterian history in the schism forming ECO: A Covenant Order of Evangelical Presbyterians, especially with over 5,000 members--Epiphyllumlover (talk) 22:37, 1 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Plenty of evidence that it passes WP:ORG: "The church was a leader in the movement to establish ECO as a breakaway movement from the Presbyterian Church (USA)..." It looks like this is drive-by nomination that did not follow WP:BEFORE. St Anselm (talk) 02:11, 2 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: This article was previously nominated for deletion at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Village Presbyterian Church (Prairie Village, Kansas). St Anselm (talk) 02:12, 2 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

And the outcome was "nomination withdrawn". Peterkingiron (talk) 15:04, 6 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Historically notable, although needs more materials and citations. JohnThorne (talk) 23:13, 2 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep sources exist and would have come up in a WP:BEFORE.E.M.Gregory (talk) 23:18, 4 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
As I've already mentioned, I don't see how sources that mention the church in one sentence, such as obituaries, count as legitimate coverage. I've opened a discussion about this at WT:ORG. Bneu2013 (talk) 23:41, 4 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Er....obituaries? None of the sources on the page is a single-sentence mention, or an obit.E.M.Gregory (talk) 10:25, 5 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep as has coverage in multiple reliable sources so deserves to be included as passing WP:GNG Atlantic306 (talk) 14:09, 6 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep -- Notable as the leader of a break-away. Peterkingiron (talk) 15:04, 6 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Snow Keep. The overwhelming consensus is snow keep. (non-admin closure) Dusti ^{*Let's talk!*} 07:30, 7 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Christ Presbyterian Church (Nashville, Tennessee)

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

Does not appear to meet WP:ORG; doesn't appear to have any claim to significance, such as being the original church of a denomination, etc. Bneu2013 (talk) 21:20, 1 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 21:28, 1 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 21:28, 1 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Tennessee-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 21:28, 1 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: The article is in a terrible state, and needs to be extensively rewritten: e.g. "Ray served us as Senior Pastor until February 2007". But that, of course, is not a reason for deletion. This is clearly not a run-of-the-mill church; indeed, megachurches are generally notable. Among other things, it has received attention as the church Governor Bill Haslam attends when he is in Nashville.[4] St Anselm (talk) 02:18, 2 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: per StAnselm's comment about the Governor.--Epiphyllumlover (talk) 22:23, 2 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Need improvement but notable enough. JohnThorne (talk) 23:09, 2 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Comment so it's automatically notable just because it's over a certain size and is attended by a few famous people? Statements such as "famous person x attends Christ Presbyterian Church", nothing else, count as media coverage? I also find JohnThorne's argument unconvincing, as it gives no reason for why this is notable, but I'm assuming it is per arguments given above. Bneu2013 (talk) 04:45, 3 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep so much came up in a paywalled news archive (a added a couple of paywalled sources) that I decided to try a gNews searches. Here's a gNews search on "Scott Sauls". presbyterian [5]. this looks like a WP:BEFORE fail; article needs improvement.E.M.Gregory (talk) 23:16, 4 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - I've opened a discussion about the notability of churches at WT:ORG. While I don't dispute the fact that this subject is significantly mentioned in a number of reliable sources, I still don't know that "famous person x attends Christ Presbyterian Church," or obituaries for person x, who attended this Church, counts as legitimate coverage. So no, E.M.Gregory, this is not a WP:BEFORE fail. I've gone ahead and added a notable people section if that satisfies any of you. Bneu2013 (talk) 23:40, 4 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

In fact, I oppose lists of church members. If an individual's affiliation with a particular church is a sufficiently significant part of their lives to have SIGCOV, it should be noted on the BIO page and linked the church. The existence of such links is one of the reasons why I think church pages should be kept.E.M.Gregory (talk) 00:24, 5 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

E.M.Gregory I did this just to establish notability for the time being. The fact that notable people attend this church was one of the initial arguments for notability. Bneu2013 (talk) 05:10, 5 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep as has significant coverage in multiple reliable sources so passing WP:GNG and therefore deserves to be included in the encyclopedia, thanks Atlantic306 (talk) 14:06, 6 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. — JJMC89 (T·C) 01:48, 9 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Zack Villere

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

WP:BLP of a musician, who has no strong claim to passing WP:NMUSIC and no strong reliable source coverage to carry it. The only notability claim being made here at all is his number of followers on social media, which as always is not a notability freebie that exempts a person from having to have quality references -- but the only reference present here at all is a single dead link. One reference is not enough, all by itself, to get a person over the "notable because media coverage exists" bar, but nothing stated here is "inherently" notable enough to exempt him from having to have more coverage than this. Bearcat (talk) 21:08, 1 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 21:30, 1 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Louisiana-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 21:30, 1 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 21:30, 1 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I BLProded this same article, by the same editor, back in 2017 and it was removed after the 2 week period because nothing was added to source it. In the intervening 2 years there's been essentially no movement or reliable sourcing. Clearly nothing has changed to bring notability or sourcing. JamesG5 (talk) 05:17, 4 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. — JJMC89 (T·C) 01:48, 9 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

William Roger "Bill" Moss

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

Doesn't appear to pass WP:NPOL and I'm not entirely sure the sourcing establishes WP:GNG which appears to mostly be unlinked original research, government records such as election returns and even an Amazon.com product listing. If Moss is notable enough to merit an article, it's going to need substantially better sourcing to keep this page GPL93 (talk) 20:55, 1 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 21:04, 1 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Ohio-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 21:04, 1 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Florida-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 21:06, 1 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 21:06, 1 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Nothing here is an automatic free pass over our notability standards for either politicians or music impresarios, but very few of the references represent reliable source media coverage about him for the purposes of getting him over WP:GNG. Bearcat (talk) 21:19, 2 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. bd2412 T 01:14, 9 April 2019 (UTC)

Angelo Roppolo

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

No claim to notability, sources are unreliable, non-independent obituaries written by family and friends. Reywas92^Talk 20:51, 1 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Louisiana-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 20:57, 1 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 20:57, 1 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Italy-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 20:57, 1 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 20:58, 1 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Fails WP:NPOL, all but one of the sources are obituaries or memorial statements of some sort. Best, GPL93 (talk) 21:15, 1 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I am not sure I have ever seen an article on someone more clearly non-notable.John Pack Lambert (talk) 04:15, 2 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
- Unfortunately a now-blocked user decided to make over 2,000 articles on barely-notable people based very heavily on obituaries and other passing mentions. Now a lot of these were unremarkable state legislators or actors who can get past the guidelines but I've nominated a handful so far...he was rather prolific at writing out every little bit of these people's resumes (with a mini-WP:REFBOMB) to seem notable at first glance. WilliamJE has been doing well going after some of these too. Reywas92^Talk 06:25, 2 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
- There's even more of them if you count the articles he created using sockpuppets. I've moved to going through categories (People by town in Louisiana, Businesspeople from LA, etc.) and nominating the obvious ones (there are more that probably do but currently speaking I think its best we get rid of the clear deletes) to try and root those out as well. Hathorn will also try to mess up AfD votes with IP votes still from time to time. Best, GPL93 (talk) 14:19, 2 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Fails WP:NBIO Cwmhiraeth (talk) 13:36, 3 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete WP:NOTMEMORIAL; one of many obituaries transcribed by a banned editor. OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 20:16, 4 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. — JJMC89 (T·C) 01:50, 9 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Anna Zanardi Cappon

