Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2019 April 14

Recent AfDs: Today Yesterday

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

< 13 April	15 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 merge to Anna Nicole Smith. As noted in the discussion, this could have been done without needed to go to WP:DRV, but since we're here, the merge proposal is now stamped with the official DRV seal of approval. -- RoySmith (talk) 15:36, 22 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Lyndal Harrington

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

Fails WP:BLP1E and WP:CRIME and there is a GNG tag. A proposal to merge this article into Anna Nicole Smith has stalled for months. FoxyGrampa75 (talk) 22:48, 14 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Crime-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 22:58, 14 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Texas-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 22:59, 14 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 23:02, 14 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - Per WP:ATD and WP:BOLD, why nominate this if it can be merged/redirected? Thsmi002 (talk) 23:33, 14 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Because the merge request has gone stale for five months - that's almost half a year. So IMO I think this should be quick enough. FoxyGrampa75 (talk) 00:12, 15 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
The merge request has gone stale because nobody has yet done anything about it. You are just as responsible for that as anyone else. As Thsmi002 asked, why not merge it yourself instead of nominating for deletion? Phil Bridger (talk) 08:19, 15 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Comment The proposed merger had two supporting !votes and none opposed, so there seems no reason for it not to go ahead. Why not just do it? RebeccaGreen (talk) 08:31, 15 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Journalism-related deletion discussions. Icewhiz (talk) 11:10, 17 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to Anna Nicole Smith (and concur with above that if no one was actually opposed - you could've just done it - no need for an AfD). In my BEFOREing while I see some continuing mentions of the 2009 issue - e.g. [1], Muñoz, Ricardo. "Not a ‘Monkey Business’." The Translator 18.2 (2012): 363-371., Rife, Martine Courant. "Cross-Cultural Collisions in Cyberspace: case studies of international legal issues for educators working in globally networked learning environments." E-Learning and Digital Media 7.2 (2010): 147-159. - they seem to be fairly brief mentions of the event itself. Note that this is more of a first amendment case than crime - yes - she was jailed for contempt of court (for not handing over her computer) - but the issue here was related to her blogging. Icewhiz (talk) 11:14, 17 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) 00:08, 22 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Crown Racing

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

Organization fails WP:MOTORSPORTS and WP:GNG. Possible WP:COI. GregJackP Boomer! 22:15, 14 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Illinois-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 22:23, 14 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 22:23, 14 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Sourcing is WP:PRIMARY and/or non-WP:RS. Subject does not pass notability criteria under WP:GNG. — Nearly Headless Nick {c} 23:04, 14 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was soft delete. WP:REFUND applies. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 00:05, 22 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Jeff Loughead

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

Fails WP:MOTORSPORTS and WP:GNG. Possible WP:COI. GregJackP Boomer! 22:10, 14 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 22:26, 14 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 22:26, 14 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was soft delete. WP:REFUND applies. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 00:06, 22 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Graham Loughead

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

Fails WP:NMOTORSPORTS and WP:GNG. Likely WP:AUTOBIO and WP:COI. GregJackP Boomer! 22:05, 14 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Illinois-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 22:27, 14 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 22:27, 14 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. — JJMC89 (T·C) 00:07, 22 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Daishawn Redan

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

Junior player. Fails WP:NFOOTY _pseudonym Jake Brockman ^talk 21:53, 14 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. _pseudonym Jake Brockman ^talk 21:54, 14 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. _pseudonym Jake Brockman ^talk 21:54, 14 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Netherlands-related deletion discussions. _pseudonym Jake Brockman ^talk 21:54, 14 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. _pseudonym Jake Brockman ^talk 21:54, 14 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions.CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 22:32, 14 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - fails WP:GNG and WP:NFOOTBALL. Giant Snowman 09:46, 15 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete a non-notable footballer.John Pack Lambert (talk) 02:05, 20 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Draftify – Not-quite-notable yet, but higher-than-average coverage suggests he might become notable. 90min, Leicester Mercury, Metro, football.london, Goal.com, The Sun. Each of these are either a bit routine, not significant in length, local, or not-very-reliable... it's just on the cusp of GNG in my opinion, but not quite. Leviv ich 03:20, 21 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. Randykitty (talk) 16:04, 22 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Thongvan Fanmuong

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

There are no reliable sources for this article that establish notability under WP:BIO and WP:GNG — Nearly Headless Nick {c} 21:16, 14 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 21:31, 14 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Cambodia-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 21:32, 14 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

You're not looking very hard: the spellings "Thong Van Thanmuong", "Thong Van Phan Moeung" etc bring up plenty of citations. Svejk74 (talk) 14:04, 15 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Svejk74, the search yield on both spellings is low – "Thong Van Thanmuong" (1 result) and "Thong Van Phan Moeung" (5 results), none of which fall under WP:RS. I have tried other combinations too. — Nearly Headless Nick {c} 14:45, 15 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. While I am not enthusiastic about the sources available, including the one I just cited in the article, it must be pointed out that the article is about one of the leaders in the losing side of a genocidal war, which targeted libraries and destroyed the written word. Outside their country, how likely is it that the "reliable sources" exist? The small detail I added to me speaks of notability, even as an article about one of the U.S. joint chiefs of staff would be notable.Jacqke (talk) 02:23, 16 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. As a general clearly meets the criteria of WP:SOLDIER. As a member of the supreme committee, probably also meets WP:POLITICIAN. -- Necrothesp (talk) 10:16, 16 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. Necrothesp (talk) 10:19, 16 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

As I have noted in Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Sau Sovanney, WP:SOLDIER is an "essay" which suggests that the fulfillment of one of its criteria leads to presumption of notability in favour of an individual, however that does not trump the requirements under WP:BIO and WP:GNG. — Nearly Headless Nick {c} 14:08, 16 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

It is an essay that is generally held to be a notability standard for military bios and has almost always been held to be such at AfD. And note that WP:POLITICIAN is not an essay. For this general, given his status, my opinion stands. -- Necrothesp (talk) 14:27, 16 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks again, for your response. I have not been able to determine the exact nature of the "supreme committee" referred in the biographical article. It appears to have been a body constituted to take charge of negotiations for surrender with the Khmer Rouge as the Khmer Republic came close to a collapse. According to Sak Sutsakhan, who served as the chairman of this committee,^[2] its members included the following individuals: (1) Lt. Gen. Sak Sutsakhan; (2) Maj. Gen. Thong Van Fanmuong; (3) Rear Admiral Vong Sarendy; (4) Brig. General Ea Chhong; (5) Mr. Long Boret, Prime Minister; (6) Mr. Hang Thun Hak, Vice Prime Minister; (7) Mr. Op Kim Ang, Representative of the Republican Party.^[3] If the role of Fanmuong can be shown to be political within this body, then I would withdraw this nomination. — Nearly Headless Nick {c} 15:31, 16 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

If he was senior enough to have been a member of a committee set up to negotiate surrender terms for his country then I would have thought he would be considered notable by anyone's standards. -- Necrothesp (talk) 10:10, 17 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Keep. He was a member of the 6-general supreme committee that held power for a few days after the president fled. He meets WP:SOLDIER's presumed notability and given the multiple variants of his name in English and possible sources in non-English I'm going with the presumed notability here. Verifying he was on the supreme comittee is easy - [4] [5], [6], [7], [8]. Icewhiz (talk) 12:01, 17 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - per Icewhiz - If this committee held power, that would certainly push him past GNG. Perhaps some more research needs to be done to improve the article, but the bare minimum notability requirements are here. Dusti ^{*Let's talk!*} 06:50, 21 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - per strong notability arguments made by Jacqke. Also, passes WP:SOLDIER. -AuthorAuthor (talk) 07:49, 21 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@AuthorAuthor: can you further elaborate on how Jackqe's rationale is so strong? Is it in accordance with policy? — Nearly Headless Nick {c} 04:41, 22 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Thanks very much, Necrothesp and Icewhiz, for your constructive comments on this AFD. I believe that the WP:BIO and WP:GNG requirement of establishing significant coverage in multiple published secondary sources that are reliable, intellectually independent of each other, and independent of the subject has not yet been met. In which case, even if we assume that the additional criteria under WP:POLITICIAN has been achieved, the subject of the biography is at best a "special case". In such cases, WP:BIO recommends that the article in question be merged into a broader article providing context. I believe that would be the most suitable conclusion in case of this article, as the subject can still find a place in a biographical section alongside the other members of the Supreme Committee of the Khmer Republic. — Nearly Headless Nick {c} 05:23, 22 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I would concur that GNG hasn't been established by sources in this AfD - though we do have quite a few short mentions in reputable sources. HOWEVER, in this particular case - a government/military figure active in the 60s-70s (a tricky period, actually, for digitized material - as much of it is still under copyright) with multiple variations on his Latin-form (English/French) name and, one would presume, even more sources in Khmer - I am basing my !vote on the presumption (per SOLDIER and possibly NPOL as well) that additional sources are available just not located in this AfD. Icewhiz (talk) 05:31, 22 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Icewhiz: I think it would be extremely unlikely to be able to find high-quality and reliable sources in the Khmer language regarding this individual. While I am unable to determine the correct spelling for Fanmuong in Khmer script (ផានមើង?), I have tried searching for "Thongvan Khmer Republic" (ថុងវ៉ាន សាធារណរដ្ឋខ្មែរ — [9], [10], [11], [12]) but even that did not yield relevant results. — Nearly Headless Nick {c} 05:47, 22 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Are Khmer publications from the 60s and 70s (as well as later) generally available online (with public access for google)? I know that for other languages (e.g. Hebrew) - this is often not the case (and for English - google often won't cut it for the period - though Proquest and other subscription based newspaper searches often will). I would assume one of the top-ranking generals would have significant periodic press coverage at the very least. Icewhiz (talk) 05:54, 22 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Icewhiz: News records in the Khmer language from that period are unlikely to be available as they were largely destroyed during the Democratic Kampuchea regime. Many published books survived as they were taken out of the country before the Khmer Rouge took over. Some of these books have been archived online. At the same time, due to a sizeable increase in US foreign and military aid to the country, and the increased presence of US advisors during the Khmer Republic period, a proportional increase in interest in the US media may also be assumed for that period, which should increase the likelihood for significant coverage of prominent individuals from during the period. In any case, the absence of general records, even for good reasons, does not create preponderance of evidence in favour of the existence of records on a particular individual. Please also note that I am not advocating for extirpation of records regarding this individual from Wikipedia, but only that their biography may be merged into a broader article (redirect and merge with Supreme Committee of the Khmer Republic once that article is created). In any case, I think this AFD ought to be re-listed so that there is more time to gather evidence and to seek wider community input. In the meantime, I'm trying out other combinations of his name in Khmer script to see if I can get anything ("ថោងវង្ស ផាន់មួង", "ថោងវ៉ាន់ ផាន់មួង", "ថុងវ៉ាន់ ផាន់មឿង"). — Nearly Headless Nick {c} 06:34, 22 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Had such an article existed - perhaps. However, while Wikipedia is not a RS, I do see that ruwiki is claiming that he was (I would assume for a few days - in the collapse after everyone fled) - the supreme commander of Khmer National Armed Forces in command during the last defense of Phnom Penh. In this particular instance - keeping a stub and allowing it to develop might be a better course of action. Icewhiz (talk) 06:43, 22 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The ruwiki article does not reference any reliable sources to establish that he did, in fact, serve as the Supreme Commander of FUNK. Although, again, if this can be shown to be definitively true, it would create a very strong presumption in favour of notability in my view. In any case, thanks very much for your time and for engaging me on this. — Nearly Headless Nick {c} 06:48, 22 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 Health food. Redirect is not strictly the consensus, but it keeps the history around if somebody wants to merge something (see WP:COPYWITHIN for attribution requirements) and I think this is a middle ground that will satisfy everybody here. -- RoySmith (talk) 16:03, 22 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Health food restaurant

