WIKIPEDIA:ARTICLES FOR DELETION LOG 2019 APRIL 19

Recent AfDs: Today Yesterday

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

< 18 April	20 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 keep. The article seemed to be poorly written at first and after some discussion, it's been updated and edited to be inline with policy and consensus is that it passes WP:GNG. (non-admin closure) Dusti ^{*Let's talk!*} 03:14, 26 April 2019 (UTC) reply

Yongfeng Chili Sauce

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

Somewhat promotional article, not encyclopedic at all. Lafayette Baguette ^talk 23:46, 19 April 2019 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Food and drink-related deletion discussions. Kpg jhp jm 03:07, 20 April 2019 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of China-related deletion discussions. Kpg jhp jm 03:07, 20 April 2019 (UTC) reply

Keep This appears to have been created as part of a class project. It looks like this is a thing, and it seems definitely not promotion of a brand of chili sauce but rather a style of chili sauce. ~~I couldn't read most of the references,~~ but I think this article needs improving, not deleting. -- valereee ( talk) 13:16, 20 April 2019 (UTC) reply
I think I've improved it as much as I can; three of the sources are identical articles in different publications, and I don't know enough about reliability of Chinese sources to be able to assess, so I included all three. Hoping someone more familiar with Chinese sources can help decide which to use. -- valereee ( talk) 00:10, 21 April 2019 (UTC) reply
Keep thanks to Velereee for improving the article, and I've found definitive Chinese-language sources such as Intangible Cultural Heritages of Hunan Province (Volume 3). Yongfeng Chili Sauce is apparently such an important ingredient of Hunan cuisine (which is known for its spicy food), the province has officially listed it as part of its cultural heritage. Notable beyond doubt. - Zanhe ( talk) 08:41, 21 April 2019 (UTC) reply
Zanhe, thanks! I couldn't access (and couldn't read it anyway) so I've added it as a further reading section. valereee ( talk) 14:25, 21 April 2019 (UTC) reply
Keep There are enough sources to satisfy WP:GNG, and as one of China's protected geographical indication product, it should be notable. Hzh ( talk) 13:41, 25 April 2019 (UTC) reply
Keep Per Hzh ( talk)-- MA Javadi ( talk) 17:12, 25 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. -- Scott Burley ( talk) 21:44, 26 April 2019 (UTC) reply

Doug Jaraczewski

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

I can find various refs to support this article, but nothing that looks very substantial. Incidentally he has 16 (sic) twitter followers. Not really sure if he’s notable so bringing it here to seek a consensus. Mccapra ( talk) 21:38, 19 April 2019 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 21:45, 19 April 2019 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 21:45, 19 April 2019 (UTC) reply

Delete Nothing really indicates notability. Best, GPL93 ( talk) 22:22, 19 April 2019 (UTC) reply
Delete. People are not automatically entitled to have Wikipedia articles just because they exist as political party fundraisers, but this is not referenced anywhere near well enough to get him over WP:GNG for it: most of the references are primary sources or blogs that do not count as support for notability at all, and he's the bylined author, not the subject, of the only one that actually comes from a real daily newspaper. Bearcat ( talk) 18:01, 20 April 2019 (UTC) reply
Delete per Bearcat (no relation) - his only fame is inherited from others' campaigns. Bearian ( talk) 21:13, 24 April 2019 (UTC) P.S. There is a similarly-named Planned Parenthood official who is no more notable, but some Internet searches might conflate the two men. Bearian ( talk) 21:15, 24 April 2019 (UTC) reply
Delete - As noted by others, the sourcing in the article is woefully inadequate to meet notability, nor can I find any coverage in reliable sources. -- Whpq ( talk) 17:34, 25 April 2019 (UTC) reply
Delete since subject fails WP:NPERSON. Yet another political operative who, despite the effort to the contrary, has no place in Wikipedia. - The Gnome ( talk) 13:51, 26 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. -- Scott Burley ( talk) 21:44, 26 April 2019 (UTC) reply