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

Résumé-toned WP:BLP of a consultant and writer whose claims of notability are not reliably sourced. Pretty much right across the board, this is referenced to primary sources, like her own self-published website and YouTube videos of her speaking and PDF copies of her own diplomas and the buy-it pages of her work on Amazon. There's just one footnote here (#2, "Come ti alleno il board") that might be a notability-supporting source at all, but it's paywalled and I can't read enough of it to tell whether it's about her, or just soundbites her as a giver of quote in an article about something else -- and even if it is substantively about her enough to count for something, one good source doesn't get a person over the inclusion bar all by itself if all the rest of the sourcing around it is junk. As well, the article was created by a virtual SPA with a username strongly suggestive of a paid PR agent, so there's a potential conflict of interest here. As always, Wikipedia is not a free advertising platform on which people are entitled to have articles just because Amazon.com and YouTube provide technical verification that they exist: she needs to be the subject of enough coverage in real media to clear WP:GNG, but that's not what the referencing here is showing at all. Bearcat (talk) 20:35, 1 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Italy-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 20:58, 1 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 20:59, 1 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 20:59, 1 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 21:01, 1 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Journalism-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 21:03, 1 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Fails WP:PROF and WP:AUTHOR and WP:GNG. Subject's academic background is insufficient to qualify for any permanent scholarly position; her NLP/hypnosis training, based on a widely discredited psych theory, actually detracts from her academic background, suggesting charlatanism. Though the article claims she has written many books, the citation attached to that claim is a brief article she wrote. In short, there is no there, there. — Grand'mere Eugene (talk) 16:12, 6 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. I almost relisted this instead of closing it as a keep, however, looking at the policy based arguments, and looking at what's been doing with the article, it's pretty clear that there's a consensus to keep and some editors like RebeccaGreen, PamD, and Phil Bridger have taken steps to improve the article and address the concerns that Meszzy2 had. (non-admin closure) Dusti ^{*Let's talk!*} 08:14, 8 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Natalie Wheen

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

BLP which references no secondary sources, and doesn't seem to have any that I can find. Seems to fail WP:Basic. The radio presenter themselves doesn't seem very notable for inclusion - nominated for an award twice 20 years ago and 'was placed third in a poll of "most attractive radio voices."' Meszzy² (talk) 20:16, 1 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 20:21, 1 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Radio-related deletion discussions. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 20:23, 1 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of China-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 20:35, 1 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 20:35, 1 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete a non-notable radio personality.John Pack Lambert (talk) 04:54, 2 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: presenter of major programmes such as Kaleidoscope. PamD 09:16, 2 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Notable presenter on Classic FM, a notable station. -- Necrothesp (talk) 15:10, 3 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I have added some sources, from newspapers including The Guardian, The Sunday Times, and The Daily Telegraph. There are other reviews of her which I could add, too. It's clear from these sources that she was indeed a notable radio presenter in the 1990s and 2000s. RebeccaGreen (talk) 13:12, 7 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep same reasons as above! MyanmarBBQ (talk) 16:43, 7 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 05:38, 9 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Witchcraft VII: Judgement Hour

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

Non-notable entry in a direct-to-video film series. Nothing but blurbs and listings. The nice piece on the series, contributes to the series' notability, but not this particular film. Should be a redirect, but another editor continues to insist on recreating the article. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 19:56, 1 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 20:36, 1 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 20:36, 1 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I feel this is an important entry in the series as the main character dies and the series attempts to do something new in film 8. The continuing female Lutz character is introduced (something like a low rent Scully) who is important to the series mythos. The villain here is a vampire which is a new direction for the sries Also, the film series is notable to as it has some notoriety for lasting despite a general consensus of poor quality. It would be unwieldy to have all 16 movies on the page. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jdprince45 (talk • contribs) 11:21, 5 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Tentative keep: The TV Guide review is relatively lengthy (about seven to eight paragraphs more or less) and while not the strongest source out there, is still generally seen as a reliable source. CraveOnline is also something that's typically seen as usable as well - although when I do use their sites I tend to use JoBlo's Arrow in the Head just because they typically review the stuff I'm into, which happens to be what I'm more likely to create articles about. In any case, the link for them (Mandatory) is a fairly lengthy writeup of the movie, about nine paragraphs in all. AllMovie is always a dubious source for me. I typically stay away from them because their reviews are usually just star ratings. If they have an actual review they can sometimes be usable, but more often than not I tend to avoid their site. In this case I don't see that source as really usable. I'd say that Creature Feature would be usable, however the book doesn't seem to review the book. I have the 2000 updated edition, but it's not listed and I doublechecked to make sure that there wasn't another update that I wasn't aware of. I've removed this as a review. The AV Club is definitely a reliable source and the writeup is actually surprisingly lengthy considering that they're reviewing eight films in one article - three whole paragraphs. In the end this isn't really my strongest keep possible since the coverage is fairly lackluster, but there does seem to be enough coverage to justify it pass NFILM in that there are three reviews of the film in places generally seen as reliable on Wikipedia. ReaderofthePack(formerly Tokyogirl79) (｡◕‿◕｡) 00:40, 6 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - Hi ReaderofthePack - Does Mandatory.com meet WP:RS? I can't find their editorial policy on their website, and (particularly in this instance), the entry reads more like a blog. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 01:23, 6 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Meets wp:nfilm and wp:gng, several reviews listed including two recent lengthy articles. Dcfc1988 (talk) 10:43, 6 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as per Reader of the Pack as there is enough coverage to barely pass WP:GNG such as AV Club and TV Guide and others Atlantic306 (talk) 22:03, 6 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. 78.26 _{(spin me / revolutions)} 17:19, 9 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Chris Grosso

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

Non-notable person. Neither Grosso's work as a writer nor as a musician rise to the required level of notability. WikiDan61^ChatMe!_ReadMe!! 16:10, 25 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. Icewhiz (talk) 16:19, 25 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Icewhiz (talk) 16:19, 25 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Connecticut-related deletion discussions. Icewhiz (talk) 16:19, 25 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Nothing notable about this subject Lubbad85 (talk) 14:54, 26 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep as the subject may meet WP:NAUTHOR criterion 4.c. due to multiple reviews in Publisher's Weekly. ~Anachronist (talk) 03:07, 31 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment I would argue that Publishers Weekly reviews are not a sign of "significant coverage" since PW is noted for reviewing as many books as it possibly can, rather than for any discrimination in reviewing only the most significant literature. WikiDan61^ChatMe!_ReadMe!! 11:55, 1 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ___CAPTAIN MEDUSAtalk 18:38, 1 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Lacks WP:SIGCOV and does not seem to satisfy Wikipedia's notabillity standards. SSSB (talk) 15:33, 9 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. — JJMC89 (T·C) 01:52, 9 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Jamaica–Japan relations

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

There are no independent reliable sources in the article that discuss the relationship between Jamaica and Japan. I looked for sources and did not find any. The article itself does not say there is any special relationship between these two countries that would support the need for an article. ~ GB fan 18:00, 1 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, pointless stub that just says the obvious. I thought we'd gotten rid of all these stupid "X-Y relations" articles years ago. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 18:16, 1 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, as per nomination, QueerEcofeminist^{"cite! even if you fight"!!!} [they/them/their] 04:20, 2 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Japan-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 20:38, 1 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Caribbean-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 20:38, 1 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. — JJMC89 (T·C) 01:55, 9 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Abdolmajid Pirzadeh Jahromi

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

The article has no sources. A search for sources turned up a Find a Greve listing. That is not a reliable source, let alone that would in any way show notability. I also found some Wikipedia mirrors. Nothing offering even passing coverage. Nothing showing that his political roles were substantial enough to justify an article. John Pack Lambert (talk) 17:27, 1 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. Ceethekreator (talk) 19:45, 1 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Iran-related deletion discussions. Ceethekreator (talk) 19:45, 1 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Search turned up practically nothing of importance. ~Leny Tee55~ 07:43, 4 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. There are things here that sound like they might make him notable if he could be referenced well enough to clear WP:GNG, but nothing so "inherently" notable as to entitle him to keep an unsourced article just because he existed. Bearcat (talk) 17:51, 4 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. TheSandDoctor ^Talk 20:45, 8 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Clifford Centre