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

This single-line entry is essentially a dictionary definition, and the timeline provided is arbitrary, unsourced, and largely irrelevant (ie, why is yeast mentioned?). ZimZalaBim ^talk 21:06, 14 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Food and drink-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 21:33, 14 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Health and fitness-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 22:35, 14 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 22:35, 14 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Merge into health food, which is a broader topic. Andrew D. (talk) 09:57, 15 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete or Merge into the health food article. Geoff | ^{Who, me?} 19:40, 15 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:NOTDICT Graywalls (talk) 15:45, 16 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Merge or Delete. This could be redirected to Health food. As above, WP:NOTDICT. Toby Hynde (talk) 10:15, 18 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. The concerns that the nom brought up (significance of the subject, reliable sources, etc.) have all been discussed and clarified. The article has been updated to include some of these sources and has been improved. It's up to the community to add any of the other sources and information that was brought up during this discussion. (non-admin closure) Dusti ^{*Let's talk!*} 02:30, 21 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Milia Gataullina

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

Russian graphic artist and painter. The significance of the person is unclear. Not enough reliable sources.--Kirill Samredny (talk) 20:23, 14 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2019 April 14. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 20:42, 14 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Russia-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 21:40, 14 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Artists-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 21:40, 14 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 21:41, 14 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

~~Delete~~ I see nothing in Google books, GNews, or a search.ThatMontrealIP (talk) 00:18, 15 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Still a bit skeptical but I will go with the evidence provided below. The book mentioned appears real: here is a translation of the contents. Here are actual pcture of the book too. The publisher seems real too but their address is actually an apartment block in Moscow. But anyway.ThatMontrealIP (talk) 05:34, 18 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. The search should be done in Russian for "Миля Гатауллина" [13], and it finds a number of sources about her. What convinces me is the existence of a whole book written by someone else specifically about the artist [14]. According to the book about her, she received two significant awards ("только за два последние года отмеченной двумя медалями: золотой – Российской Академии художеств, и серебряной – Союза художников России.")My very best wishes (talk) 03:06, 15 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
- Google gives two press releases and news mentions.This book is not authoritative. --Kirill Samredny (talk) 04:04, 15 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  - Why is it not authoritative? Phil Bridger (talk) 09:05, 15 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  - Quite - Worldcat shows it held at Princeton, UCL, Munich. PamD 13:07, 15 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I can't judge how authoritative was the book about the artist published in 2008. But there is a page on ruwiki about the publisher (see ru:Белый город (издательство)), and it looks just fine. So, the book would probably qualify as WP:RS. Regardless, there are multiple significant publications about the person, and she was a recipient of multiple significant awards. My very best wishes (talk) 15:47, 15 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep It appears that the subject meets WP:NARTIST with works in the permanent collections of at least two notable galleries, and she has won significant awards. I am not sure if she is a member of the Russian Academy of Arts - I don't think its website shows that. It does say that she is a member of the Moscow Academy of Artists [15], and that she has been a member of "МСХ" since 2002. Google Translate translates that as the Ministry of Agriculture, which I am sure can't be right - it must be an acronym for more than one organisation. Anyway, she does appear to meet notability guidelines, and there are some sources online which verify the information in the article. No doubt more sources exist offline. (I have added a couple of sources, with titles given as "unknown" - not very satisfactory, but with snippet views the title of the section or article within the journals is not visible.) RebeccaGreen (talk) 09:13, 15 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: subject of a book, works held in major collections, and if my Russian was better I expect that the ghits would be useful. PamD 13:07, 15 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Appears to meet WP:GNG. -- Dane ^talk 04:20, 18 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Randykitty (talk) 16:08, 22 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Sau Sovanney

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

Fluff piece on a non-notable individual. The subject of the biography does not pass the muster at WP:BIO and WP:GNG. The sources used on the article are from sites that cannot be considered as reliable sources due to the quality of reporting or their lack of independence from the subject of the article and the government. Most of the articles referenced are written in the form of press releases, sourced from Cambodian government departments and agencies. Much of the content is original research. — Nearly Headless Nick {c} 20:06, 14 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 20:09, 14 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Cambodia-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 20:10, 14 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 20:10, 14 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep. I would like to see better sources. Also, since this is a modern general, how important is he within that country's military? If he is one of a mass of generals who haven't found distinction, then my keep becomes delete. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jacqke (talk • contribs) 02:35, 16 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

That's irrelevant. We have long since decided that all generals are notable. -- Necrothesp (talk) 10:27, 16 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

~~Keep~~. As a general, clearly meets the criteria of WP:SOLDIER. Government sources are considered to be reliable sources to establish the rank and career of a government employee. It is a common misconception that they are not. The quality of the article is irrelevant to the notability of the subject. -- Necrothesp (talk) 10:21, 16 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks very much for expressing your opinion on the subject, Necrosthesp. I would like to propose that you reconsider your !vote based on the following facts: (1) Cambodia has one of the most bloated and top-heavy militaries in the world. For a relatively small country of 16m+ population, the armed forces have over 2,000 generals; see also, report in the Phnom Penh Post — [16]. Phnom Penh Post notes in the same article: “This is common,” said one staffer, who has spent almost a decade within the ministry. “A general of two stars may take off his stars and become a lieutenant colonel so they can negotiate with their counterpart.” Put simply, he said, there are two contexts: Cambodia and the world. Another article in Post quotes an unnamed diplomat — [17]: However, a member of the diplomatic community with in-depth knowledge of Cambodia’s armed forces yesterday dismissed the idea that those promoted had met any stringent requirements. “The ranks are meaningless,” they said. “In most cases, they are promoted to the next rank without any increase in responsibility or function . . . it’s become almost an expectation that you should be promoted as a reward for loyalty.” See also more articles discussing this issue — [18], [19], [20]; (2) With regard to criteria #2 on WP:SOLDIER, i.e. Held a rank considered to be a flag, general or air officer, or their historical equivalents — it appears to me, going by the definition provided in General officer, that the reference contained in the "essay" is to generals that are "four star" rank and above. The subject's rank, on the other hand, is that of a "three-star" Lieutenant General, therefore the subject does not meet the criteria listed under WP:SOLDIER; (3) Furthermore, WP:SOLDIER notes: Likewise, those who are only mentioned in passing in reliable secondary sources should not be considered notable for the purposes of a stand-alone article, although, depending upon the circumstances, they may warrant mention within an existing article or list. In determining this, the breadth of coverage should be considered. If, for instance, there is enough information in reliable sources to include details about a person's birth, personal life, education and military career, then they most likely warrant a stand-alone article. — and accordingly, it is evident from the available sources that there is no significant coverage received by this individual, as they are largely included as a participant in some government-related ceremony or ritual, or having being quoted on a matter relavant to such ritual. This, coupled with the fact that the sources themselves cannot be considered reliable in any meaningful sense (these are not government websites, but nominally private media outlets with strong links to ruling party politicians and senior government officials), given their notorious lack of independence and the generally low quality of reporting, the conditions set in WP:SOLDIER are decidedly not met; and (4) most importantly, WP:SOLDIER is neither official policy nor guideline for establishing notability on Wikipedia (it is merely an "essay"), in that it only states conditions under which notability may be presumed in case of certain individuals, however that is simply general guidance that cannot purport to supersede conditions provided under WP:BIO and WP:GNG. — Nearly Headless Nick {c} 13:37, 16 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Generally one-star generals (or even brigadiers when they aren't (force dependent) considered generals) are considered notable per WP:SOLDIER - however the assertion in The Phnom Penh Post is quite convincing.Icewhiz (talk) 13:45, 16 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Quite. I have absolutely no idea where you get the idea that WP:SOLDIER only applies to four-star generals! It may only be an essay, but it is generally taken as the standard for military bios on Wikipedia. However, given what you say about the ludicrous number of generals in Cambodia, I'm going to change my opinion to neutral. -- Necrothesp (talk) 14:20, 16 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Per The Phnom Penh Post there are more than 2,000 generals in 125,000 strong Royal Cambodian Armed Forces. That's one general per 62 active duty soldiers (or one per 162 soldiers if we include the reserves). Thus a general in the RCAF is equivalent to a company commander (Captain - OF-2) in most other forces. I have no idea how we extrapolate a 3-star RCAF general (+2 from OF-2 to OF-4? lt. Col) - but it still seems out of SOLDIER(2)'s intended reach). In my WP:BEFOREing for this individual I was barely able to confirm the rank. They do not seem to pass WP:GNG, and regardless of the particularities of SOLDIER (which seem inapplicable given RCAF's general inflation) - SOLDIER is only a presumption of GNG. Icewhiz (talk) 13:51, 16 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Non-notable, Per Icewhiz (talk)-MA Javadi (talk) 17:27, 20 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) 00:03, 22 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Satpal Yadav (Chairman)

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

Fails WP:NPOL, hasn't held an actual elected position afaict and has no coverage. Praxidicae (talk) 20:01, 14 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 20:12, 14 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 20:12, 14 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. NN and clearly fails the GNG. gidonb (talk) 02:33, 16 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

He is people's representative & everyone should be given a proper info about his political career that's why I created this. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kumarsambhrd (talk • contribs) 16:25, 15 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia is only for notable personalities? Now technology is so advanced & because of that we have a chance to update our constituency people our achievements. Page will get timely updated as we progress — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kumarsambhrd (talk • contribs) 16:44, 16 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Please read my answer below from 09:27, 21 April 2019 (UTC). gidonb (talk) 17:17, 21 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Fails WP:NPOL. Given the statements above by the article's author there may also be a WP:COI or at least WP:PROMO issue here as well. Best, GPL93 (talk) 23:05, 17 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I have provided references also regarding the stuff which I posted

If you don't find anything authentic then please tell — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kumarsambhrd (talk • contribs) 05:28, 19 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Kumarsambhrd given your previous statements I'm going to ask you if you have any connection to Satpal Yadav per WP:COI. Best, GPL93 (talk) 18:48, 19 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Yes he is my uncle — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kumarsambhrd (talk • contribs) 01:29, 20 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Also please add Chairman after Satpal Yadav as it was there in original page created by me. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kumarsambhrd (talk • contribs) 02:51, 20 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Kumarsambhrd, "(Chairman)" after name is against policy. Your article will soon be removed as it conflicts with our policies altogether. gidonb (talk) 04:54, 20 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

He is my uncle I know him — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kumarsambhrd (talk • contribs) 06:28, 20 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Kumarsambhrd, That actually hurts your case here. Per WP:COI, editors should generally refrain from contributing to and almost never create an article on someone that they have a personal connection to. Best, GPL93 (talk) 15:37, 20 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Kumarsambhrd, your uncle is undoubtedly important to you but his career is not important enough to have an article on Wikipedia. Maybe use your WP experience to contribute to other articles? gidonb (talk) 23:27, 20 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed I have a personal connection to him but he is a politician & I have created his article for the constituency people to know about him. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kumarsambhrd (talk • contribs) 05:49, 21 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Kumarsambhrd, it is not how Wikipedia works. We only keep articles on individuals who were/are important in their field, not as a method of introduction. This should also answer your previous question. gidonb (talk) 09:27, 21 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - does not meet the requirements of WP:GNG --RaviC (talk) 11:01, 21 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) 00:02, 22 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Ramon Stoppelenburg

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

Subject of the biography fails WP:BIO and WP:GNG. The requirement is that there must be multiple published secondary sources that are reliable, intellectually independent of each other and intellectually independent of the subject. The second source, i.e. the article published in Phnom Penh Post – [21] – is a direct interview and cannot be deemed to be independent of the subject. — Nearly Headless Nick {c} 19:38, 14 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Netherlands-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 20:05, 14 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Cambodia-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 20:07, 14 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 20:07, 14 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Unless better sources can be found. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jacqke (talk • contribs) 02:33, 16 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was soft delete. WP:REFUND applies. — JJMC89 (T·C) 00:00, 22 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

In Vichet

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

This article is about a founder of a startup whose notability cannot be established independent of the startup (see WP:INHERITED). The coverage in the sources referenced in the article is primarily for the startup, therefore there is no WP:SIGCOV for the subject as is required under WP:BIO and WP:GNG. Sources such as techniasia.com and Eurocham and Nieman lab may not be as WP:RS. See also, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Vichea In. — Nearly Headless Nick {c} 19:32, 14 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 20:16, 14 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Cambodia-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 20:16, 14 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Michigan-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 20:17, 14 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. — JJMC89 (T·C) 23:59, 21 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Vungarala V Subrahmanyam

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

Per the previous AFD, there's been no changes that would indicate this person is notable. Praxidicae (talk) 18:36, 14 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 18:43, 14 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 18:43, 14 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I closed the first Afd as soft delete and restored it per this request on my talk page. I will not participate in or take action on this Afd. Xymmax ^{So let it be written} _{So let it be done} 05:29, 15 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete a non-notable businessman.John Pack Lambert (talk) 02:42, 20 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) 23:58, 21 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Sammy & Sue Go Green Too!