Modia Butler

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

Fails WP:NPOL and WP:GNG. Longtime chief of staff to Cory Booker, but doesn't appear to be independently notable. Most sources that are actually about him are not significant coverage. GPL93 ( talk) 21:15, 19 April 2019 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 21:16, 19 April 2019 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Pennsylvania-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 21:16, 19 April 2019 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of New Jersey-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 21:17, 19 April 2019 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 21:17, 19 April 2019 (UTC) reply

Delete. Being chief of staff to a mayor and/or senator is not an automatic free notability pass just because the person exists, but this is not referenced well enough to get Butler over WP:GNG: it is referenced to a mix of primary sources and glancing namechecks of his existence in coverage of other things or people, not to coverage that is substantively about him. If Cory Booker becomes president in 2020 or 2024 and this guy tags along as his presidential chief of staff, then the notability basis will have changed — but nothing that's already true of him now is already a notability-clincher as of today. Bearcat ( talk) 17:57, 20 April 2019 (UTC) reply
Delete on account of subject failing WP:GNG. Almost all the sources are about someone or something else and not about him. The rest are promos and name drops, of which the most prominent is this in the New York Times. - The Gnome ( talk) 13:56, 26 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. -- Scott Burley ( talk) 21:44, 26 April 2019 (UTC) reply

Dee Workman Benedict

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

Most likely a case of WP:PROMO by and editor with a WP:COI on a subject who fails WP:NPOL. In a classic case of WP:REFBOMB very few, if any, of the sources actually contribute to WP:GNG. The lead paragraph and headshot are almost a dead giveaway that this article exists mostly for promotional purposes. GPL93 ( talk) 21:03, 19 April 2019 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. GPL93 ( talk) 21:04, 19 April 2019 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 21:13, 19 April 2019 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 21:13, 19 April 2019 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Economics-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 21:14, 19 April 2019 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of South Carolina-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 21:14, 19 April 2019 (UTC) reply

Delete; clearly promotional in intent. Nothing stated in the article is "inherently" notable for the purposes of entitling her to have a Wikipedia article, but the referencing consists of a mix of primary sources and glancing namechecks of her existence in coverage of other things or people, not coverage that is substantively about her for the purposes of getting her over WP:GNG. Bearcat ( talk) 18:04, 20 April 2019 (UTC) reply

@ Bearcat the " American Political Consultants category is chock full of these PR pieces. It's like a LinkedIn group. Best, GPL93 ( talk) 19:15, 20 April 2019 (UTC) reply

Thank you, GPL93. Work to be done a-plenty!

- The Gnome ( talk) 12:40, 26 April 2019 (UTC) reply

Delete. This is a blatantly promotional text for a BLP about a non-Wikinotable subject who is yet another political operative. The sources cited, as well as those searched for, post nom, range from near-death weak to practically non-existent. E.g. The New York Times are grandly cited, yet, in their report (about voters now focusing less on cadidates' religion in the U.S.) there is one single drop of the subject, describing her as someone who "spent the last several years working to muster support for Mr. Romney among Christian conservatives." From there on it goes downhill as far as verifiable notability is concerned. - The Gnome ( talk) 12:40, 26 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. -- Scott Burley ( talk) 19:08, 26 April 2019 (UTC) reply

Vinavico Group

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

This does not pass WP:CORPDEPTH. SITH (talk) 20:25, 4 April 2019 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Vietnam-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 20:42, 4 April 2019 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Economics-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 20:42, 4 April 2019 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 20:42, 4 April 2019 (UTC) reply

This needs someone familiar with Vietnamese media to evaluate sources such as these. Google Translate shows that most of these news articles are about this company. Phil Bridger ( talk) 12:23, 5 April 2019 (UTC) reply

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, 78.26 _{(
spin me /
revolutions)} 17:20, 12 April 2019 (UTC) reply

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 20:46, 19 April 2019 (UTC) reply