(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

WP:GNG fails, non-notable building in Hong Kong, no in-depth news and book coverage in English or in Chinese languages. wikipedia is not a directory nor a supplement of google map. Hong Kong had may be 10,000 such commercial buildings so it existed does not mean we need to create an article. We need real significant coverage on existing reliable source to allow wiki editor to summarize those source to write a tertiary source. Matthew hk (talk) 17:18, 1 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Off-topic, here is the official directory of all the buildings of Hong Kong, that have over 1500 pages in PDF, it should have a line for non-notable or notable, otherwise 1500 pages of building name are potential articles. Matthew hk on public computer (talk) 13:46, 2 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Hong Kong-related deletion discussions. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 20:20, 1 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Architecture-related deletion discussions. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 20:21, 1 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete No actual sources proving the notability of the building on Google. Only Yelp and websites telling about offices for rent. Not even as notable as the building with the same name in Singapore. Nova Crystallis (Talk) 16:39, 2 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Agree with lack of sufficient notoriety. Kdm852 (talk) 02:16, 3 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, does not meet WP:NBUILD, nothing showing that this is significant amongst the 100s of similiar hong kong buildings. Coolabahapple (talk) 03:01, 3 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete no indication found that this commercial real estate complex is notable. Possible PROMO.E.M.Gregory (talk) 12:08, 3 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Based on user talk page log, it seem a placeholder for Kou Hing Hong Scientific Supplies Ltd, which literally turn wikipedia as a webhost and a guide to house every step to locate their company. Matthew hk (talk) 17:40, 3 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. — JJMC89 (T·C) 01:55, 9 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

LinuxBBQ

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

WP:GNG; Barely any secondary sources about it. AtlasDuane (talk) 17:16, 1 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. Ceethekreator (talk) 19:51, 1 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. Ceethekreator (talk) 19:51, 1 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. Ceethekreator (talk) 19:51, 1 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

delete:: The community seems to decide not every Linux Distro should necessarily have an article. This one does not appear to achieve WP:SUSTAINED. It has two what appear to be arguably rare features, the ability to easily create media installation media from the current state and being based off the unstable branch of Debian.Djm-leighpark (talk) 08:47, 3 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. — JJMC89 (T·C) 01:56, 9 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Stoica Lascu

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

We’re going to need more than a CV to demonstrate notability, as defined by WP:PROF. Biruitorul ^Talk 16:42, 1 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. XOR'easter (talk) 17:15, 1 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. XOR'easter (talk) 17:15, 1 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Romania-related deletion discussions. XOR'easter (talk) 17:15, 1 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

DElete unless it is significantly improved to show publications. However, it looks as if he ended off as a full professor, which might mean that he is notable. Peterkingiron (talk) 15:58, 7 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Consensus is that this is not notable. Whether to create a redirect is an editorial decision; there's no consensus about that here. Sandstein 08:00, 9 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Department of Linguistics and English Language, Lancaster University

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

We have no formal standard for academic departments, unlike for individual academics. The practice in the relatively few AfDs over the years has been essentially "world-famous", which for all but the largest disciplines, would be one of the top 2 or 3 in the world. Lancaster is not among these. The various rankings linked in the article are in the range of 10th to 19th. The article doesn't even claim that--it just says "one of the top in Europe". The GNG can be a useful guideline even in the eyes of those like myself, who wish we had something better. There is not a single substantial reference here, just the placement on various lists, and its own praise of itself. As auxiliary factors, a total of 6 notable alumni is not very impressive, nor s the sponsorship of a single conference, nor the absence of sponsorship of any major publication series or journal. DGG ( talk ) 05:24, 25 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 05:39, 25 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 05:40, 25 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 05:40, 25 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

There is a similar article on the Department of English, University of Vienna or the Department of Chemistry, Imperial College London. — Preceding unsigned comment added by LindseyMcleish (talk • contribs) 07:29, 25 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Please consider this matter before deleting this entry. — Preceding unsigned comment added by LindseyMcleish (talk • contribs) 09:08, 25 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Per nom's comments about GNG, I agree it's the best guideline to consider here. And following up on that, I would consider a department in Oxford, Yale, Stanford to pass GNG. Not this one. Skirts⁸⁹ 09:27, 25 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect - to the university's article. Per WP:ATD and well, redirects are cheap. Just a note: if I had found this while on NPP, I would have just boldly redirected. Nothing resembles notability here, for certain. John from Idegon (talk) 09:34, 25 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I do not see the point of redirecting. There would be equal merit in creating a redirect for every department in every university. They are all useless, because anyone would know to look at the article for the University. DGG ( talk ) 01:56, 26 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The department is known as the home of Critical discourse analysis thanks to the work of Norman Fairclough and Ruth Wodak. — Preceding unsigned comment added by LindseyMcleish (talk • contribs) 14:05, 25 March 2019 (UTC) This entry is important because the Department of Linguistics and English Language at Lancaster University is considered as the home of the Critical discourse analysis. In the literature the department is often credited as the birthplace of Critical discourse theories. Norman Fairclough and Ruth Wodak made the department famous for applied linguistics especially Critical discourse analysis. Although the department is not ranked among the top 5 universities in linguistics in general, the department is the first in applied linguistics, a sub field of linguistics. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Appliedlinguist (talk • contribs) 04:21, 26 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - Are there sources indicating this? How does this make it notable? Is there a source for being first in applied linguistics, which also happens to be your username? Skirts⁸⁹ 11:47, 27 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I would also like to mention virtually all of your edits have been to this page. Do you have a relationship with Lancaster University? Skirts⁸⁹ 11:49, 27 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - Yes, I agree that the entry might be one-sided. However, the department seem to be world-known since it was mentioned by many different sources as I see.

It could be improved by adding some details about the scientific research the department contributed to.

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Randykitty (talk) 15:51, 1 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - I saw several Wikipedia entries on different faculties such as University of Sydney Faculty of Arts and Social Sciences, Faculty of Arts and Social Sciences, National University of Singapore and etc. I would recommend to create a new page entitled Faculty of Arts and Social Sciences, Lancaster University and include the content of this page into the new entry. In this way the content of the page can be preserved and would not break the rules of the Wikipedia. — Preceding unsigned comment added by EUROLinguistics (talk • contribs) 04:10, 3 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I don't see that solving things unless the faculty itself is notable Aloneinthewild (talk) 21:35, 7 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Lancaster University, where the department is already listed. Critical discourse analysis already has an article, as do a couple of actually notable former faculty members, so that doesn't need to be duplicated here. A bunch of media mentions aren't significant coverage of the department, and minor awards and rankings PR don't count toward notability. I'm sympathetic to DGG's point about not redirecting, but in this case I think redirecting shows that consensus is for department content to be placed in the university article. It's not a permission slip for every department everywhere to have a redirect. It's just a decision about this article. Bakazaka (talk) 01:34, 9 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Sandstein 07:58, 9 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Dave Draves

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

Poorly sourced article about a record producer, whose only evident claim of notability is that he exists. Full disclosure, I'm actually the original creator of this, over a decade ago when single-sourcing his existence was actually enough -- but our notability standards have been tightened up considerably in the past decade, and this guy has picked up neither the more substantive notability claim nor the improved sourceability it would take to clear WP:NMUSIC as it now stands. Bearcat (talk) 04:00, 25 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 05:41, 25 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 05:41, 25 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 05:42, 25 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete non-notable music producer.John Pack Lambert (talk) 02:25, 27 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Randykitty (talk) 15:50, 1 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. No prejudice against speedy renomination per low participation. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 20:50, 8 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Life's Blood