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

Non-notable book. Reviews are insufficient to meet WP:NBOOK and being selected by an organization for a reading program doesn't meet that criteria. Ineligible for PROD as it was PROD'd in 2009 and de-PROD'd by article creator. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 18:19, 14 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 18:33, 14 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 18:33, 14 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Environment-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 18:33, 14 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 18:35, 14 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete The correct thing to do would be to redirect to Suzanne Corso. But that article doesn't exist, even though Corso has written multiple books based on her own colorful life history (Brooklyn Story, Suite Life) that have been reviewed in e.g. The New York Times and apparently are being adapted for film. In other words, this article documents one of the least notable things she has done. In guideline terms: this article's subject does not meet WP:NBOOK. Bakazaka (talk) 19:09, 14 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: I'd be cautious of the film adaptation claims. I took a look for coverage and for the claims of having written screenplays, producing, and writing, there's really not much out there about her. Most of what I've seen about her have been tabloid type material that discuss her marriage and later divorce to a wealthy man who lost it all on Wall Street in 2008. (NY Post that was reprinted in News.com.au, Daily Mail) She has had some reviews from Publishers Weekly for her books ([22], [23]), but Publishers Weekly isn't a strong source to base an article on. Technically they're reliable sources but they're still fairly weak sourcing. There are some Kirkus reviews, but that site is pretty much considered to be reliable by many on Wikipedia. She's had a few interviews with Downtown Magazine NYC and Time Out, but interviews are seen as primary sources by many on Wikipedia. It's not something that I always agree with, but it's common enough that it wouldn't be really something to rely on either. I did find a short review in the NYT and a piece in Glamour, though.

Looking into the producer and screenplay claims brought up very little. Her IMDb page is empty, which is surprising since most usually list something, especially if the video claims are notable, suggesting that her work has either been minor or non-notable. This lists her credits and the only claim of note is that she worked on the TV show Empire - but a search for her name and the show title doesn't bring up anything of note.

So ultimately the only good sourcing I could find were two PW reviews, a short NYT review, and an article in Glamour. I hate to be skeptical, but this all just seems like she or a marketing person have puffed her up to the press, with minimal success. I don't know that she'd really justify an article unless there's more out there - I didn't do as thorough a search as I'd otherwise have done, to be honest. ReaderofthePack(formerly Tokyogirl79) (｡◕‿◕｡) 21:50, 14 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Nothing about this AfD hinges on whether the adaptation gets made. But for the record, the public-facing IMDb page shows her as "known for" being the producer of "Brooklyn Story", which is "in development" so only IMDbPro members can see the details. The film adaptation is also mentioned in the USA Today piece on her, and one PW blurb mentions that Penny Marshall bought the rights. That said, I don't think either of us is going to write the Suzanne Corso article, so what are your thoughts on this particular AfD? Bakazaka (talk) 23:06, 14 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Clearly intended as promotion rather than adding anything encyclopaedic here. SpinningSpark 00:48, 15 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, does not meet WP:GNG or WP:NBOOK, low library holdings does not bode well, no reviews found on this title (reviews mentioned above are for other books). Coolabahapple (talk) 08:20, 17 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above. Aoba47 (talk) 12:53, 17 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) 17:16, 21 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Blumenbecker

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

Relies entirely on self-published sources. Source searches in English and German suggest little that would go towards passing WP:CORPDEPTH. SITH (talk) 12:32, 31 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Icewhiz (talk) 12:50, 31 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Germany-related deletion discussions. Icewhiz (talk) 12:50, 31 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Ineligible for WP:SOFTDELETE.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Vanamonde (Talk) 17:53, 7 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 18:02, 14 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete There is no significant independent coverage of this company. Even the German sources are basic listing in the German federal register. Papaursa (talk) 23:49, 17 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as per nomination, no RS. QueerEcofeminist^{"cite! even if you fight"!!!} [they/them/their] 18:29, 19 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. Randykitty (talk) 16:09, 22 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Katie Kittermaster

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

Not yet notable per WP:MUSICBIO. Performed on BBC "Kent sessions" on county local radio station once, hence the very short bio on the BBC website. No other significant coverage online in WP:RS, just passing mentions that she appeared at an event with notable musicians in attendance. Flapjacktastic (talk) 15:24, 31 March 2019 (UTC)Struck confirmed, blocked sockpuppet, Atlantic306 (talk) 21:40, 12 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Flapjacktastic (talk) 15:25, 31 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. Flapjacktastic (talk) 15:25, 31 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. Ceethekreator (talk) 15:38, 31 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 13:20, 1 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I couldn't find much coverage in independent reliable sources that can establish notability per the WP:GNG. This young musician also doesn't appear to satisfy any of the criteria at WP:MUSICBIO. It is perhaps too soon Zingarese talk · contribs 17:09, 7 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: OP has been indeffed as an LTA; more independent scrutiny is necessary.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Vanamonde (Talk) 17:52, 7 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep has had multiple features on the BBC and has won a significant national songwriting competition so deserves to be included in the encyclopedia Atlantic306 (talk) 21:40, 12 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 18:02, 14 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was soft delete. WP:REFUND applies. — JJMC89 (T·C) 17:16, 21 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Carla Cappalli

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

Not seeing significant coverage in reliable sources of this animal rights activist. Tacyarg (talk) 17:21, 7 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Puerto Rico-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 17:35, 7 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 17:35, 7 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Animal-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 17:36, 7 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 18:02, 14 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. There's no debate that the crime committed by Susan Wright (murderer) is notable; the question is whether the film about the crime is independently notable. About that, there's no consensus. -- RoySmith (talk) 15:59, 22 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Blue Eyed Butcher

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

Put simply: the true crime was notable... this movie is not. No wonder you can’t find sources for it. Trillfendi (talk) 16:03, 7 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 17:07, 7 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 17:07, 7 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Crime-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 17:08, 7 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 17:08, 7 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep as sources have been found and added to the article so there is evidence that the article passes WP:GNG as most nationally broadcast series and films do, so it should be included in the encyclopedia IMV Atlantic306 (talk) 23:06, 8 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

*WP:HEY Keep per film reviews added by User:Bakazaka.E.M.Gregory (talk) 10:30, 9 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

let’s see, NFILM requires reviews from nationally known film critics; I’m sure a tabloid doesn’t fit the bill. Just because a film exists doesn’t make it notable. If anything, the one sentence about it in Susan Wright’s article about it is enough. Trillfendi (talk) 12:08, 9 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Just to clarify: you're referring to culture critic David Hinckley, whose NYDN reviews have been republished in the Los Angeles Times for years, and whose firing from NYDN after 35 years of television/film reviews was covered in national media? That David Hinckley? Bakazaka (talk) 00:18, 10 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to Susan Wright (murderer). The cited sources support the notability of the subject, but WP:NOPAGE suggests that it's more beneficial to readers to take the content and sources from a likely permastub and place them in broader context in a larger article. In this case that's the article about the convicted murderer. Was AfD necessary for this operation? No, but when all you have is a hammer, etc. Bakazaka (talk) 00:28, 10 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. The notable cast is enough for it to slide over the notability bar. -- Necrothesp (talk) 12:35, 10 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 18:01, 14 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Keep - based on reviews in - chron, ~~houstonpress~~houstonpress, NY Daily News, and Culturemap Houson. Note that the title is the press nickname of the killer. Suspect there may be more - hard to locate with all the movie crud and overabundance of hits (from DVD sales, movie review replication sites, etc.) - it seems it was rather poorly received. Icewhiz (talk) 11:34, 17 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Your second link is some sports story, the fourth link isn't a review but rather a clickbait blog post based on the trailer, and the other two are already cited in the article (I know, because I put those citations there). That said, I actually think the film is notable based on the sources already cited, but since the plot of the TV movie is the same as the story of the crime, then there's no added value in a separate article on the TV movie. It's good for a well-sourced paragraph in the article on Susan Wright, though. In other words, precisely the situation that WP:NOPAGE is intended to address. Bakazaka (talk) 21:03, 17 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Fixed the second link - must have mis-clicked or scrolled down. A merge is a possible outcome here, I'm still weakly leaning towards keep here - I suspect there are more sources on the TV movie, and based on what I see this just barely scrapes over.Icewhiz (talk) 07:01, 18 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. -- RoySmith (talk) 15:38, 22 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