Weak Keep - reading through the article it looks like it is a rather significant industrial company in Vietnam. We need someone who can understand Vietnamese to kinda search through some of these hits on Google. Further, being that this is a company in Vietnam, not many of the sources we would expect are going to appear online. Dusti ^{*Let's talk!*} 04:11, 26 April 2019 (UTC) reply
Comment: According to a Vietnamese, corporate-tracking website ( here), the total market value of the company is 6,16 billion đồng, which at current forex equivalency translates to approximately $260,000. A rather small sum but we need to know about the size of Vietnamese corporations. - The Gnome ( talk) 12:56, 26 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 15:39, 26 April 2019 (UTC) reply

Church of Epiphany

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

unsourced article, a cut and paste move from Draft:Church of Epiphany. No indication of meeting WP:GNG. Google searches not finding any WP:significant coverage. noq ( talk) 13:43, 12 April 2019 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 13:47, 12 April 2019 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. PATH SLOPU 13:48, 12 April 2019 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 13:53, 12 April 2019 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Architecture-related deletion discussions. Necrothesp ( talk) 14:04, 12 April 2019 (UTC) reply

Delete There are hundreds of thousands of Roman Catholic church buildings in the world. Obviously some of them are notable, but most aren't. How is this church notable? Is it noteworthy for its age? its architectural value? Can't find any evidence this particular church is special. SJK ( talk) 12:30, 14 April 2019 (UTC) reply
Comment. If it dates from 1715 then it's most certainly notable. If it mostly dates from 1930 then it probably isn't. We need more information. -- Necrothesp ( talk) 14:04, 15 April 2019 (UTC) reply

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 20:45, 19 April 2019 (UTC) reply

Delete Wikipedia should not have articles without sources. John Pack Lambert ( talk) 02:50, 20 April 2019 (UTC) reply
Delete -- it looks a very NN church. Peterkingiron ( talk) 15:46, 20 April 2019 (UTC) reply
Delete - the article is unsourced, due to its common name it's difficult to source, and according to the diocesan website, it's not notable, see [1]. Bearian ( talk) 21:22, 24 April 2019 (UTC) reply
That's not actually the diocesan website, this is. But, anyway, the actual diocesan website contains no indication this church is in any way special either. This is just parish church number 62 out of 117, with no sign this church is any more significant than the other 116. SJK ( talk) 21:44, 24 April 2019 (UTC) reply
Delete since subject fails all relevant criteria for Wikinotability, i.e. WP:GNG, WP:NCORP, WP:RELIG/N, and so on. - The Gnome ( talk) 12:59, 26 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 07:08, 26 April 2019 (UTC) reply

Online mortgage advisor

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

The subject appears to fail WP:NCORP. The sourcing currently in the article includes just the company's website and a couple of listings in government databases (both of which show a company name that differs from the one given in the article, although I think that's just a matter of trading name versus registered name). I looked for better sourcing, the best I could find was a one-line mention in The Sun, and a couple of press releases in industry mags - nothing that came close to WP:CORPDEPTH. GirthSummit _(blether) 13:37, 12 April 2019 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. PATH SLOPU 13:49, 12 April 2019 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Finance-related deletion discussions. PATH SLOPU 13:49, 12 April 2019 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. PATH SLOPU 13:49, 12 April 2019 (UTC) reply

Delete Article reads more like a promotional piece than anything. TH1980 ( talk) 02:48, 15 April 2019 (UTC) reply

~~*comment~~ I'm not familiar with UK companies, so I can't really weigh in on how much of a household name it is over there, there are fairly recent coverage
https://www.thescottishsun.co.uk/money/2687537/couple-refused-mortgage-bad-credit-buy-two-bed-house-how-to-do-it/
https://www.financialreporter.co.uk/finance-news/bluestone-announce-new-partnership-with-online-mortgage-advisor.html
https://www.express.co.uk/life-style/property/833717/house-prices-property-comparison-tool
I'll leave it up to people familiar with the UK. Graywalls ( talk) 17:29, 19 April 2019 (UTC) reply

Never heard of it. CoolSkittle ( talk) 21:52, 19 April 2019 (UTC) reply

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 20:45, 19 April 2019 (UTC) reply