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

Non-notable band; lacks significant coverage in independent reliable sources, failing WP:GNG. Previously kept in 2005 AfD that didn't sufficient address notability concerns (conflated with notability of members with this band), and no significant coverage has developed since then. -- Wikipedical (talk) 14:29, 18 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. CASSIOPEIA^(talk) 14:52, 18 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. CASSIOPEIA^(talk) 14:52, 18 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Meets WP:BAND criteria 1 (which is equivalent to GNG) and 6. Coverage in The Big Takeover (a bi-annual print magazine) and CLRVYNT (a Loudwire Network/Townsquare Media site), and members included Adam Nathanson and Neil Burke. Don't get me wrong, the article needs work, but deletion isn't part of that. Woodroar (talk) 23:16, 18 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 03:58, 25 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 05:42, 25 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Randykitty (talk) 15:50, 1 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Sandstein 07:58, 9 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Paxful

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

Fails WP:NCORP reads like a press release JMHamo (talk) 20:16, 18 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I was under the impression that the CNBC and VOA coverage was enough to demonstrate notability, although I agree that the article reads much like an ad. _signed,Rosguill ^talk 20:32, 18 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Icewhiz (talk) 20:50, 18 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Finance-related deletion discussions. Icewhiz (talk) 20:50, 18 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Estonia-related deletion discussions. Icewhiz (talk) 20:50, 18 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment, as an AfD we could agree to remove it under WP:G11 grounds, if we thought it was of that level. Nosebagbear (talk) 10:05, 19 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
No comment on notabiliy for time being, but it can be moved to draft if we want for cleanup. ^Thanks,L3X1 ◊distænt write◊ 02:04, 20 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Comment, i have cleaned up the article a bit and added more neutral info as well as removng content that could be seen as promotional scottledeuce (talk) 19:05, 21 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

oppose/keep, the article can be made more neutral but i think its worty or mention just for hte recent links and press and publicity of backpage connections and mentions

Note to closing Admin The last !vote was made from an Estonian IP address, most probably related to the subject. JMHamo (talk) 20:02, 24 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 03:05, 25 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as I think it likely meets the general notability guideline. I don't think it meets the more stringent WP:CORPDEPTH guideline, though, as there are just a few reliable articles that fit that bill. 71.163.163.163 (talk) 22:12, 25 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: does not meet WP:NCORP / WP:ORGDEPTH. --K.e.coffman (talk) 02:11, 26 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Delete: There are two sources I was able to find, both of which are being used in the page, that are reliable and could establish notability. As it stands however, the article reads like an advertisement. Dr-Bracket (talk) 13:29, 29 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Randykitty (talk) 15:50, 1 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. Sandstein 07:57, 9 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Pete Ewing

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

I don't think this quite meets WP:GNG, WP:MUSICBIO. Provided sources are a music magazine that doesn't list editorial policies (and has a "Contribute" button that just opens up an email draft), a Sydney Morning Herald announcing a concert by the subject in a short blurb in what appears to be a local entertainment section, and an AllMusic entry with no information other than a track listing. I was unable to find anything better searching online and on Rock's Backpages. _signed,Rosguill ^talk 20:56, 18 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. _signed,Rosguill ^talk 20:58, 18 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. _signed,Rosguill ^talk 20:58, 18 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. _signed,Rosguill ^talk 20:58, 18 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. _signed,Rosguill ^talk 20:58, 18 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Hi Rosguill. I must contest this nomination. I am the one maintaining this article. I have been away from this article these last few weeks because I started working on another one, but I will get back to this one immediately. Pete Ewing is a very notable artist. He is well known in Australia and has been offered a record deal here in the US. During his visits here, he had been deported twice due to the Trump administration deporting Australians just to show they weren't deporting Mexican immigrants. Regardless, a U.S. Senator vouched for him and Pete was given a visa back into the country to finish his album. Please check out his music. It's incredible. He comes from a long line of musicians called the McKinnons as well as the Casanovas from Ireland/Scotland/Italy, a family of minstrels of 500years descent. I have been getting my references together and I will make an update this evening when I get home from work to include those citations asap. Please do not delete this article. I will also review the WP:MUSICBIO guidelines to make sure the article is formatted accordingly. Thanks for the notice. Sincerely, Olivettilly (talk) 22:29, 18 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The most important thing for you to do when arguing that the article should not be deleted is to provide more citations to coverage of the subject in reliable sources. _signed,Rosguill ^talk 22:41, 18 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Olivettilly. I cannot find anything that would make the subject notable. But because you have said you are working on the article, I will wait a few days before casting my opinion. Aoziwe (talk) 08:43, 20 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks so much for giving me this time to work on this article. I'll be working on it now for the next couple of hours. I'll be including citations as well. Thanks for your cooperation. Cheers. Olivettilly (talk) 12:01, 21 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 03:03, 25 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, but I am still struggling to see how the subject is notable. Aoziwe (talk) 06:31, 25 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per comments above. TheEditster (talk) 09:39, 25 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I am on the fence, but may circle back to vote after some more development Lubbad85 (talk) 14:06, 25 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

~~Keep~~(duplicate !vote --Crystallizedcarbon (talk) 16:33, 1 April 2019 (UTC)) and this is why Pete Ewing and his brother William Ewing played as a band on the Australian soap opera, Neighbours which has international acclaim and still running. For Season 1, the two of them were cast on the show as the live band called Red Cotton. Not only did they play live on the show, all the music performed is original music written by him and his brother, and not just once but for the entire season. A total of episodes 8 episodes.[reply]

-This is criteria that meets Wikipedia: Notability (music) "No. 10: Has performed music for a work of media that is notable, e.g. a theme for a network television show, performance in a television show or notable movie, included on a notable compilation album, etc - "William and the Tells are a four piece indie group from Melbourne fronted by siblings William and Pete Ewing, with their friends Ben Callaghan and Sam Walsh." List of Neighbours characters (2012)

IMDb actor profile lists 8 episodes on Neighbours IMDb Actor profile: Pete Ewing:: * "Ramsay Street's new house band". Herald Sun. The Herald and Weekly Times. 23 September 2011. Retrieved 26 September 2011.

-No. 11 .... Has been placed in rotation nationally by any major radio network.---- Pete Ewing music has been on rotation at RRR (Triple R Radiostation, an influential major music and culture independent radio show in Melbourne, Australia.) He also has his own sub-segment within the JVG Radio Method broadcast every Sunday at 3pm called "What Are You Doing, Ewing?" "Included in the news is a sub-segment. Peter Ewing presents What Are You Doing Ewing? In this dubious use of precious airtime Peter tells us what he's been doing" and has played live on the radio show.JVG Radio Method

-No. 2. ....Has had a single or album on any country's national music chart. ----This applies in a way... He was invited to play at Americanafest in Nashville for one of the largest country music festivals in the world Sydney Morning Herald Olivettilly (talk) 18:28, 28 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The #10 criteria is a good argument, although note that that guideline also says if this is the only claim [to notability], it is probably more appropriate to have a mention in the main article and redirect to that article

IMDb is not a reliable source as it is crowdsourced, and the Herald Sun piece you've linked is not significant coverage.

Looking up 3RRR, it's described as a "community radio station", leaving me uncertain as to whether or not it meets criterion 11. Ewing being a regular on a radio show is a positive indicator, but it would be good to see that reported in an independent source.

Playing at a music festival in no way is equivalent to being on a national music chart.

All told, you've made a stronger case for keeping, but I'm still uncertain whether it's appropriate to have a separate article for Ewing. _signed,Rosguill ^talk 20:42, 28 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Randykitty (talk) 15:47, 1 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. -- Ed (Edgar181) 13:25, 8 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Scientific studies performed on private revelations and visionaries

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

I'm... not even entirely sure where to start with this...

This isn't really an article about "scientific studies performed on private revelations and visionaries". It's just a list of apologetics, rumors and myths about Catholic folk tales.

According to a Catholic website, a guy saw purple, closed his eyes, and still saw purple. Also he had a PhD so that "makes it scientific" somehow, and I'm not even really sure what the relevance is here in the first place...but purple...and science.