TCOLondon

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

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

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

No indication of meeting notability guidelines. The references given are either primary or are not WP:significant coverage. There appears to be only WP:ROUTINE coverage. Google searches do not find anything significant about the company. noq (talk) 10:46, 31 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of News media-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 11:20, 31 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 11:20, 31 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 11:20, 31 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep (as creator). The company is the parent for both Huck and Little White Lies and there is significant coverage for each of those (in addition to the start of the coverage I've added to the main article - Note I added alternate spellings for the company in the "find sources" template) and all three entities are used as references throughout the project. If there is not enough support to keep, I'd argue for a redirect to either Huck or Little White Lies. - Paul^T+/_C 14:57, 31 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Despite the number of references given, there are none that are WP:significant coverage about the company - most of them are single sentence mentions of the organisation in passing. Those that are not seem to be either by the company (either directly or via press releases) or interviews with people that are or have been employed by it and discussing the people not the company. Some do not even mention the company at all. noq (talk) 11:27, 1 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
In addition to my comments below, since the initial AfD I added a number of notable awards/nominations the company has received, namely Art Directors Club Merit winner in illustration (2013), Amnesty International Media Awards Special Commendation (2012), D&AD Awards Yellow Pencil nomination Illustration/Magazine & Newspaper design (2010), and Magazine Design and Journalism Awards Nominated Best Designed Magazine (2008) - Paul^T+/_C 04:58, 15 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 09:53, 7 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 17:59, 14 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as unambiguous WP:PROMO. The article is an extension of the company's promotional efforts. The WP:REFBOMB approach, citing passing mentions and even sources that do not mention the company at all, just illustrates how little actual coverage there is of this company. For those who prefer guidelines to policy, the company fails WP:CORPDEPTH. Bakazaka (talk) 18:41, 14 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
WP:CORPDEPTH explicitly mentions "ongoing media coverage focusing on a product" as "[an example] of substantial coverage that would generally be sufficient to meet the requirement". Per that point, there was coverage of the book (product) TCOLondon created for Microsoft (and Nokia) by The Verge, CNET, and Telecom Tech News. These are not PR pieces (or at least I don't think they were). There was also coverage of the product they created for Google at Mashable (via CNN) and The Guardian; Facebook at TimeOut and MixMag.net; and Nike, Inc. at Fast Company and The-CMA.com. There are other examples in the article, but to say that this is entirely promotional is not a fair assessment of the page. I have no affiliation with the company what-so-ever. - Paul^T+/_C 04:28, 15 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Also, the above is all in addition to the coverage (and awards) that their products Huck and Little White Lies both have. - Paul^T+/_C 04:30, 15 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
"Ongoing" is not met with any of the coverage you've cited, so it's still a failure of WP:CORPDEPTH. Additionally, the CNET "coverage" is mostly a reprint of The Verge article, which itself is admittedly based almost entirely on information provided by the company. The Telecom Tech News piece has a passing mention of the company and two sentences on the book. The others are brief mentions of products that the company has produced. The Time Out source and Fast Company sources don't even mention the subject of this article, and the The CMA source only mentions the company in passing as the parent of Huck in its two short paragraphs. The company verifiably exists, and it has done work, but it doesn't meet WP:CORPDEPTH. Given that the coverage is almost entirely routine and/or based on company-provided information, it is WP:PROMO because it is an extension of the company's PR efforts. Whether or not you intended it that way, it's still a regurgitation of the company's story about itself. Bakazaka (talk) 04:45, 15 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Their work is mentioned plenty often enough to count as "ongoing". Each project mentioned does get coverage (and there are more examples in the article). The Time Out (documentary for Facebook) and Fast Company(Nike's ad campaign) sources directly cover their work even if the company itself isn't explicitly mentioned. - Paul^T+/_C 05:09, 15 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
The reason that WP:CORPDEPTH requires ongoing coverage of a product is because companies often place PR stories at product release time, so ongoing coverage of a product demonstrates continued interest beyond the initial PR burst. These sources show individual PR bursts for a few specific products. So, again, fails WP:NCORP. As for claiming that sources that don't even mention the company are significant coverage, well, I sincerely hope that you do not accept that for other articles. Bakazaka (talk) 05:46, 15 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Regarding that last point, clearly I'm missing something. Company "L" makes product "D" for client "F". "L"'s product "D" has coverage mentioning "D" and the client "F", but company "L" is not explicitly mentioned because that would be counterproductive to company "L"'s aims for their product -- they are creating the product for "F" after all, not to promote themselves. In that case you are saying coverage about product "D" doesn't count toward "L"'s notability and that this coverage doesn't count even though there would be no coverage of anything if it weren't for "L" creating "D" in the first place, is that accurate? (Nevermind the additional fact that there is other coverage mentioning "L", "D", and "F" together in other places.) I don't see how coverage of "L"'s product "D" doesn't count toward "L"'s notability since it is clearly indepentently stated that "D" is "L"'s work.
Let me step back and confirm some points of agreement/disagreement between us: The disputed point on notability is primarily about the lack of "significant" coverage (in your view), correct? Do you agree that there is widespread (even if it is not significant in your view) "coverage" from "reliable" "sources" that are "independent from the subject"? I think the breath of coverage from the multiple independent sources covers these other 4 points of the WP:GNG at least: The Guardian[24][25][26], The Drum[27][28][29][30], Oxford Mail[31], It's Nice That[32], New Internationalist[33], British Journal of Photography[34], Marketing Week[35], Digital Arts of IDG [36], Mashable[37]/CNN [38], The Verge[39]/CNET[40], and others you can see at the article.
Regarding the continued interest bit, I see your point about the coverage being about each product individually and not about the company directly, but the fact that their work is continuously covered should be considered. If there weren't (continued interest in the company's products) then there wouldn't be coverage of the products in the first place, right?
Finally, the fact that they run two notable, award-winning magazines (Huck and Little White Lies) doesn't seem to count for much... that coupled with the fact that you don't agree that the company passes WP:NCORP, what would you think about a redirect to Huck instead of outright deletion (as I mentioned in my initial response to this AfD if there wasn't enough support for keeping the article)? I still maintain that the amount of coverage about the company is enough, but clearly just because I think something doesn't mean that it is so (obviously). - Paul^T+/_C 15:26, 15 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
If you're saying that the company lacks significant coverage, we agree on that point. And that's a reason to delete. I do not see the point of a redirect to articles which are themselves the spam products of (mostly) since-blocked SPAs promoting the company's work, including the none-too-subtly-named TCOLondon. And that's enough time spent on this. Bakazaka (talk) 15:50, 15 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
That is not what I'm saying, I'm simply acknowledging our disagreement. - Paul^T+/_C 16:32, 15 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete No significant coverage. funplussmart (talk) 20:55, 14 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
See the respones above. - Paul^T+/_C 04:28, 15 April 2019 (UTC) Actually, in addition to the above, see this article about their work at New Internationalist. - Paul^T+/_C 04:39, 15 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect to LGBT culture in Portland, Oregon. Anything worth merging to the target article is available from the article history. Randykitty (talk) 15:44, 22 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Second Foundation (Oregon)

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

GNG, ORG. shouldn't require explanation. this is patently non-notable. does not belong. one of the many run of the mill organizations spawned by same creator. Graywalls (talk) 06:40, 31 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Expanding initial comment - alternatively, if Wikipedia community feels it benefits from some mention, I'd be ok with delete article, then recreate redirect too. Graywalls (talk) 16:05, 7 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Why do you insist on deleting and then redirecting, especially when at least one other editor has voted to keep/draftify the page, which suggests the page history could be helpful? Seems to me if you're acknowledging the redirect would be helpful, we should have just discussed possibly redirecting from the start... ---Another Believer _(Talk) 16:44, 7 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Again, just redirect/merge to LGBT culture in Portland, Oregon if deemed not notable. This is another unnecessary nomination. I've asked this editor to start talk page discussions and redirect articles before going straight to AfD. If the topic does not qualify for a standalone article, then the redirect would serve a purpose by sending readers to the LGBT culture article. ---Another Believer _(Talk) 06:52, 31 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

There's nothing to talk about. This appears to be just one of the many you have sprayed and prayed in a batch. Graywalls (talk) 08:38, 31 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Ignoring your "there's nothing to talk about" comment, please review Wikipedia:Redirect#Purposes_of_redirects, which says, redirects are appropriate for "Sub-topics or other topics which are described or listed within a wider article". Since Second Foundation is mentioned in the LGBT culture in Portland, Oregon article, at minimum redirecting should be preferred over deleting altogether. I've not yet completed a thorough review of sourcing to know if the article should actually be kept, but certainly the redirect would help readers. ---Another Believer _(Talk) 18:39, 1 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

See WP:FAILN's general endorsement of DELETION when the subject organization lacks sufficient notability in the present time. The use of redirect to mothball crummy articles about cookie cutter organizations for the possibility that it might become notable enough for someone to expand under your creatorship would appear to be against the intent of Wikipedia. For a while, I couldn't understand why you're so adamantly opposed to deletion and continue to tendentiously engage in circular argument and try to sway participants to "switch votes". I think I've built a plausible theory. There's nothing barring re-creation of article if the subject naturally earn notability. This AfD touches on exactly the same fundamental issues as another AfD involving another article you've created Graywalls (talk) 13:59, 4 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Graywalls, Both of these articles should just be redirected. Redirects can be very helpful. I invite you to review Wikipedia:Redirect#Purposes_of_redirects. This way someone searching for information about the Oregon Bears or Second Foundation will be directed to the LGBT culture in Portland, Oregon article. You keep citing policies for why articles should be deleted, but you're using them as if the policies say the content must be removed altogether, even as passing mentions in other articles, and that's not how Wikipedia works. ---Another Believer _(Talk) 14:04, 4 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Disagree tho, after reading. Quote the specific line or lines from that page and explain how those examples relate to this specific case. Graywalls (talk) 14:08, 4 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Graywalls, "Sub-topics or other topics which are described or listed within a wider article." ---Another Believer _(Talk) 14:10, 4 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

which in the case of this article whose section is constructively a parking table. Graywalls (talk) 14:15, 4 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Graywalls, So what?!? Yes, the LGBT culture article needs a lot of work, but Second Foundation should be covered there in some form. Therefore, redirecting readers there is helpful. This is easy stuff. ---Another Believer _(Talk) 14:16, 4 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Absolutely not. "could be" ≠ should be. You're deliberately refusing to acknowledge WP:FAILN. If and when this organization ever becomes notable, then it's easy stuff for someone to create an article should that time come. Graywalls (talk) 14:23, 4 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Please. Again, you're using an argument for deleting a standalone article, not for removing content from Wikipedia altogether. There's nothing wrong with mentioning Second Foundation in the LGBT culture article, and since that's the case, the redirect serves a purpose. Once again, we're going in circles and I'm wasting my time going back and forth with you. I'll let other editors take over from here. ---Another Believer _(Talk) 14:26, 4 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I'm voting to Keep based on Jonesey95's comments and sources added to the article's talk page. If the subject is deemed non-notable by others, then at minimum a redirect to the LGBT culture in Portland article is appropriate. ---Another Believer _(Talk) 19:34, 4 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Double-Count !Vote Risk ? just pointing out that the comment above from Another Believer has "redirect/merge" in bold which is not to be confused with the !vote to Keep above. HighKing⁺⁺ 12:15, 22 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 07:23, 31 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sexuality and gender-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 07:23, 31 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Oregon-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 07:23, 31 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Graywalls (talk) 15:37, 5 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep or Draftify. This organization is mentioned at least five times in the archives of The Oregonian. It is likely to be notable. It will no doubt be difficult to find on-line sources for an organization that was active primarily in the 1970s. More time is needed to research and develop sourcing. – Jonesey95 (talk) 19:27, 4 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Jovanmilic97 (talk) 09:08, 7 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Merge/Redirect with LGBT culture in Portland, Oregon per Another Believer, I don't think this is notable enough for its own page. Mosaicberry (talk) 13:32, 7 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
- Is "I don't think this is notable enough" really a valid argument for deletion? Also, you're saying "per Another Believer" as if my final recommendation was to redirect, when that's untrue. I was saying to keep the article, with redirecting being a minimum action if the topic was deemed not notable. The truth is more research and article expansion are needed here. I'd try to flesh out the article now but I'm currently scrambling to improve other articles nominated (in my opinion, unnecessarily) by the same editor. ---Another Believer _(Talk) 17:22, 8 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  - My apologies, I didn't read through all the posts. Mosaicberry (talk) 21:39, 8 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 17:59, 14 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I cannot find a single reference that meets the criteria for establishing notability for this organization as per WP:NCORP and GNG. Not even close. HighKing⁺⁺ 12:10, 22 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. Spartaz ^Humbug! 17:49, 22 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

List of wineries and vineyards in Maine

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

Similar to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of wineries and vineyards in Alabama, this is a listcrufty linkfarm/directory of non-notable local businesses. Reywas92^Talk 02:42, 31 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