Delete. I don't believe this is notable, the references certainly get nowhere near satisfying NCORP, but even if it was, the article is irretrievably SPAMmy and should be deleted as a WP:TNT case if nothing else. Spinning Spark 21:29, 19 April 2019 (UTC) reply
Delete as not notable spam crud. CoolSkittle ( talk) 21:54, 19 April 2019 (UTC) reply
Comment Quick review of the sources identified above - The Financial Reporter piece is a rehashed press release with a brief interview with the managing director - this isn't independent of the subject; the Scottish Sun gives it a one line passing mention - not significant coverage (plus it's the Sun, which is not really RS); I'm not so sure about the Express article - it's longer than the FR one, but still looks pretty puffy as if it was based on a press release, with another short interview with the MD, so may not be properly independent. There's also the problem that it's the Express - probably ranks lower than the Sun in terms of reliability. In short, I don't believe that any of these rise to the level of WP:CORPDEPTH. GirthSummit _(blether) 14:19, 20 April 2019 (UTC) reply

Delete given the explanation provided in response. Graywalls ( talk) 19:41, 21 April 2019 (UTC) reply

Delete - Does not meet notability criteria, poorly referenced. Spyder212 ( talk) 19:15, 20 April 2019 (UTC) reply
Delete: Besides not being an appropriate title for the company (it sounds like a general article about mortgage advisors on the internet), the company falls short of WP:GNG and WP:NCORP. The sources mentioned above aren't independent sigcov and I also found these other sources that are similarly passing mentions or not independent: a profile from The Guardian, an advertisement-like first-person article, and a TruVest article. I also found a Gorkana News article, but this company still falls short of the aforementioned notability guidelines even with this. — Preceding unsigned comment added by MarkH21 ( talk • contribs) 06:45, 26 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. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 07:15, 26 April 2019 (UTC) reply

Kamikaze (record label)

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

Lots of trivial mentions, but no real in-depth coverage of this label. Prior AfD was closed as "no consensus", but when looking at it, the only keep !vote's viability was questioned, while 3 editors !voted to delete/merge. Since that 2013 discussion, virtually no improvement of the article has taken place. Fails WP:GNG and WP:CORPDEPTH. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 13:31, 12 April 2019 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 13:43, 12 April 2019 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 13:43, 12 April 2019 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Thailand-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 13:43, 12 April 2019 (UTC) reply

Keep Several references from respectable news sources are added to the article. -- Lerdsuwa ( talk) 16:18, 12 April 2019 (UTC) reply
Keep. Sources now cited in the article demonstrate subject's notability. -- Paul_012 ( talk) 17:45, 14 April 2019 (UTC) reply

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 20:45, 19 April 2019 (UTC) reply

onel5969, do the recent edits to the article change your opinion? -- Paul_012 ( talk) 11:03, 20 April 2019 (UTC) reply
Keep - most certainly one of the "more important independent labels" in Thailand, numerous notable artists, clearly evident impact on musical culture within that nation. I'm having a hard time reading Thai, but it appears GNG is met. 78.26 _{(
spin me /
revolutions)} 13:31, 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 delete. Sandstein 15:39, 26 April 2019 (UTC) reply

Harsh Narain

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

Fails WP:ANYBIO and WP:NPROF. ∯WBG ^converse 12:10, 12 April 2019 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. CASSIOPEIA^(
talk) 12:51, 12 April 2019 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. CASSIOPEIA^(
talk) 12:51, 12 April 2019 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. CASSIOPEIA^(
talk) 12:51, 12 April 2019 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. PATH SLOPU 13:27, 12 April 2019 (UTC) reply

Comment: I see a number of rather detailed discussions of here works on google.books (enough for WP:PROF). Could someone estimate if the sources / authors are academic themselves? I see only one from Springer. -- FIFAukr ( talk) 15:37, 12 April 2019 (UTC) reply
- Based on the above user's edits to the actual article, the above comment seems to refer to this article which discusses Narain's works. — MarkH21 ( talk) 02:16, 13 April 2019 (UTC) reply

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 20:45, 19 April 2019 (UTC) reply

Weak delete. Low citations on Google scholar aren't enough for WP:PROF. I only found two published reviews of one of his books [2] [3], not enough to convince me of WP:AUTHOR, but if more turn up I could change my mind. — David Eppstein ( talk) 01:14, 24 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 15:39, 26 April 2019 (UTC) reply