According to "some Catholic website" we've figured out what Jesus's blood type is from a piece of human flesh that never decays. I'm not sure how that didn't make it into Nature as one of the most stunning scientific discoveries of the modern age, almost certain to garner a Nobel Prize, but it didn't, darn the luck, and we have to rely on "some website".

According to "some website" a lady didn't get burned by a candle. But then she did. But the guy was a doctor apparently...so... ...science.

I mean, if we want to write List of apologetics, rumors and myths about Catholic folk tales then that's fine I guess, but we should at least be clear about the scope, rather than trying to act like this is somehow related to science. GMG ^talk 15:26, 1 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

That already exists, sort of, at Criticism_of_the_Catholic_Church#Saint_and_feast_day_hagiography. This site would not fit so well into that page, though, because all of the studies listed are confirming rather than critical.--Epiphyllumlover (talk) 18:59, 1 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete No reliable sources. -Roxy, the dog. wooF 15:59, 1 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Textbook WP:SYNTH. jps (talk) 15:59, 1 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete it is a stretch to claim that any of these examples qualify as a scientific study. There is no indication that and of them have received significant coverage in mainstream sources. --mikeu ^talk 16:35, 1 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. XOR'easter (talk) 16:36, 1 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. XOR'easter (talk) 16:36, 1 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Not what the title claims it to be, and not well-written or well-sourced enough to be worth salvaging. XOR'easter (talk) 16:39, 1 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Devoutly inspired WP:OR. The given sources are not reliable for reporting these things as scientific studies. - LuckyLouie (talk) 16:41, 1 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom and give an award to GMG for writing up a nomination that has made me laugh more than all the April Fool jokes I've seen so far today. Mccapra (talk) 17:07, 1 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per reasons already given. Agricolae (talk) 17:22, 1 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Merge This should trimmed and made into a subcategory under Parapsychology#Research--Epiphyllumlover (talk) 18:54, 1 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - As per GMG. Pseudo-scientific and non-encyclopedic. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 14:01, 3 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete even though the blood of the Miracle of Luciano is blood type AB and Our Lady of Guadalupe has been tested to establish that no varnish was used.E.M.Gregory (talk) 00:00, 8 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. It is not WP:V that he has played at the senior level for a national team. GNG not met, and FOOTY not verified, therefore by strength of arguments consensus is delete. 78.26 _{(spin me / revolutions)} 17:22, 9 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Narong Kakada

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

Unsourced BLP. no indication that the subject has ever played in a fully professional league, thereby failing WP:NFOOTY. No indication he passes WP:GNG. Ymblanter (talk) 11:46, 24 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Icewhiz (talk) 12:10, 24 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. Icewhiz (talk) 12:10, 24 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Cambodia-related deletion discussions. Icewhiz (talk) 12:10, 24 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - simply fails WP:NFOOTY. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 03:37, 25 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep -- Kakada has played for the Cambodian national football team in a tier-one international football match. (1). Therefore he meets WP:NFOOTY. Certaintly needs a clean-up though. Tropicanan (talk) 10:12, 25 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Giant Snowman 13:31, 25 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - international player, meets WP:NFOOTBALL, needs improving. Giant Snowman 13:35, 25 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - WP:NFOOTY - Given the link Tropicanan provides, he meets WP:NFOOTY. - Taketa (talk) 20:27, 25 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - It needs a lot of work but its passes WP:NFOOTBALL as he has played in an international match. Not Homura (talk) 01:21, 26 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete ~~Merge to Cambodia national football team, per WP:PAGEDECIDE~~. This article analyzes like all other marginal NFooty: 1 game is just barely scraping by. If we keep a stand-alone article, we will have nothing to write, because there is no significant coverage. All we'll have is his playing stats, and we shouldn't be a collection of players' stats with no other context because that would make WP a football directory and WP is WP:NOTADIRECTORY or an almanac. The only thing out there is routine game reports and passing mentions. [6] [7] [8] [9] [10] [11]. ~~So, merge to the national team and he can have a section there.~~ All of the players who barely pass NFooty but have no SIGCOV can be listed there, and we can even include their stats if we want to. Plus, we'll only have page to monitor for vandalism instead of twenty-something. If/when he gets more coverage, the ~~redirect can be turned back into an~~ article can be recreated and we can drop a {main} tag at his section at Cambodia national football team. Leviv ich 01:09, 31 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Cambodia national under-23 football team. Unsure how much can really be merged about a single player. ––Redditaddict69 ^(talk) ^(contribs) 05:05, 1 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Good point, Redditaddict69; I've updated my vote in light of your and others' comments here. Leviv ich 05:49, 7 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Fails WP:V. The only source is NationalFootballTeams, which as far as I can tell is not a WP:RS. The contact page lists a single person (Benjamin Strack-Zimmermann) as "Responsible for the content of this site". The FAQ page says, " mainly exists because I wanted to have such a site, but nobody was doing it for me". So, this is all WP:UGC. -- RoySmith (talk) 13:19, 1 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: There is no consensus regarding NFOOTY, although it leans towards meeting that criteria. However, failing WP:V is a more serious concern. The single source needs to be discussed, if it is indeed unverifiable UGC then the article should be deleted. If the site owner is found to be a reliable source (known expert in the field, etc.) then we're back to NFOOTY, it certainly doesn't appear GNG is met.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, 78.26 _{(spin me / revolutions)} 14:37, 1 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete not adequately verified. The fact that this person comes close to passing our notability guidelines for footballer just goes to show that those guidelines are incredibly flawed and way too broad.John Pack Lambert (talk) 04:53, 2 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete fails WP:V. No reliable sourcing. Fails WP:BIO. WP:NFOOTY doesn't apply here. A complete abrogation from wikipedia policies, as described above is unacceptable. scope_creep^Talk 08:33, 2 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete not adequately sourced, significant coverage too. thanks QueerEcofeminist^{"cite! even if you fight"!!!} [they/them/their] 16:16, 2 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - article about semi-pro footballer who plays for Cambodia's under-23 team. I'm not convinced he actually appeared for Cambodia's senior side (NFT is typically accurate, but I'd like another source to be sure and I can't find a full squad list from the match against Bangladesh anywhere). Also, even if he has appeared in a single international match, there is nothing to suggest this article can be WP:GNG-compliant. As noted above, all online coverage is routine in nature. Jogurney (talk) 21:40, 4 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The article clearly passes the criteria of notability as he played at the senior international level.Shotgun pete 8:10, 7 April 2019 (UTC)
Delete - irrespective of WP:NFOOTY, a biography of a living person must be well sourced with all details easily verifiable. This isn't it. Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 10:36, 9 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 05:51, 9 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Darunnajath Islamic Complex

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

Non-notable Islamic seminary linked with an another non-notable Islamic seminary, Darul Huda Islamic University. MalayaliWoman (talk) 13:47, 1 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. Icewhiz (talk) 14:20, 1 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Islam-related deletion discussions. Icewhiz (talk) 14:20, 1 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Icewhiz (talk) 14:20, 1 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete No real defining features that would make it notable. scope_creep^Talk 22:12, 3 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, I couldn't find any third-party sources at all. Huon (talk) 11:33, 7 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Consensus is for deletion. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 20:47, 8 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hyperlay

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

No evidence of notability per WP:GNG. It won an award, but I'm not sure whether that is of any significance. BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 11:56, 1 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. CASSIOPEIA^(talk) 12:20, 1 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. CASSIOPEIA^(talk) 12:20, 1 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. CASSIOPEIA^(talk) 12:20, 1 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. Graywalls (talk) 15:40, 5 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Complete lack of secondary sources about the app. Article seems to have been created for promotional purposes as well. Meszzy² (talk) 17:17, 1 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