An WP:ATD would be inclusion of notable wineries at Maine wine. See also Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of wineries in Ohio. Reywas92^Talk 01:46, 4 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 06:12, 31 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Maine-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 06:12, 31 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Easily passes WP:LISTN as there are plenty of books such as East Coast Wineries: A Complete Guide from Maine to Virginia. See WP:BEFORE, WP:ATD, WP:PRESERVE, WP:NOTCLEANUP. Andrew D. (talk) 11:09, 31 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
- You are welcome to create a Winemaking in the Eastern United States article, but existence of a book on such a topic does not mean Wikipedia needs one listing non-notable businesses. I'm not suggesting clean-up of this, nor do you suggest a constructive alternative to deletion so I'm not sure what the point of the random links is. Reywas92^Talk 00:43, 1 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete only one entry with an article does not make a notable list. As for the above comment, throwing references to books, might be useful for some content, but not lists of non notable wineries or vineyards. Ajf773 (talk) 18:54, 31 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Food and drink-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 13:07, 1 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Notice how many redlinks are in the navbox for this one? RobDuch (talk) 07:11, 2 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The topic passes WP:LISTN This is a worthwhile and useful list for readers. Makes navigating the encyclopaedia easier. 7&6=thirteen (☎) 19:43, 3 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
- Unclear what this sea of redlinks does for navigation. Reywas92^Talk 20:21, 3 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

This was already discussed and resolved in the first nomination. WP:Not paper, so what is the issue again? 7&6=thirteen (☎) 20:35, 3 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

What makes you think Not Paper is a valid argument to keep just any article? "Consequently, this policy is not a free pass for inclusion". Is a List of restaurants in Maine cool because there's a book on it and we're not made of paper? These are simple listings as a directory. This was not resolved in that 9-year-old debate, which which closed no consensus (though partially over the nomination of 8 articles at once). Pinging still-active editors from there, the AL list, and related Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of wineries in Quebec: Agne27, Praxidicae Ceyockey Mercurywoodrose Tomas e Adolphus79 Masem Beetstra Milowent Bearian Peregrine Fisher DGG ThaddeusB Gbawden Anachronist Bearcat. Reywas92^Talk 00:31, 4 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

What you just did was WP:Canvassing. 7&6=thirteen (☎) 01:29, 4 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Your point is? "Appropriate notification: Editors who have participated in previous discussions on the same topic (or closely related topics)" Many of them voted keep in 2009 so this may just be counterproductive for me. Reywas92^Talk 01:38, 4 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

IMO that wasn't canvassing. I was involved in a previous AfD discussion so this is a logical heads up Gbawden (talk) 06:16, 4 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete (but consider this !vote canvassed and dismissble if 7&6=thriteen is correct that there was canvasing). A list of blue-linked, notable wineries would be appropriate (though this would be better served by a category), but a list of all wineries are not as that would include every ma-and-pa and moonshine-like distillery that got a commercial license. NOT#GUIDEBOOK, NOT#WHOSWHO (effective), and violates the principle of NCORP. --Masem (t) 01:44, 4 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep but cut it waaaaay down. Bearian (talk) 01:54, 4 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
- Can you clarify what it should be cut down to? Should the redlinks be removed? What do you think about a partial merge to Maine wine?
Keep & keep all that can be demonstrated to have a real existence This is the way to deal with topics that are not individually notable It's not intended as a list of notable wineries. DGG ( talk ) 06:05, 4 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
- So we should have directories of any and all non-notable businesses on Wikipedia? List of restaurants in New York City could certainly be expanded to many times its size to include anything demonstrated to have a real existence. Make a nice table with citations to Zagat and Yelp and TimeOut New York and we've dealt with eateries that are not individually notable. Reywas92^Talk 07:58, 4 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: The Milowent of 10 years ago on the prior AfD on this article was more reasonable than I remember. My conclusion then, as now, was that useful winery lists should generally be kept. Yes, we are not a corporate directory, so there's some discretion here in what we think is appropriate. If there's not enough content for a useful winery list article, I could easily see Maine wine being expanded with some text content that mentions some example wineries. This article as is doesn't get a lot of pageviews.--Milowent • ^hasspoken 13:25, 4 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I understand User:Reywas92's frustration that this is a promotional directory type of entry. A list like this is completely reasonable, while a list of restaurants might not be Gbawden (talk) 14:06, 4 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Wine-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 19:16, 5 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as per WP:NOTDIR, almost none of these are notable, so they do not belong in a list.--Rusf10 (talk) 22:51, 6 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Jovanmilic97 (talk) 09:06, 7 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. All items should either have an own article, or it should be note-worthy. The former is only true for one article (which currently does not have any references, and if the prod that is on there is retracted should go through the scrutiny of an AfD by itself), the rest in this list is not referenced. If a significant number of these wineries can be shown to have received independent attention then this list can stay. Otherwise all that did not need to be removed, making this a list of one (or even 0) items. --Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 13:59, 8 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 17:58, 14 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included, originally by Andrew Davidson, and relisted by Dream Focus, in the Article Rescue Squadron's list of content for rescue consideration. --Tryptofish (talk) 18:47, 14 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I did not relist it, I fixed the link to go to the proper AFD, it previously linking to the first AFD for this. I did not participate in this AFD at all. Dream Focus 21:00, 14 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Even one of the "keep" !votes describes this as a directory. NOTDIR therefore carries the day. Randykitty (talk) 15:21, 22 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

List of wineries in Ohio

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

Similar to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of wineries and vineyards in Alabama, this is a listcrufty linkfarm/directory of non-notable local businesses Reywas92^Talk 02:39, 31 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Ohio-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 06:12, 31 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 06:12, 31 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. WP:NOTDIR. Ajf773 (talk) 07:58, 31 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Easily passes WP:LISTN as there are books such as Ohio's Lake Erie Wineries and Ohio's Canal Country Wineries. See WP:BEFORE, WP:ATD, WP:PRESERVE, &c. Andrew D. (talk) 11:06, 31 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Ohio wine may be a notable topic but that doesn't mean Wikipedia needs to list these non-notable local businesses just because a book does. Telling me to do more research before the nomination has no bearing on the article; I'm well aware that someone else has made this list too. Do you have an alternative to deletion besides just keeping it? Reywas92^Talk 00:59, 1 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the sources, too bad the name of the article is "List of wineries in Ohio" not "History of wine in Ohio". This is nothing more than a directory listing.--Rusf10 (talk) 23:07, 6 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Food and drink-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 13:03, 1 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the Article Rescue Squadron's list of content for rescue consideration. --Tryptofish (talk) 19:36, 3 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The topic passes WP:LISTN This is a worthwhile and useful list for readers. Makes navigating the encyclopaedia easier. WP:Not paper, so what is the issue again? 7&6=thirteen (☎) 19:44, 3 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

How is it worthwhile and useful?? It is a sea of red links with the occasional external link and with GPS co-ordinates. It's a directory. Ajf773 (talk) 08:34, 4 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, it is useful. It is a list with links and with the occasional external link and with GPS co-ordinates. It's a directory. Usefulness should be viewed from the perspective of our readers. To be sure, it can and should be improved, but its usefulness is in the eyes of our readers, not you or me. 7&6=thirteen (☎) 12:42, 4 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

see WP:NOTDIRECTORY. Coolabahapple (talk) 14:26, 4 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Consider it to be a "to do" list. 7&6=thirteen (☎) 15:13, 4 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

better

Coolabahapple (talk) 23:30, 4 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

see Arguments to avoid in deletion discussions- WP:USEFUL--Rusf10 (talk) 23:07, 6 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Wine-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 19:17, 5 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as per WP:NOTDIR — Preceding unsigned comment added by Rusf10 (talk • contribs) 23:06, 6 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Jovanmilic97 (talk) 09:06, 7 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as per WP:NOTDIR. If wineries on the list were themselves notable and if they already had Wikipedia pages this list might be fine. As it stands, however, there's only one entry in the list with a Wikipedia page and it is a stub. The entire "Lists of wineries in the United States by political division" seems a little sketchy in general; most of the wineries in the articles have no Wikipedia pages. Even the title seems misnamed, since "political division" does not clearly indicate "state" or "geographical division." Userqio (talk) 06:52, 9 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 17:58, 14 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to Ohio wine, this information would be better there. It would expand that article with useful information and still provide a place for those interested to find articles to start. --valereee (talk) 15:09, 22 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 draftify. Given that one of the "keep" !votes explicitly remarks on the weakness of the sourcing, draftifying seems to be the best solution until such time that sufficient sources have been found. Randykitty (talk) 15:14, 22 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Leuchtturm

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

No doubt that the company exists and has a long history. However, the vast majority of sources are primary (ie the company's own website) with the exception of one editorial article in the Handelsblatt. Two further are casual mentions in listings it seems. This does not satisfy WP:GNG or WP:NCORP _pseudonym Jake Brockman ^talk 07:32, 31 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. _pseudonym Jake Brockman ^talk 07:32, 31 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Germany-related deletion discussions. _pseudonym Jake Brockman ^talk 07:32, 31 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, while the nom is right that sourcing needs to be improved, this is one of Germany's main philately brands. While not as dominant as Michel catalog, it is long-standing. There must be reviews of their products and mentions of the company in the dozens of small discontinued philately journals that the German market once sustained. —Kusma (t·c) 09:50, 31 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Kusma: I tend to agree, however the substantial primary sourcing remains a fundamental concern about the contents of the article. Product reviews will probably be difficult to distinguish from PR or advertising and mentions in other sources may be closely related to "business as usual". The article had been draftified and AfC recommended, however the article was moved back to article space in its current form. It is not suitable for main space as it stands. _pseudonym Jake Brockman ^talk 10:14, 31 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Draftify. I feel like the brand is sufficiently well-known to be included on enwiki. By the way, there are German and Russian Wikipedia articles on the subject and although every wiki has its own inclusion criteria, the Germans are usually quite deletion-happy. Pichpich (talk) 17:48, 3 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 08:48, 7 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per Kusma. Mosaicberry (talk) 13:34, 7 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Draftify The article in question reads a little too much like an advertisement and doesn't capture it's supposed prominence in philately; assuming it exists the article should be made to reflect this history before returning to article space. Userqio (talk) 07:04, 9 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 17:57, 14 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Drmies has some strong arguments, but the consensus clearly is not with him. Randykitty (talk) 13:38, 22 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Democrat In Name Only

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

Rationale is the same as before – non-notable neologism, see WP:NOTDICT, WP:NEO and Use–mention distinction. Some AfD participants previously !voted to merge, so I proposed a merger in October 2018. Two editors have since commented to oppose it, and no one supported it. Today content about DINO was removed from the RINO article. All of this leads me to believe that a merge is inappropriate, especially since this article consists of only two sentences. wumbolo ^^^ 18:05, 31 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 00:52, 2 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 00:52, 2 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Language-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 00:52, 2 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment, previous afd results:

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Democrat In Name Only - "keep"

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Democrat In Name Only (3rd nomination) (no "2nd"!?) - "delete"

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Democrat In Name Only (4th nomination) - "keep"

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Democrat In Name Only (5th nomination) - "keep"

in case editors are curious. Coolabahapple (talk) 01:02, 2 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The reason for the omission of 2nd nomination is that the article originally had another title and was nominated in 2005 at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Republican/Democrat In Name Only. Also the 3rd nomination was taken to DRV at Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2007 November 21 which closed as relist (which became the 4th nomination). SpinningSpark 00:19, 15 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Bad article, but notable article based on previous AfDs. Deletion is not cleanup. SportingFlyer T·C 01:30, 2 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep article needs upgrade, but sourcing exists. Below are a few copy pastes from a quick gScholar search. gNews gets lots of hits, too [41]. Sometimes we spend too much time arguing, and too little time upgrading stubs.