Françoise Nielly

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

French painter. This is borderline, but I think it enough on the delete side to bring it here. There is some coverage, but it is mostly about her promotional work for car companies, which ends up making the article promotional. Recent work by another editor who cleaned up the article and removed unreliable sources means there is only one source left. Here's an example of the sourcing problem: I can find one or two decent sources, but most are just trivial advertising. In summary, my searches do not turn up enough non-commercial RS to rescue the article from its promotional state. ThatMontrealIP ( talk) 06:17, 4 April 2019 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of France-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 06:25, 4 April 2019 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Artists-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 06:25, 4 April 2019 (UTC) reply

Delete - I cleaned it up and looked for other sources at that point - agree there is not enough. Tacyarg ( talk) 09:01, 4 April 2019 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 06:25, 4 April 2019 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Arts-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 06:54, 4 April 2019 (UTC) reply

Comment, found some coverage of Nielly ie. Le Journal de Quebec - here and Le Soeil - here (states Nielly has been/is represented/exhibited "in about fifteen galleries in France, London, Barcelona and Tokyo." discusses an exhibition at Perreault Gallery, L'Est Républicain - discussing a luxury hotel boom, mentions a Nielly piece, L'Express - 2011 Who's Next Fashion Trade Show ( explains the show), International School of Colour and Design blog - "we love :: contemporary artist francoise nielly", Villa del Arte Galleries exhibition - "Francoise Nielly returns to Barcelona to showcase her new collection at Villa del Arte Galleries", Citroën exhibited at their C-42 showroom an art car version of its Survolt concept car "Her work has, in turn, inspired Citroën's designers, who cite Nielly's work as the influence behind the vibrant color highlights on the Survolt.", NSS Magazine - "The Meeting of Two Mistresses: Francoise Nielly X IRM Design", but is this enough to satisfy WP:GNG/ WP:NARTIST? Coolabahapple ( talk) 12:18, 7 April 2019 (UTC) reply

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Randykitty ( talk) 11:28, 12 April 2019 (UTC) reply

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 20:44, 19 April 2019 (UTC) reply

Comment A publication (artdaily) that will print, without a byline, something like "Nielly’s work ... is establishing her as one of the most famous French artists of our time." is not serious. She's barely exhibited anywhere. Her own website lists three exhibitions. She is not "one of the most famous French artists of our time". That would be fr:Kader Attia (who ranks 54 in the top 100 at artfacts.net) , Christian Boltanski, Daniel Buren or Pierre Huyghe. It's a shame we don't have an article about Attia, we really should. Vexations ( talk) 21:39, 24 April 2019 (UTC) reply

Off-topic comment: well then, here's the article: Kader Attia. He is in two museum collections (MOMA NY, Guggenheim NY) and has huge SIGCOV, so he has guaranteed notability under WP:ARTIST. ThatMontrealIP ( talk) 23:35, 25 April 2019 (UTC) reply

Delete since subject fails WP:NCREATIVE. A lot of advertorials, though, it this counts for anything. - The Gnome ( talk) 13:03, 26 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. Per WP:SNOW. (non-admin closure) Jovanmilic97 ( talk) 11:16, 26 April 2019 (UTC) reply

21st century skills

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

Although this article is well-sourced in the sense of being reference-bombed, it does not make the case that independent reliable sources find the concept of twenty-first century skills to be notable. (The first three references, which are the ones for the name, are not in major publications but are just on web sites.) This article appears to be part of a walled garden that appears to be advertising something, maybe just advertising a style of thinking about thinking.