This is more about innovation than about promotion. It was my intention to balance that way. Like the articles about fx. Autocad or all the venues like fx. Mercedes-Benz Arena (Berlin). The project has got another innovation award/grant from an EU foundation, but there are no public references about that yet on their site. It was also my intention to also add some pages about the traditional calculations behind. But the amount of information about Entertainment rigging on Wikipedia is very sparse to non existing. The very basics kind of has to fixed first. So it turned out to be a bigger task, but still in progress. The structure of those few pages makes it very hard to just Extend. So I hope you don't just vote for deletion, but will get back with please try to fix that and that. User talk:Jkr drp —Preceding undated comment added 19:54, 3 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I have blocked this user, who is the creator of the article, for likely covert advertising (UPE) and meatpuppetry. Delete, as a promotional article about unremarkable software. MER-C 19:47, 4 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete No indication of notability. The references are published by the people behind the product or dependent secondary sources. Graywalls (talk) 15:42, 5 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per policy. ——SerialNumber54129 15:55, 8 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. TheSandDoctor ^Talk 20:46, 8 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Dado Hamzagić

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

Fails GNG, and doesn't pass NFOOTY - neither Chigago U-23 or Sarajevo (prior to 2016) satisfy NFOOTY. All the references in the article are dead links. Per my BEFORE doesn't pass GNG. Icewhiz (talk) 11:55, 1 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Icewhiz (talk) 11:56, 1 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. Icewhiz (talk) 11:56, 1 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bosnia and Herzegovina-related deletion discussions. Icewhiz (talk) 11:56, 1 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Illinois-related deletion discussions. Icewhiz (talk) 11:56, 1 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions.CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 20:47, 1 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete a non-notable footballer.John Pack Lambert (talk) 04:24, 2 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - fails WP:GNG and WP:NFOOTBALL. Giant Snowman 07:42, 2 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - does not satisfy WP:N, WP:GNG or WP:NFOOTBALL.-TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 00:29, 3 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. TheSandDoctor ^Talk 20:48, 8 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

J. T. Murray

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

Probably retired. Chicago Fire U-23 doesn't satisfy NFOOTY. If he actually appeared in Sevilla FC Puerto Rico for 1 match in 2011 that would ostensibly satisfy NFOOTY - however that is not sourced (nor is Chicago for that matter). in my WP:BEFORE I was unable to find much more on this soccer player (though found plenty of other more notable individuals named "Jonathan Murray" - also in football and soccer). In short - WP:SIGCOV is not met, passing NFOOTY is unverified, and even if he did make a single appearance in Puerto Rico that would be only just over the bar and absent sources establishing GNG it should be deleted. Icewhiz (talk) 11:39, 1 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Icewhiz (talk) 11:40, 1 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. Icewhiz (talk) 11:40, 1 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Puerto Rico-related deletion discussions. Icewhiz (talk) 11:40, 1 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Illinois-related deletion discussions. Icewhiz (talk) 11:40, 1 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Ohio-related deletion discussions. Icewhiz (talk) 11:40, 1 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions.CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 20:50, 1 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - fails WP:GNG and WP:NFOOTBALL. Giant Snowman 07:43, 2 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - does not satisfy WP:N, WP:GNG or WP:NFOOTBALL.-TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 00:27, 3 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Article about non-notable semi-pro footballer. Very limited coverage in reliable sources. Jogurney (talk) 17:42, 3 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. "Oppose" presumably = "Keep", and the arguments proffered to do so were more persuasive than the original reason proposed for deltion, viz WP:FORKing, which, in any case, appears to have been effectively withdrawn. (non-admin closure) ——SerialNumber54129 16:01, 8 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

World record progression women's weightlifting (1998–2018)

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

I am recommending the following four articles World record progression men's weightlifting, World record progression men's weightlifting (1998–2018), World record progression women's weightlifting and World record progression women's weightlifting (1998–2018) be taken to WP:AFD and deleted as content forks of List of world records in Olympic weightlifting. These four "progression" articles contain only Current records and 1998-2018. The "progression" articles series are missing the 3 articles for men's records (1993-1997 & 1973-1992 & 1920-1972) and 2 articles for women's records (1993-1997 & 1988-1992). The List of world records in Olympic weightlifting already has all of these records. These four "progression" articles need to deleted off of Wikipedia.--Wyn.junior (talk) 16:39, 24 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose first because even the nominator doesn't know what he is talking about ! these articles are totally different. progression means every single broken record is mentioned in these articles. while the main World Record article only has the last record in each period of time before IWF erasing them all. of course if we had that info I would like to create "progression" page for other time periods but unfortunately they are not available. Mohsen1248 (talk) 16:51, 24 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

You finish the 5 missing articles, User talk:Mohsen1248, then of the content forks. The full info is listed here List of world records in Olympic weightlifting. At least have the full info of the forks listed.--Wyn.junior (talk) 17:43, 24 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2019 March 24. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 20:13, 24 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. Icewhiz (talk) 20:26, 24 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. Icewhiz (talk) 20:27, 24 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I SCREWED UP. I am very sorry. I am a good Wikipedia editor though.--Wyn.junior (talk) 15:25, 25 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I do want to see these articles built in the future though:

List of world records in powerlifting

Progression of the squat world record

Progression of the deadlift world record

Progression of the snatch world record

Progression of the clean and jerk world record

Progression of the Olympic snatch world record

Progression of the Olympic clean and jerk world record

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 11:21, 1 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 20:53, 1 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose I agree with Mohsen1248, it is difficult to find proper sources for world records set before the Moscow Olympics in 1980 which means finding the progression (each successive world record set for each lift) is extraordinarily difficult. The IWF (International Weightlifting Federation) website only has record progression from when the website was created in the early 2000's. American media didn't cover weightlifting "heavily" (olympics) until the the LA Olympics in 1984 (coincidentally the Soviet Friendship Games in Varna in 1984 was where all the records were set, and those might have been unofficial fourth attempts), and finding video footage of world championships or european championships from before 1970 is almost impossible. Most news outlets (in Soviet countries which were the most prolific weightlifting countries) don't necessarily have online archives that store that information. Most results books from the Olympics (available at https://digital.la84.org/) have information for Olympics and records set and records at the time but not the competition they were set. I would love if the information was easier and like Mohsen1248 would happily create the new World Record Progression pages, but currently I believe it's a fools errand.

Hamma085 (talk) 02:27, 6 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect to Blood Meridian. Sandstein 10:27, 8 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The kid (Blood Meridian)

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

Not notable outside of the context of the novel. --wooden superman 11:13, 1 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Merge or redirect to the parent article Blood Meridian. I think the content in this article would fit well in the parent article and there currently isn't sufficient need for a stand alone article. Gnome de plume (talk) 11:48, 1 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. Icewhiz (talk) 14:21, 1 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. Icewhiz (talk) 14:21, 1 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to the parent article Blood Meridian. I have given this much thought as I would not be surprised if there was academic attention on this particular character. Here is what shows up in Google Scholar. It is hard to separate if there is enough individual coverage for the character though, and unless another editor can prove otherwise, I think all of the analysis could be contained in the article on the book. Aoba47 (talk) 21:37, 6 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Sandstein 10:26, 8 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Ülo Altermann

AfDs for this article:

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

While technically not a speedy G4 deletion, all the reasons in Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ülo Altermann still apply to this article created 3 months after the AfD concluded. Fram (talk) 08:11, 1 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. KCVelaga (talk) 09:06, 1 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Estonia-related deletion discussions. KCVelaga (talk) 09:06, 1 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Germany-related deletion discussions. KCVelaga (talk) 09:06, 1 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I don't remember what this looked like last time around - but my BEFORE prior to my !vote from before still stands, as none of the sources added here this time establish SIGCOV / anything more than 1E. So, I'll just repeat my comment from last time "Poorly sourced (in all wikis). Seems in my BEFORE to be a BIO1E - mainly notable for blowing up a lenin statue. Other than that he was a simple soldier during WWII, and a squad leader in the Forest Brothers. Not much coverage I can see - though I admit I did not BEFORE in Russian.". Icewhiz (talk) 11:04, 3 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Does not meet WP:SOLDIER; sourcing is in passing. Estonian wiki article lists no sources, ru.wiki has some external links that mention the subject and that he was killed in 1953. That's not sufficient for establishing encyclopedic notability. K.e.coffman (talk) 17:06, 7 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Sandstein 10:26, 8 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