No True Scotsman. TW Manninen - Bad Arguments: 100 of the Most Important …, 2018 - books.google.com… For another illustration, we turn to contemporary American political discourse, where the pejorative acronyms RINO and DINO (Republican‐in‐- name‐only and Democrat‐in‐name‐only, respectively) are commonplace and commonly attached to high‐ranking officials of either …
Democrats for Life: Pro-Life Politics and the Silenced Majority K Day - 2006 - books.google.com … one issue. By contrast, I am sometimes met with distrust from my friends on the Democratic side who think that I am not a real Democrat or a DINO (Democrat In Name Only). These two questions led me to write this book. The …
Running on Empty: How the Democratic and Republican Parties Are Bankrupting Our Future and What Americans Can Do About It PG Peterson - 2004 - books.google.com … Senator Joe Lieberman, a thoughtful reformer, has been labeled a “DINO” (Democrat in Name Only) by party activists—in abject' imitation of the GOP's “RINO” (Republican in Name Only) label. At the very least, President Bush has done the nation a service by waking ordi- … E.M.Gregory (talk) 21:39, 2 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note that the last time we ran this drill, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Democrat In Name Only (5th nomination) the close was KEEP and the discussion featured long lists of WP:RS from which a proper article can be built.E.M.Gregory (talk) 21:43, 2 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
WP:HEY, page is now a short, sourced, accurate stub.E.M.Gregory (talk) 09:56, 4 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Article subject is notable and meets WP:GNG. Should be improved, not deleted. --1990'sguy (talk) 15:02, 6 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I looked at all the previous AfDs, and checked a whole bunch of the sources in the 5th one--guess what, they are brief mentions, and some are not mentions at all. What matters not is whether these terms are dropped somewhere (they are, no one is denying that), but what is lacking is any decent discussion--and that includes the citations above by EM Gregory. Drmies (talk) 01:56, 7 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Were you able to access p. 376 of Bad Arguments: 100 of the Most Important Fallacies in Western Philosophy, the No True Scotsman argument? I ask because the DINO sentence at the bottom of p. 375 was interesting, (No True Scotsman is an unusually great name for a sub-species of sophistry,) but it did look as though it was the lead in to a more detailed discussion.E.M.Gregory (talk) 13:08, 10 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: With this being the 6th (well... 5th since there really was no 2nd) - I truly feel that more discussion is needed. Drmies just brought some valid points and a decent discussion is needed here.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Dusti ^{*Let's talk!*} 07:06, 7 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

WP:HEY I revisited after reading Drmies comment, and took a look at the history of this term of opprobrium, which has been with us at least since William Jennings Bryan ran against William Howard Taft in the 1908 United States presidential election.E.M.Gregory (talk) 14:31, 10 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 17:57, 14 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per SportingFlyer, E.M.Gregory and 1990'sguy. WP:AFDISNOTCLEANUP. Mosaicberry (talk) 12:47, 15 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect to People Not as Bad as They Seem. Due to the low participation, "soft delete" applies (i.e., the redirect can be challenged as if this was a WP:BOLD edit). Randykitty (talk) 13:31, 22 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Lauri Arajuuri

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

Actor with questionable notability. Only 2 roles (which he was both in at very late in life. I have tried to see anything about him, but no luck so far. Wgolf (talk) 01:05, 31 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment-I should add he could be a redirect to People Not as Bad as They Seem, where it looks like he was one of the leads at least. Wgolf (talk) 01:07, 31 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the Article Rescue Squadron's list of content for rescue consideration. 7&6=thirteen (☎) 01:17, 31 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 06:21, 31 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Finland-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 06:21, 31 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 06:21, 31 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 06:22, 31 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment-The guy actually might be notable. Problem is the article made it sound like he was just a film actor and I had trouble finding sources for this guy in general. Wgolf (talk) 00:30, 1 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — JJMC89 (T·C) 01:56, 7 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Is he most well known for the movie or the TV series? StrayBolt (talk) 03:02, 7 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 17:55, 14 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. Randykitty (talk) 13:26, 22 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Renata Kuerten

AfDs for this article:

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

I tried to be a reasonable human being an A7 this unmitigated disaster, but nooo it was declined because “sufficient claims are present (though not sourced); there are sourced versions in other languages; the current article is not substantially identical to the one that was deleted in 2009”. Did you not read not sourced? This article has absolutely no sources. Even in the so-called translations, nothing of use. One “source” is a picture of her at a premiere yet when you go to the article she isn’t even mentioned. Another “source” is about her winning some citizen award, yet no mention of her actual career or work that she’s done. This is the bullshit I talk about. Trillfendi (talk) 20:40, 30 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Brazil-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 20:43, 30 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fashion-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 20:43, 30 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 20:43, 30 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 20:44, 30 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, fails WP:ANYBIO and WP:GNG - lacks any sources that establish her notability. Dan arndt (talk) 23:16, 30 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Comment WP:N is clear: "Notability is based on the existence of suitable sources, not on the state of sourcing in an article". Using the links in this very AfD nomination, it's trivial to find dozens of hits on the subject in O Globo, Marie Claire, Folha de SP, etc. They seem to cover her every move, e.g. just from the last year or so: [42] [43] [44] [45] [46] [47]. If anything the problem is too many sources to sort through, but some bio facts and career facts are quite easily verified, e.g. [48] [49]. Bakazaka (talk) 04:57, 31 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Not even one sentence of career can be created out of any of those links, because none actually talk about what work she’s done when they’re too focused on describing what her abs look like. But they always make sure to note her distant cousin is a tennis player. Trillfendi (talk) 06:38, 31 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Both of those statements are false. Bakazaka (talk) 06:53, 31 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Let's see; this article is now all of 5 discombobulated sentences. The first sentence is about her "humble beginnings" in Santa Catarina, the source of which describes her physical features and how she took a bus to São Paulo. The next vague sentence's source only manages to detail her height, weight, hair color, and the state of her abs, and her distant relative yet could actually be said about her modeling career? The fourth sentence is about her relationship, and the fifth is that her distant cousin is a tennis player. The only actual career related, single sentence is about being a tv presenter which in the source thereof is sandwiched in the last sentence between relationship status and Carnival trip plans. Trillfendi (talk) 19:18, 5 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete a non-notable model.John Pack Lambert (talk) 05:01, 2 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Meets basic WP:GNG. Google news has about 265 news references about her. ~Leny Tee55~ 10:15, 5 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

"Woman is getting married" is not useful... Trillfendi (talk) 19:18, 5 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ad Orientem (talk) 01:33, 7 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Coverage convinces me that she is a celebrity in Brazil, and is therefore suitable for inclusion. --Michig (talk) 07:30, 14 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 17:54, 14 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Forgot to actually !vote. Obvious pass of WP:GNG, with extensive coverage in Brazilian RS over years. Certainly there is some fluff and puffery in the Google hits list, as there is for any celebrity. That doesn't erase the massive coverage she has received. Bakazaka (talk) 18:31, 18 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. Randykitty (talk) 13:17, 22 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Porn groove

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

I'm on the fence about this one. On the one hand, I believe "porn groove" is a protologism and would fall under WP:NOTNEO. Even the article's single source doesn't mention the term. Moreover, there doesn't seem to be much in the way of reliable sources out there (at least not on the internet), in particular when searching for this specific term, but not even for pornography music in general. On the other hand, it does seem to me like the music in pornography should be notable, and perhaps this is instead a case of not getting the article's name right. Brycehughes (talk) 22:27, 30 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Delete Subject is more trivia than anything else.TH1980 (talk) 01:00, 31 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 06:31, 31 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 06:31, 31 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sexuality and gender-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 06:31, 31 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been added to the WikiProject Pornography list of deletions.CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 06:32, 31 March 2019 (UTC) [reply]

Keep. It's a real genre that has been around for years, not a neologism, and there's coverage online, mostly of recent artists in the genre: [50], [51], [52]. --Michig (talk) 13:21, 31 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and rename to Porn music. We know it when we hear it. It also passes the GNG. [53][54][55][56][57] Morbidthoughts (talk) 07:38, 3 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

"Music in pornography" might be a tad more encyclopedic. Brycehughes (talk) 04:42, 5 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

This helps with the search for sources. [58][59][60][61][62][63][64][65] Morbidthoughts (talk) 01:19, 6 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - The source listed in the article and those presented here do not meet WP:GNG.Guilherme Burn (talk) 23:48, 4 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ad Orientem (talk) 01:10, 7 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, I think this Article is Not notable in itself, so delete the Article.Forest90 (talk) 12:51, 7 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 17:54, 14 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep and rename per Michig and Morbidthoughts. Mosaicberry (talk) 12:44, 15 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: the sources offered at this AfD are not suggestive of notability. --K.e.coffman (talk) 02:32, 16 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep – Meets WP:GNG based upon a source review. Consider renaming to Porn music, which presently redirects to this article. However, Porn groove is also a thing, as per the sources, so this can be included. Furthermore, source searches using the term "porn music" are providing more sources in addition to those presented here and in the article. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 23:36, 21 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) 17:13, 21 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Interior Dost

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

A youtube channel with questionable notability that is also a COI (I considered DB-ad or DB-web, but this seemed to be not the case with this one), I am not sure though if this quite passes Wiki guidelines though. Wgolf (talk) 16:50, 14 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. Ceethekreator (talk) 17:00, 14 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Consensus here is that the topic meets notability guidelines. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 21:14, 21 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Statue of Winston Churchill, Mishkenot Sha’ananim

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

Churchill is notable but that does not mean every bust or statue made in his image is. The article's history section mostly discusses Nemon and his relationship to Churchill. Only two references are provided that actually discuss this bust, and they are newspaper reports of its unveiling and do not represent significant coverage. Polyamorph (talk) 16:19, 14 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Israel-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 17:23, 14 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Architecture-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 17:23, 14 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

keep quite a bit of coverage, actually. Added some materai/sources to the page. When individual statues of famous people get coverage in WP:RS, it is hard to see the argument for deleting an article. Note that we have a lot of Category:Sculptures of people. E.M.Gregory (talk) 21:00, 14 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS Polyamorph (talk) 08:27, 15 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep as additional references and content sourced to multiple significant reliable sources coverage have been added to the article so there is no valid reason for deletion Atlantic306 (talk) 21:40, 14 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The added sources are again just more of the same press-release re: unveiling the statue. This does not represent significant coverage or long-lasting notability. Polyamorph (talk) 08:27, 15 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Signed articles are not press releases. When an article is signed, it means that the newspaper assigned a journalist and reported facts. If you read the articles that come up in searches for the year this stature was erected, you will see that these are reported article covering different aspects of the story.E.M.Gregory (talk) 11:33, 15 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per E.M.Gregory. Mosaicberry (talk) 12:43, 15 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was move to draft per article creator's request (note that it would have been much easier to ask an admin to perform this task, rather than opening an AfD). Randykitty (talk) 13:01, 22 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Luciano Garbellano

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

non-notable --Javad |Talk (25 Farvardin 1398) 15:46, 14 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. Ceethekreator (talk) 16:59, 14 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Italy-related deletion discussions. Ceethekreator (talk) 16:59, 14 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I note that the nominator here is also the article creator. It would be useful to know what prompted the change of mind. Phil Bridger (talk) 18:21, 14 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with Phil Bridger. Mosaicberry (talk) 12:43, 15 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
- here I want to move the article to draft namespace, but I made a mistake at that time and move it to article namespace. The article is not complete yet to publish and needs some modifications. I mark the article for speedy deletion but it has been rejected, please move it to my sandbox, to complete it and then I move it to main namespace. Thanks --Javad |Talk (26 Farvardin 1398) 22:25, 15 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. — JJMC89 (T·C) 17:11, 21 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Julius Patrick