This paper is annoyingly overlinked in a way that seems to be trying to impress the reader with how many ideas there are behind it, but it isn't clear that it is any particular set of ideas. Robert McClenon ( talk) 19:08, 19 April 2019 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 19:13, 19 April 2019 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 19:14, 19 April 2019 (UTC) reply

Keep As we are now in the 21st century, it is obvious that educators and students have some interest in teaching and learning skills which will be relevant in the coming years. These may be somewhat different from those of previous centuries because of technological change which has generated new subjects and new priorities. I suppose that we have many topics which touch on this under various titles but the title in question seems a reasonable one as there are several books which have a similar title including the following. The topic by this title is therefore notable and the rest is a matter of ordinary editing, not deletion per WP:ATD, WP:PRESERVE, WP:NOTCLEANUP, &c. Andrew D. ( talk) 23:42, 19 April 2019 (UTC) reply

Teaching 21st Century Skills
Assessing 21st Century Skills
21st Century Skills: Rethinking How Students Learn
Assessment and Teaching of 21st Century Skills
21st Century Skills: Learning for Life in Our Times
Creativity for 21st Century Skills
Deeper Learning: Beyond 21st Century Skills
Transforming Learning Through 21st Century Skills
21st Century Skills - Learning Communication & Teamwork
Digital Learning: Strengthening and Assessing 21st Century Skills

Strong Keep Not sure the nom understands this article. Many countries and institutions have education standards and those official standards are based on forward-looking criteria/skills. The article is a collection of those standards so we don't need to have 20 different articles. Common Core, SCANS, etc.. It's a lump vs split debate, but lumping in this case is better as it allows discussing them as a whole. The term "21st century skills" is a decent enough placeholder; feel free to RM if you think it should be something else but Andrew Davidson has demonstrated wide usage. -- Green C 00:34, 20 April 2019 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included by Andrew Davidson in the Article Rescue Squadron's list of content for rescue consideration. -- Tryptofish ( talk) 20:12, 20 April 2019 (UTC) reply

Keep This is a real thing given ample coverage. Any problems with the article should be discussed on its talk page and fixed. Dream Focus 20:07, 22 April 2019 (UTC) reply
Keep - the article has some structural flaws (not a fan of the excessive laundry list of skills without critical analysis and with little context), but the broad discussion of this topic by various reputed organizations and publications indicates notability. GermanJoe ( talk) 21:35, 23 April 2019 (UTC) reply
Keep - its not so bad and the sources show a depth of notability. Ordinary editing can fix its problems. The entire Common Core State Standards are based on this very topic! Bearian ( talk) 21:25, 24 April 2019 (UTC) reply
Keep Sources show subject is WP:GNG Lubbad85 ( ☎) 22:41, 24 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. -- Scott Burley ( talk) 19:07, 26 April 2019 (UTC) reply

Marc Grégoire

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

Speedy deletion declined. Article is about a former head of the Canadian Coast Guard with no assertion of notability. No other Commissioners have articles. Both sources are routine biographies. Madg2011 ( talk) 19:00, 19 April 2019 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 19:15, 19 April 2019 (UTC) reply

Delete. Being commissioner of the Coast Guard could get a person into Wikipedia if he could be reliably sourced as the subject of enough media coverage about his work in that role to clear WP:GNG for it — but it's not an "inherently" notable role that automatically entitles him to have an article just because he exists, and having had a staff profile on the Coast Guard's own self-published website is not the magic ticket over GNG in and of itself. A person's eligibility for a Wikipedia article hinges on the degree to which media can or cannot be shown to have done journalism about him, not just on self-verifying his own existence. Bearcat ( talk) 00:37, 20 April 2019 (UTC) reply
Delete The Speedy deletion nomination was certainly inappropriate, but this person doesn't appear to pass WP:GNG, as I could not find coverage about him in independent, major reliable sources. Zingarese talk · contribs 03:50, 20 April 2019 (UTC) reply
Delete - Does not clearly pass general notability criteria... some secondary sources, such as the Globe and Mail, the Montreal Gazette, and La Presse, mention his name, but they simply discuss a report he ordered during his time as commissioner. He is not the main subject of any of those secondary sources. Spyder212 ( talk) 19:27, 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 soft delete. WP:REFUND applies. -- Scott Burley ( talk) 19:06, 26 April 2019 (UTC) reply

Equilibrium (puzzle)