FullReader

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

non-notable app with no mention in reliable sources. I suspect this as advertising as the article creator's other edits are mainly regarding adding this app in the see also sections of notable software, and adding non-notable sites as references. Daiyusha (talk) 07:14, 1 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I agree that this is a non-notable app and it does not cite any reliable sources according to wikipedia's guidelines. RandewP (talk) 01:07, 5 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. KCVelaga (talk) 07:19, 1 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - lacks sufficient coverage in reliable independant secondary sources to pass WP:GNG. Meszzy² (talk) 07:46, 1 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 07:52, 1 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete The current sourcing is problematic - there are reviews on blogs, reviews on sites that openly charge for hosting reviews, trivial coverage in listicles, but nothing that would approach the level of WP:CORPDEPTH. I had a look for better sourcing, but didn't find any. So, fails WP:NCORP, delete. GirthSummit _(blether) 16:34, 7 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
~~While~~ I agree with your evaluation~~, I note that software falls under WP:GNG and not WP:NCORP, unless the article covers the software's parent company.~~ — Newslinger talk 06:51, 8 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
After a talk page discussion, I think Girth Summit's interpretation of WP:NCORP is correct, and FullReader does fall under the scope of WP:NCORP. It's strange that software is held to different notability standards depending on whether it's developed by a corporation/organization or an individual/unknown author, but this appears to be what the guideline indicates. — Newslinger talk 08:47, 8 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Sandstein 10:26, 8 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Poppermost

AfDs for this article:

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

Non-Notable band with only local coverage. Mccapra (talk) 06:54, 1 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. KCVelaga (talk) 07:19, 1 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Nevada-related deletion discussions. KCVelaga (talk) 07:19, 1 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. KCVelaga (talk) 07:19, 1 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - From a bit of searching there doesn't seem to be any coverage from independent secondary sources, and as such in my opinion fails our notaiblity criteria. Meszzy² (talk) 08:02, 1 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Sandstein 10:25, 8 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Mike King (fighter)

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

Subject is a mixed martial arts fighter. Has only one top tier fight which he lost back in ~~1914~~ 2014, 4.5 years ago - see HERE. Fails WP:MMABIO. CASSIOPEIA^(talk) 06:14, 1 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. CASSIOPEIA^(talk) 06:14, 1 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Martial arts-related deletion discussions. CASSIOPEIA^(talk) 06:14, 1 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Ohio-related deletion discussions. CASSIOPEIA^(talk) 06:14, 1 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. If the 1983 birthdate is true, then losing a fight in 1914 would make him a time traveler. Instant notability and he'd be on the cover of Scientific American. Khemehekis (talk) 07:06, 1 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - apologies for the typo mistake. Corrected. It was 2014 instead of 1914. CASSIOPEIA^(talk) 07:10, 1 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

In that case, delete. We can't have an article on every mixed martial-arts fighter ever. And athletes (and politicians) already have very loose notability standards on Wikipedia. It seems that when I type a random firstname+lastname into Wikipedia, half the time it's an athlete I've never heard of. Khemehekis (talk) 01:49, 6 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete The sourcing is clearly not enough to show notability.John Pack Lambert (talk) 04:51, 2 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails notability and as the fighter has not competed in years he is unlikely to ever meet notability requirements, at least for MMA.--Phospheros (talk) 06:06, 3 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Since he hasn't fought in 5 years I think we can assume he's retired. With only 1 top tier fight, a loss, he fails to meet WP:NMMA. I don't see the coverage required to meet WP:GNG. Papaursa (talk) 00:30, 6 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was merge to John Helder Wedge. Sandstein 10:25, 8 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Leighland

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

I came accross this article whilst adding co-ordinate data to Tasmanian locations. The property fails to pass Wikipedia's notability guidelines as there is no significant coverage of the property in reliable sources (or any other sources (bar retail advertisments) that I could find). Straight Red (talk) 06:57, 17 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 08:37, 17 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 08:39, 17 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Merge and redirect~~Delete~~ Changing to merge and redirect as per below. It seems it is not the only one of the oldest properties. I found the following:
- "Man Finds Wife's Body In River". The Mercury. Vol. CLXX, no. 24, 627. Tasmania, Australia. 16 November 1949. p. 8. Retrieved 17 March 2019 – via National Library of Australia.
- "Country Intelligence". The Tasmanian. Vol. XXI, no. 2. Tasmania, Australia. 9 January 1892. p. 32. Retrieved 17 March 2019 – via National Library of Australia.
- "OBITUARY". Daily Telegraph. Vol. XLI, no. 30. Tasmania, Australia. 4 February 1921. p. 6. Retrieved 17 March 2019 – via National Library of Australia.
- "Advertising". Launceston Examiner. Vol. XL, no. 290. Tasmania, Australia. 29 November 1880. p. 4. Retrieved 17 March 2019 – via National Library of Australia.
- "FOR THE MAN ON THE LAND NG H1 RYE GRASS IN PASTURES AT EVANDALE". The Examiner (Tasmania). Vol. CXI, no. 153. Tasmania, Australia. 6 September 1952. p. 11. Retrieved 17 March 2019 – via National Library of Australia.
- http://www.slv.vic.gov.au/pictoria/gid/slv-pic-aab33988

but these are all I could find and I think not strong enough to save the article, even though they do directly support some of the current article content. Aoziwe (talk) 12:28, 17 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Architecture-related deletion discussions. Necrothesp (talk) 13:38, 20 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Nice research! NB Some of these seem to be near Perth, so are a different place of the same name. That would include the picture that's last on your list, unfortunately -- otherwise it would have been a nice image to include. Alarichall (talk) 21:30, 20 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, ignore that! It was me who was getting confused about which Perth the sources were talking about! Alarichall (talk) 21:50, 20 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

YES there is MORE than one Perth in AU. Aoziwe (talk) 01:54, 21 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Surely this article straightforwardly meets WP:GEOLAND: 'Populated, legally recognized places are typically presumed to be notable, even if their population is very low. Even abandoned places can be notable, because notability encompasses their entire history'? There's a bit of information in Rebe Taylor, '- The wedge collection and the conundrum of humane colonisation.pdf The Wedge Collection and the Conundrum of Humane Colonisation', Meanjin (Summer 2017), 34-55 that will allow me to provide a few references too. Alarichall (talk) 21:26, 20 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Alarichall I am not at all sure that GEOLAND is applicable. The subject is not a locality, it is an individual, not extensive property. If you have more references than the ones I found and you can enhance the article, I am open to changing my !vote. (I got a 404 error on your link above.) Aoziwe (talk) 01:54, 21 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the reply, Aoziwe! I'm not sure I follow your reasoning. Going back to the WP:GEOLAND criteria: is Leighlands a legally recognised place? Yes. It is clearly a place, and it was legally constituted as a 1500-acre estate. Was it populated? Yes. So it meets the criterion. GEOLAND works rather differently from the general notability criteria, which are what you seem to be thinking of in suggesting that more references are required (though I have added some more references). Alarichall (talk) 16:26, 21 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