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

Fails WP:NPOL. Small town politician. ...William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 15:26, 14 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. ...William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 15:26, 14 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Louisiana-related deletion discussions. ...William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 15:26, 14 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 17:26, 14 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Boyce LA is not large enough to confer an automatic presumption of notability on its mayors, but the article is not referenced well enough to get him over WP:NPOL #2. The fact that some local media coverage exists is not in and of itself a free notability pass for a mayor — every mayor of everywhere can always show some local coverage in the local media, so the notability test for smalltown mayors requires evidence of much wider coverage than just the expected local stuff. Five of the ten "references" here are primary sources (raw tables of election results) or blogs, which are not support for notability at all — and the five that are media coverage are all purely local media coverage of his death itself, rather than substantive career coverage of his accomplishments in office, so they aren't clinching anything either. A mayor is not automatically notable enough for an encyclopedia article just because the local newspaper reported his death. Bearcat (talk) 17:41, 14 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Patrick seems to be more than just a local politician. Jet magazine reported that he was a multi-time officer with the National Conference of Black Mayors. The Town Talk wrote of Patrick "Julius Patrick Elementary: Julius Patrick was once principal of the Alexandria elementary school that bears his name today as well as North Bayou Rapides. He served the community in capacities other than as an educator, including when he became the first black mayor of Boyce. Patrick also served as president and vice president of the National Conference of Black Mayors for Louisiana, and chairman of the International Committee for the Transportation of Technology to Third World Countries. He met with presidents George H. W. Bush and Bill Clinton to advise them on policies affecting small cities and schools." [66]--TM 18:51, 14 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

A smalltown mayor isn't automatically notable enough for Wikipedia just because the school board named a school after him — at least half of everybody who's ever been mayor of anywhere would be exempted from having to clear our notability standard for mayors if "something in the city got named after him" were an automatic notability freebie in and of itself. And everything else in that description still only counts as notability claims if he can show that he got media coverage, expanding beyond just the purely local, for it — one blurb in a local newspaper listicle about all the namesakes of all the area schools is not enough coverage all by itself to turn those into inclusion-clinching notability claims. Bearcat (talk)

I think you should read the entire quote. He was a multi-term leader of a national civil and political rights organization. I am intrigued by the the International Committee for the Transportation of Technology to Third World Countries as well. Given Wikipedia's systematic bias against non-white people, I think we should take this into account when nominating and discussing deletions.--TM 10:17, 15 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Still requires hard evidence of actual reliable source coverage about his work in that role, not just technical verification of it in a listicle-blurb in his hometown newspaper. Bearcat (talk) 14:51, 16 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Fails NPOL, all coverage is hyperlocal; typical Billy Hathorn local or non-independent obituary sourcing. Reywas92^Talk 21:28, 14 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Delete While I do think that TM does bring some valid points, the current sourcing doesn't support GNG. If someone were to be able to find stronger sources, I'd most likely say keep. Even if deleted, I wouldn't mind seeing the article rewritten. Best, GPL93 (talk) 11:42, 16 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete just because his being killed while in office gave a little more than normal coverage it is not enough to justify an article.John Pack Lambert (talk) 02:17, 20 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. Sources look good now. Withdraw nom. (non-admin closure) Tyw7 (🗣️ Talk) — If (reply) then (ping me) 13:36, 15 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Sydney Watson

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

Couldn't find any third party sources for this church musician. The article doesn't have any citation at all. Tyw7 (🗣️ Talk) — If (reply) then (ping me) 11:56, 14 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Tyw7 (🗣️ Talk) — If (reply) then (ping me) 11:56, 14 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. Tyw7 (🗣️ Talk) — If (reply) then (ping me) 11:56, 14 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Religion-related deletion discussions. Tyw7 (🗣️ Talk) — If (reply) then (ping me) 11:56, 14 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. Tyw7 (🗣️ Talk) — If (reply) then (ping me) 11:56, 14 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. Tyw7 (🗣️ Talk) — If (reply) then (ping me) 11:56, 14 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. Tyw7 (🗣️ Talk) — If (reply) then (ping me) 11:56, 14 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Strong keep I don't know how an article can simultaneously have a BLP PROD and AfD applied to it. I have removed the PROD, as I have added references. I don't think a very thorough WP:BEFORE can have been done - two of the sources I have added are freely available on Google Books. The third is an obituary in The Times. Apart from having an OBE and therefore meeting WP:ANYBIO, he also meets WP:NMUSIC #6, having been organist and conductor of "two or more independently notable ensembles", Christ Church Cathedral, Oxford and the Oxford Bach Choir. There are probably other criteria of WP:NMUSIC that he also meets - I have not yet searched journals and newspapers for reviews, etc. RebeccaGreen (talk) 15:38, 14 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
RebeccaGreen, I had looked at Google News and on Google itself but I am getting hit for a different Sydney Watson. And there were no references on the article before the tag. --Tyw7 (🗣️ Talk) — If (reply) then (ping me) 18:51, 14 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep A clear pass of multiple notability guidelines, any one of which would have been sufficient for inclusion in the encyclopedia. I encourage the nominator to consider this AfD as helpful feedback on WP:BEFORE searches, and on the importance of WP:NEXIST. Thanks to RebeccaGreen for putting in the work yet again. Bakazaka (talk) 00:20, 15 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Bakazaka, I did search for the user but I am not getting any hits for the person. Even the news search yield no results.

On a side note, now doing a re-search I found hits for https://books.google.co.uk/books?id=SL9BDwAAQBAJ&pg=PA41&lpg=PA41&dq=Sydney+Watson+church&source=bl&ots=7B9yha5nIC&sig=ACfU3U0U_WIvAhTSNdOgujJbgRUqENb2sQ&hl=en&sa=X&ved=2ahUKEwik8pGn69DhAhXCThUIHZNZD9sQ6AEwCnoECAcQAQ#v=onepage&q=Sydney%20Watson%20church&f=false, which could be included in the article? --Tyw7 (🗣️ Talk) — If (reply) then (ping me) 00:27, 15 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Since RebeccaGreen already added that source to the article, I'd have to say yes, that's a good source. Google and Google News have a strong bias toward online sources posted in recent years. For someone who died in 1991, searching other sources is more useful. I recognize that the minimum threshold in the WP:BEFORE guidelines does not always match up with the best way to find sources. Unfortunately, the result of this mismatch is that it is much easier to nominate than to source, the burden for sourcing falls disproportionately on a small subset of editors, and (in my opinion) the likelihood of burnout increases among some of our most capable colleagues. Bakazaka (talk) 00:45, 15 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Tyw7, as Bakazaka says, Google News will rarely show results for anyone who died in 1991 (unless they had been in the news in the last few years). Google Books is more likely to show results for someone who has been dead for some time, and who is likely to have been written about. There are other Sydney Watsons, but this one, according to the article, was an organist, so I searched for "Sydney Watson" organist, which brought results about the right Sydney Watson towards the top of the list. WP:BEFORE suggests "The minimum search expected is a normal Google search, a Google Books search, a Google News search, and a Google News archive search; Google Scholar is suggested for academic subjects." From what you say, it seems that you did not search Google Books or Google Scholar, both of which are more likely to - and do - give results for someone who was active over 40 years ago. RebeccaGreen (talk) 08:25, 15 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep--references prove notability.--Epiphyllumlover (talk) 01:50, 15 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per RebeccaGreen, Bakazaka and Epiphyllumlover. Mosaicberry (talk) 12:50, 15 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was soft delete. WP:REFUND applies. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 21:02, 21 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

M. T. Ramesh

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

Fails WP:GNG, and WP:POLITICIAN. Akhiljaxxn (talk) 10:49, 14 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 11:21, 14 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 11:21, 14 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mccapra (talk • contribs) 01:53, 21 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) 17:09, 21 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Noble Mathew

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

Fails WP:GNG, and WP:POLITICIAN. Akhiljaxxn (talk) 10:44, 14 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 11:23, 14 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 11:23, 14 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Being the founder of a minor political party splinter group is not an automatic notability freebie that exempts a person from having to have enough substantive media coverage to clear WP:GNG, but the sources here are not substantive media coverage about him for the purposes of getting him over GNG. Bearcat (talk) 17:48, 14 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. — JJMC89 (T·C) 17:09, 21 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

V. Velankutty Master

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

Fails WP:GNG, and WP:POLITICIAN. Akhiljaxxn (talk) 10:44, 14 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 11:23, 14 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 11:24, 14 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Political organizers are not entitled to an automatic notability freebie just because they existed, but this cites exactly zero references to measure his notability with. Bearcat (talk) 17:45, 14 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. — JJMC89 (T·C) 17:09, 21 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Girijakumari S.

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

Fails WP:GNG, and WP:POLITICIAN. Akhiljaxxn (talk) 10:42, 14 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

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

Delete. People do not get Wikipedia articles just for being candidates in elections they didn't win, but this neither makes nor sources any strong claim that she's notable for other reasons besides the candidacy. Bearcat (talk) 17:44, 14 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. — JJMC89 (T·C) 17:09, 21 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

M. S. Kumar

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

Fails WP:GNG, and WP:POLITICIAN. Akhiljaxxn (talk) 10:35, 14 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 11:27, 14 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 11:27, 14 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. People do not get Wikipedia articles just for being candidates in elections they didn't win, but this neither makes nor sources any strong claim that he's notable for other reasons besides the candidacy. Bearcat (talk) 17:43, 14 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Randykitty (talk) 12:11, 22 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Chris Hahn

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

Fails WP:NHOCKEY by playing less than 200 games in the DEL. Article was mostly blanked in 2016 and previously had references regarding a criminal record and sparring with Mike Tyson but that, I'm certain, is a different Chris Hahn. Therefore, this Chris Hahn more than likely fails WP:GNG too. Tay87 (talk) 10:18, 14 April 2019 (UTC) Tay87 (talk) 10:18, 14 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 10:22, 14 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Ice hockey-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 10:22, 14 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 10:22, 14 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. This is a completely unreferenced article about a person who plays in a hockey league that does not constitute an automatic WP:NHOCKEY pass — DEL is in the list of leagues where a person can get in the door if there's evidence of distinctions, but not in the list of leagues that guarantee an article the moment the person has skated onto the ice. Going back into the article history, there's never been any evidence of GNG-worthy reliable sourcing, either: all there's ever been for this Chris Hahn is college hockey statistics databases, and the news coverage that got added and then removed in 2016 was indeed for a different person who merely happened to have the same combination of first and last names. (Hockey player Chris Hahn, born in 1985; criminal Christopher Hahn, 45 years old in 2015. Admittedly my brain isn't so good at math sometimes, but two seconds with a calculator will tell you those facts don't suggest the same person.) And while some of the article's prior college-athlete content got blanked at the same time as the wrong-person criminal crap, none of it actually suggested a stronger basis for inclusion, or cited any notability-supporting sources, either — so this can't be fixed just by reverting back to an older version. Bearcat (talk) 14:51, 14 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
~~Keep~~ Delete. He isn't an ice hockey player, but he is a boxer. This article is completely unreferenced, but according to this CBC article Chris Hahn was a local sakastoon boxer who has also boxed Evander Holyfield, Mike Tyson and Lennox Lewis. Each of those boxers are notable, so boxing with them is a big deal. Clovermoss (talk) 16:56, 14 April 2019 (UTC) It's possible that there's an ice hockey Hahn, but I've never heard of him (there doesn't seem to be any online mentions of him, either) and these two people are both from the same general area. Rewriting the article to include information that is verifiable and from reliable sources about the boxer seems like the better option to me. Clovermoss (talk) 17:00, 14 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Firstly, this article isn't wrong — it's just about a different person with the same name, which is not the same thing as being wrong. The ice hockey player verifiably does exist, he just isn't notable for existing. At any rate, there's no evidence that the boxer clears our notability standards for boxers either. If a boxer doesn't have any claim to passing WP:NBOX, then he doesn't magically clear WP:GNG just because a couple of pieces of purely local media coverage exist about him in his hometown media: a person has to compete in national or international boxing competitions to clear NBOX, not just fight a more famous person in a purely local exhibition match of no national or international significance. Bearcat (talk) 17:25, 14 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not saying the article is wrong for covering the ice hockey player, although I wasn't exactly the best at communicating that. What I was trying to say is that even if there isn't a ice hockey Chris Hahn that's notable, there's a boxing Chris Hahn that is. But CBC is the only source I've found that covers it and that isn't enough. I looked at other sources that covered him and there's a lack of them. I was hoping that one paragraph in this university news might have led me to something, but it hasn't. In addition, taking a look at WP:NBOX, you're right, he isn't notable. Since this article is about the hockey player and not the boxer and neither are notable anyways, I'm going to change my keep to delete. Clovermoss (talk) 18:17, 14 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Sandstein 10:15, 21 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