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

A minor, unnotable toy. There are only two references currently in the article, neither of which are valid reliable sources (one is merely the text from the product's box, the other is a now-defunct article on a separate, but similar, toy). I have not been able to find any reliable sources discussing this product at all, and the most I have found are listings on sites such as Ebay for people selling it. There have been a number of toys and games that share the same name, but these are completely unrelated to this particular product. Rorshacma ( talk) 17:21, 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 delete. -- Scott Burley ( talk) 19:03, 26 April 2019 (UTC) reply

Hillary Fisher

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

Fails WP:NBIO. No secondary sources that are not promotional in nature. Achievements all linked to a self-published source. Rogermx ( talk) 15:42, 19 April 2019 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 15:43, 19 April 2019 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fashion-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 15:43, 19 April 2019 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Beauty pageants-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 15:43, 19 April 2019 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of South Carolina-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 15:44, 19 April 2019 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Georgia (U.S. state)-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 15:44, 19 April 2019 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 15:46, 19 April 2019 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 15:46, 19 April 2019 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 15:46, 19 April 2019 (UTC) reply

Delete none of the coverage comes even close to meeting GNG. John Pack Lambert ( talk) 02:12, 20 April 2019 (UTC) reply
Delete, fails WP: ANYBIO and WP:NMODEL. Dan arndt ( talk) 05:09, 20 April 2019 (UTC) reply
Delete - Far from meeting the general notability criteria... Spyder212 ( talk) 19:21, 20 April 2019 (UTC) reply
Delete as does not pass WP:GNG, best left to playboywikia Atlantic306 ( talk) 18:05, 21 April 2019 (UTC) reply
Delete: Obviously fails the WP:GNG and WP:NMODEL. -- LACaliNYC ✉ 20:13, 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. Sandstein 15:37, 26 April 2019 (UTC) reply

G.C. Dayer

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

I've declined a WP:PROD on this, but I don't feel it's salvageable. He's possibly just over the notability line, but borderline at best, and there's virtually nothing salvageable here. As far as I can tell the "tour" actually consisted of busking outside Abbey Road studios in the hope that someone would notice him, and he was never actually a recording artist. The absence of an equivalent page on Portuguese Wikipedia is also a huge red flag, since Portugal is the place where he's purportedly notable. ‑ Iridescent 15:37, 19 April 2019 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 15:47, 19 April 2019 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 15:49, 19 April 2019 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 15:49, 19 April 2019 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Portugal-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 15:50, 19 April 2019 (UTC) reply

Delete since subject fails WP:NMUSICIAN and WP:NCREATIVE. The extant sources are limited to marginal websites (e.g. here), routine discography listings such as this, dead links ( here),and promos like this. Not much, to put it gently. - The Gnome ( talk) 13:12, 26 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 15:37, 26 April 2019 (UTC) reply

Hypebeast

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

It's not clear whether this article is about a dictionary term, an individual businessperson/blogger, or about a Hong Kong company or a New York event. But none of the above appear to be notable using the practice at WP:ORGCRIT or other applicable. It's the same situation as with the first AfD, in which the first commenter stated it fails in "qualifying to the minimum of what a Wikipedia article should be written like. Not to mention that the article is written like an absolute advertisement". ☆ Bri ( talk) 14:42, 19 April 2019 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fashion-related deletion discussions. CASSIOPEIA^(
talk) 14:57, 19 April 2019 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. CASSIOPEIA^(
talk) 14:57, 19 April 2019 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. CASSIOPEIA^(
talk) 14:57, 19 April 2019 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. CASSIOPEIA^(
talk) 14:57, 19 April 2019 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Hong Kong-related deletion discussions. CASSIOPEIA^(
talk) 14:57, 19 April 2019 (UTC) reply

Delete - This would be about a company that runs a blog. My experience with company pages here tells me the rest is just an attempt at inherent notability (such as coining the term at dictionary.com, running a festival, etc.). Judging this based on WP:ORGCRIT, it falls well short of what would be considered notable for Wikipedia. -- CNMall41 ( talk) 22:14, 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 delete. "This is historic" isn't a policy-based argument, which leaves us with a clear consensus to delete - at least until something like this actually happens. In the meantime, I suppose that there are sufficient other articles in which this proposal can be mentioned. Sandstein 14:18, 26 April 2019 (UTC) reply