But by that logic would every quarter acre block in every suburb with a lived in house be notable? Aoziwe (talk) 07:52, 22 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hmm, good point. Well, while recognising that this article is never going to be a major contribution to world geography, I'd suggest that we might interpret GEOLAND differently in rural contexts and urban ones. In urban space, small properties together constitute a 'place', whereas in rural space, estates constitute a 'place'. But I wouldn't want to get into a big argument about this! At the end of the day, I just imagine that there will be people out there who want to look up this historically interesting spot; I don't see it as doing anyone any harm; and it does get a passing mention in a few scholarly sources. (By the way -- you may know how to interpret this: this article, p. 72, gives what seem to be co-ordinates for Leighlands, as EP 17006451. But I'm not sure how to interpret this. Just thought I'd ask in case it enables CaptainRaju to sort out his geoco-ordinates issue in the event of keeping the article.) Alarichall (talk) 12:34, 22 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

No biggy for me either. I just think you need something other than GEOLAND to rely solidly on. Cheers. Aoziwe (talk) 12:45, 22 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

Keep: Interesting discussion but I think we should keep this article. - Ret.Prof (talk) 15:07, 31 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 05:57, 1 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Privately owned estate does not have notability. Reywas92^Talk 18:24, 1 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Merge and redirect to John Helder Wedge. It's an old estate, sure, but besides that, there does not seem to be anything notable, or even interesting, to say about it. SpinningSpark 12:54, 2 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

What is the relationship between the two? Aoziwe (talk) 11:24, 3 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

He is the person the estate was originally granted to. SpinningSpark 11:58, 3 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. Yep I did know that but did not recall it. I should have rechecked the article! Changing my !vote to merge and redirect. Aoziwe (talk) 13:22, 3 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Eeesh, if we take GEOLAND to its absurd limit, the small house I own is a "legally recognized place" -- it's in the county Registry of Deeds. I find no notability for this place. Nha Trang ^Allons! 00:32, 3 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to John Helder Wedge, the original owner and developer of Leighland.E.M.Gregory (talk) 11:58, 3 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Sandstein 10:24, 8 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

World Kindness Movement

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

This appears entirely promotional, with the wording of a web page or annual report. If they are actually notable , it would need to be started over. DGG ( talk ) 05:18, 1 April 2019 (UTC) DGG ( talk ) 05:18, 1 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. CASSIOPEIA^(talk) 06:26, 1 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Nigeria-related deletion discussions. CASSIOPEIA^(talk) 06:26, 1 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of South Africa-related deletion discussions. CASSIOPEIA^(talk) 06:26, 1 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of China-related deletion discussions. CASSIOPEIA^(talk) 06:26, 1 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. CASSIOPEIA^(talk) 06:26, 1 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Japan-related deletion discussions. CASSIOPEIA^(talk) 06:26, 1 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Malaysia-related deletion discussions. CASSIOPEIA^(talk) 06:26, 1 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. CASSIOPEIA^(talk) 06:26, 1 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of South Korea-related deletion discussions. CASSIOPEIA^(talk) 06:26, 1 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Thailand-related deletion discussions. CASSIOPEIA^(talk) 06:26, 1 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United Arab Emirates-related deletion discussions. CASSIOPEIA^(talk) 06:26, 1 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of France-related deletion discussions. CASSIOPEIA^(talk) 06:26, 1 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Italy-related deletion discussions. CASSIOPEIA^(talk) 06:26, 1 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Netherlands-related deletion discussions. CASSIOPEIA^(talk) 06:26, 1 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Romania-related deletion discussions. CASSIOPEIA^(talk) 06:26, 1 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Switzerland-related deletion discussions. CASSIOPEIA^(talk) 06:26, 1 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Ukraine-related deletion discussions. CASSIOPEIA^(talk) 06:26, 1 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. CASSIOPEIA^(talk) 06:26, 1 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Scotland-related deletion discussions. CASSIOPEIA^(talk) 06:26, 1 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. CASSIOPEIA^(talk) 06:26, 1 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of New Zealand-related deletion discussions. CASSIOPEIA^(talk) 06:26, 1 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. CASSIOPEIA^(talk) 06:26, 1 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Brazil-related deletion discussions. CASSIOPEIA^(talk) 06:26, 1 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Mexico-related deletion discussions. CASSIOPEIA^(talk) 06:26, 1 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. CASSIOPEIA^(talk) 06:26, 1 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Cannot seem to find significant independent reliable secondary sources meaning this company fails WP:ORGCRIT. Meszzy² (talk) 06:28, 1 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I agree the page is not written as an encyclopaedia entry. However, they seem to have 20 years of media reports about them, what am I missing? (Dushan Jugum (talk) 09:20, 1 April 2019 (UTC)).[reply]

The reports that exist seem to be about World Kindness Day, not about the organization World Kindness Movement which created the day. The organization appears to only have trivial references in the reports. Meszzy² (talk) 09:54, 1 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks I see your point. Deleting something to then rewrite it, seems like one too many steps. I will not "vote" either way at this point. (Dushan Jugum (talk) 23:00, 2 April 2019 (UTC)).[reply]

Delete and rewrite There is sufficient WP:NEXIST to support WP:GNG and simple WP:ORG, bit I totally agree with NOM, WP:TNT. Aoziwe (talk) 11:44, 1 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Fails WP:ORG, but rewriting the and improving the reliable sourced that claim enough notability that could be saved from deletion. Sheldybett (talk) 00:15, 5 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Malcolmxl5 (talk) 01:24, 8 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Mrgrama

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

The subject of this article fails WP:GNG and WP:MUSICBIO. A Google search of him doesn't show him being discussed in reliable sources. Versace1608 ^{Wanna Talk?} 00:42, 25 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Versace1608 ^{Wanna Talk?} 00:44, 25 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Versace1608 ^{Wanna Talk?} 00:44, 25 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Nigeria-related deletion discussions. Versace1608 ^{Wanna Talk?} 00:44, 25 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MarginalCost (talk) 01:04, 1 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete The author of the source provided at Boluafrica is from a unreliable/not reputable site here which the sites content is written by the web host. The second source is a promotional download. A WP:BEFORE found no RS and IS. Fails GNG and NMUSIC. CASSIOPEIA^(talk) 06:40, 1 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete a non-notable musician.John Pack Lambert (talk) 17:54, 4 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. TheSandDoctor ^Talk 06:14, 8 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

List of character-based film series

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

I set this decade-and-a-half-old list for deletion for the following reasons:

1. It appears to be trivia for films named after their characters. We may as well create more lists such as "List of platform video game characters who cannot jump" or "List of Pixar box office bombs" (when in fact there is only one).

2. It does not make much sense either. If I were a casual reader browsing encyclopedias like this, I would expect to find some meaningful content, from United States and American Civil War to List of Star Wars characters and Disney. As I pointed out earlier, this list seems to be trivial and only serves to tell us, "Hey! This film is named after one of its characters."

I apologize for what may seem like a slap in the face to @Jengod: and other, if any, closely interested editors. They probably will admit 15 years after the page's creation that it is not compatible on Wikipedia. If there are any reasons to keep the article, let me know. ~~Gamingforfun~~³⁶⁵ 00:07, 1 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

Delete. This is WP:LISTCRUFT. Character-based film series seems like a trivia term, not even covered in detail anywhere else. Ajf773 (talk) 01:42, 1 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:INDISCRIMINATE. MarnetteD|Talk 02:09, 1 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above. The article probably would have worked had it been referenced or actually went into detail as to how each entry was "character-based", but not in this current state. Narutolovehinata5 ^tccsdnew 03:44, 1 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Oh dear, this defines inclusion quite poorly, per nom. How many film series aren't based around main characters? That sounds like the narrower list. Reywas92^Talk 08:13, 1 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I agree with Reywas92, this list is quite arbitrary, regarding lists, this is quite the exemplary useless list, without a good reason to be Garlicolive (talk) 02:59, 3 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

April Fools' Day nominations

This page contains material that is kept because it is considered humorous.
Such material is not meant to be taken seriously.