EICB TV

AfDs for this article:

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

The article is about a TV network that, apparently, no longer exists. Not only that, but the website linked to in the infobox is for EICB Productions, not TV. I am aware that this article was previously nominated, but the discussion ended in a "no consensus", so maybe it needs to be re-nominated. 2600:1700:C960:2270:CCEA:7022:976C:2DD (talk) 07:24, 14 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Copied from Talk:EICB TV per request by IP - procedural creation of AfD page. --DannyS712 (talk) 07:29, 14 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 07:55, 14 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Texas-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 07:55, 14 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. The links in this article don't support the content which claims that this company owns dozens of low-power television stations. Specifically, the official site doesn't identify the company as owning television stations, and many of the links to queries of the FCC database don't retrieve any records, or if they do, the records don't mention this company. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 16:06, 14 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Randykitty (talk) 12:08, 22 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Nick Bochette

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

Played 2 ~~WP:NFOOTY~~ games in 2006–2008 in the third-tier semi professional, non-WP:FPL USL Second Division. Currently coaching a college team. Does not meet NFOOTY. Search results return no significant coverage to meet WP:GNG. Leviv ich 20:20, 6 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Update: I have updated the nomination to reflect that this article no longer meets WP:NFOOTY because USL Second Division has been removed from WP:FPL per the note below. Leviv ich 17:37, 10 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Leviv ich 20:21, 6 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. Leviv ich 20:21, 6 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Leviv ich 20:21, 6 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. Leviv ich 20:21, 6 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of North Carolina-related deletion discussions. Leviv ich 20:21, 6 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Leviv ich 20:31, 6 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The article clearly passes the criteria of notability as stated in the Football/Fully professional leagues list. Shotgun pete 8:41, 6 April 2019 (UTC)
Delete. nom consulted me. Clearly fails GNG. After college tried his luck in the minor leagues - failed. There's no significant coverage here. NFOOTY merely creates a presumption of notability, but in the absence of sources it is not sufficient. This guy is from the internet age in an English speaking country - sources should be trivial to find online were he notable - they simply do not exist, and those asserting NFOOTY should pony up with a few in-depth reliable independent sources.Icewhiz (talk) 07:33, 7 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep – meets WP:NFOOTY. 21.colinthompson (talk) 22:57, 7 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - meets WP:NFOOTBALL, see also WP:NCOLLATH for college exploits. Needs improving, not deleting. Giant Snowman 07:40, 8 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
What college exploits? Leviv ich 15:12, 8 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Played Division-III for RPI (Liberty League) - generally div-III NCAA is non-notable. Now coaches women's soccer in UAlbany. Interestingly, from 2007 he was assistant coach at RPI (no, Liberty league awards are not significant) - which means he was a part time footballer for the Hammerheads (typical situation for USL D2) - and thus yet another example of the semi-pro status of many of the players there.Icewhiz (talk) 15:41, 8 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete it is high time we revised the ridiculous inclusions criteria for footballers and stopped including as default notability second rate leagues.John Pack Lambert (talk) 04:07, 10 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
In this case - third rate. USL D2 - USL D1 - MLS.Icewhiz (talk) 07:15, 10 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: per consensus in Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Football/Fully professional leagues#Status of US minor leagues (concurrent to this AfD) - USL Second Division was struck from the WP:FPL essay, as it was not fully-professional. This should affect !voting based on play in USL D2. Icewhiz (talk) 07:15, 10 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Spartaz ^Humbug! 07:25, 14 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Fails WP:NFOOTY (the keep !votes made on this basis need to be discounted as the league has been removed from the list at WP:FPL following a discussion). Number 5 7 08:52, 18 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. Spartaz ^Humbug! 18:37, 21 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Nate Jafta

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

Played 11 ~~WP:NFOOTY~~ games (SW) in 2010 in the third-tier semi professional, non-WP:FPL USL Second Division. Does not meet NFOOTY. Search results return no significant coverage to meet WP:GNG; e.g., this brief mention and this routine signing coverage. In college, he made the NAIA All-American team (distinct from the NCAA All-American team), which I do not believe should/does qualify for WP:NCOLLATH. Leviv ich 20:23, 6 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Update: I have updated the nomination to reflect that this article no longer meets WP:NFOOTY because USL Second Division has been removed from WP:FPL per the note below. Leviv ich 17:40, 10 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 20:23, 6 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 20:23, 6 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of South Africa-related deletion discussions. Leviv ich 20:23, 6 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Leviv ich 20:23, 6 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Kentucky-related deletion discussions. Leviv ich 20:23, 6 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Michigan-related deletion discussions. Leviv ich 20:23, 6 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Pennsylvania-related deletion discussions. Leviv ich 20:23, 6 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions.CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 20:29, 6 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The article clearly passes the criteria of notability as stated in the Football/Fully professional leagues list. Shotgun pete 8:41, 6 April 2019 (UTC)
Delete. nom consulted me. Clearly fails GNG. After college tried his luck in the minor leagues - failed. There's no significant coverage here. NFOOTY merely creates a presumption of notability, but in the absence of sources it is not sufficient. This guy is from the internet age in an English speaking country - sources should be trivial to find online were he notable - they simply do not exist, and those asserting NFOOTY should pony up with a few in-depth reliable independent sources.Icewhiz (talk) 07:34, 7 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep – 11 appearances is clearly enough to meet WP:NFOOTY. 21.colinthompson (talk) 22:56, 7 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - clearly meets WP:NFOOTBALL. Needs improving, not deleting. Giant Snowman 07:40, 8 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: per consensus in Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Football/Fully professional leagues#Status of US minor leagues (concurrent to this AfD) - USL Second Division was struck from the WP:FPL essay, as it was not fully-professional. This should affect !voting based on play in USL D2. Icewhiz (talk) 07:15, 10 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Spartaz ^Humbug! 07:25, 14 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Fails WP:NFOOTY (the keep !votes made on this basis need to be discounted as the league has been removed from the list at WP:FPL following a discussion). Number 5 7 08:52, 18 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 10:14, 21 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Pilar Lastra

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

No reliable source to proof WP:BIO, simply being a Playboy Playmate is not enough B dash (talk) 07:04, 14 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 07:56, 14 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Mexico-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 07:56, 14 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 07:56, 14 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Radio-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 07:56, 14 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fashion-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 07:57, 14 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 08:09, 14 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sexuality and gender-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 08:09, 14 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 08:14, 14 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 08:14, 14 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. If the article is not going to be kept, a redirect to List of Playboy Playmates of 2004 would be preferable to deletion. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 16:08, 14 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been added to the WikiProject Pornography list of deletions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:38, 14 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: fails WP:BASIC / WP:MODEL. Notability is insufficient for a redirect either. --K.e.coffman (talk) 02:35, 16 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
- How much notability is really required -- not to justify an article -- but for a redirect? --Metropolitan90 (talk) 01:12, 19 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete totally fails any reasonable notability criteria.John Pack Lambert (talk) 02:27, 20 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 10:14, 21 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Kasie Head

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

Can't find enough reliable source for her, likely fails WP:GNG B dash (talk) 06:55, 14 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Oklahoma-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 07:03, 14 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fashion-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 07:03, 14 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

Delete She doesn’t meet the notability standards for beauty pageants. Trillfendi (talk) 18:06, 14 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails WP:ANYBIO only significant achievement is winning a state beauty pageant in 2002 (see WP:1EVENT) no notable achievements otherwise. Dan arndt (talk) 01:25, 16 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 07:05, 17 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete state level beauty queens are not default notable, and being a model on a game show does not put her over the top with respect to notability.John Pack Lambert (talk) 02:18, 20 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 Cap'n Crunch. Spartaz ^Humbug! 18:36, 21 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Jean LaFoote

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

Lacks notability. Merge content into Cap'n Crunch Themightyquill (talk) 06:24, 14 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 06:56, 14 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Merge Except for an article in Fox News that literally lists this character as one of the most forgettable mascots [67], this character doesn't seem to pass WP:GNG. Userqio (talk) 12:47, 14 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 05:24, 21 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Frank Salter

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

Not notable as an academic or a politician, and fails WP:GNG as well: the only significant coverage is in a student newspaper. St Anselm (talk) 03:25, 14 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 05:10, 14 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 05:10, 14 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 05:11, 14 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Can't see much evidence of notability here. Frickeg (talk) 05:41, 14 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. No evidence of any notability as an academic or in any other capacity. --Tataral (talk) 06:00, 14 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Subject is not notable. Bacondrum (talk) 10:23, 14 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as per all of the above.TH1980 (talk) 03:19, 15 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Not notable, doesn't fit any of the criteria. Catiline52 (talk) 10:33, 17 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete but split National Alliance (Australia) and move much of the content there. To the admin that deletes the article, please send it to my user page. Onetwothreeip (talk) 11:41, 17 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Can't find sources or anything to imply notability. Just a small cog in the political realm in Australia. THEFlint Shrubwood (talk) 18:26, 18 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) 02:45, 21 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Henry Rose (fragrance)

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

Just because it is made by a celebrity doesn't mean its notable. funplussmart (talk) 02:02, 14 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

delete gets my vote --Tagishsimon (talk) 08:46, 14 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect to Mason family. — JJMC89 (T·C) 02:45, 21 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

George Thomson Mason

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

Many of his relatives are notable--and are in fact major historical figures-- but I see no evidence he is. . The military career seems undistinguished, and according to the source given, that the fort is named after him rather than others of his family is only conjectural. (Note that the similarity of names in his family makes searching rather difficult) DGG ( talk ) 00:27, 14 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Mason family. Does not satisfy military notability or general notability. An exception to my usual rule that documented historical figures from the nineteenth or earlier century are usually notable. Robert McClenon (talk) 02:05, 14 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Virginia-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 05:14, 14 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Texas-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 05:14, 14 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 05:15, 14 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect Per Robert. ^Thanks,L3X1 ◊distænt write◊
Redirect. Concur - not much is available here. His brief service record is available - [68] as is dying in 1846 - [69]. Fort Mason is possibly named for him - [70][71]. But that's about it - the article is built around this by adding additional material on the events he played a part in. Icewhiz (talk) 13:55, 15 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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