2019 United States Border closure

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

WP:NOT#NEWS. Come back if/when the border gets closed. — JFG ^talk 14:14, 19 April 2019 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. CASSIOPEIA^(
talk) 14:27, 19 April 2019 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Mexico-related deletion discussions. CASSIOPEIA^(
talk) 14:27, 19 April 2019 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. CASSIOPEIA^(
talk) 14:27, 19 April 2019 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Arizona-related deletion discussions. CASSIOPEIA^(
talk) 14:27, 19 April 2019 (UTC) reply

Keep - Keep, as Trump's mention of the closure is historic. If the article can not be kept, it should be redirected per WP:CHEAP to National Emergency Concerning the Southern Border of the United States as a valid search term. -- Jax 0677 ( talk) 15:04, 19 April 2019 (UTC) reply

— Note to closing admin: Jax 0677 ( talk • contribs) is the creator of the page that is the subject of this AfD.

Delete for now: If the closure happens, we can create an article again. For now, it's just news/speculation. If it were done, I think we'll have extensive coverage on the background, details, and aftermath/impact. The last incident where the U.S. closed its borders with Mexico (in the context of U.S.-Mexico relations) was when DEA agent Enrique Camarena was killed in 1985. A new closure would definitely be notable. MX ( ✉ • ✎) 16:57, 19 April 2019 (UTC) reply
Delete This violates 'not crystal ball'. Also, very little President Trump does is historic. The people reacting to him lack a true long duree view of history. John Pack Lambert ( talk) 02:53, 20 April 2019 (UTC) reply
Delete as non-significant. ML^talk 13:12, 21 April 2019 (UTC) reply

Delete This is also mentioned at Mexico–United States border#In_context_of_Trump_administration which might be improved from this article. The Mexico–United States border looks like it needs work by some dedicated editors. Fettlemap ( talk) 03:51, 23 April 2019 (UTC) reply

Keep, this is historic. ImYourTurboLover ( talk) 22:34, 24 April 2019 (UTC) reply

The closure hasn't happened. So nothing historic about it just yet. MX ( ✉ • ✎) 23:34, 24 April 2019 (UTC) reply

Delete, since this is about a threatened-to-happen event. The text has no place here - unless someone makes my CRYSTAL BALL great again. - The Gnome ( talk) 14:01, 26 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 and redirect to Kacey Bellamy#Family life. Sandstein 14:15, 26 April 2019 (UTC) reply

Rob Bellamy

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

fails WP:NHOCKEY and WP:GNG Joeykai ( talk) 13:59, 19 April 2019 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 14:11, 19 April 2019 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 14:11, 19 April 2019 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Ice hockey-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 14:12, 19 April 2019 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 14:12, 19 April 2019 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Tennessee-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 14:12, 19 April 2019 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Rhode Island-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 14:13, 19 April 2019 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 14:14, 19 April 2019 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of South Carolina-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 14:15, 19 April 2019 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Pennsylvania-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 14:15, 19 April 2019 (UTC) reply

Delete another in a long line of non-notable hockey players born in 1985. John Pack Lambert ( talk) 02:29, 20 April 2019 (UTC) reply
Delete - playing with a puck does not make you notable. Spyder212 ( talk) 19:19, 20 April 2019 (UTC) reply
Redirect to Kacey Bellamy#Family life or weak delete. He is mentioned on the page of Olympian sister's article and that has been a typical redirect target in the past for others who are related to more notable people. This would be a clear deletion candidate based the G-News hits for his hockey career being mostly mentions and routine coverage. However, he does get more coverage from his music career and dating an American Idol contestant such as this Boston Herald article. Almost all sources for his music career are primarily about Ayla Brown, and that he just happens to be performing with her. Not sure how much weight to really give him on that kind of musician coverage. Yosemiter ( talk) 22:43, 20 April 2019 (UTC) reply
Delete only 114 games in the AHL means he's not notable. Tay87 ( talk) 11:11, 21 April 2019 (UTC) reply
Redirect per Yosemiter and previous precedent. Well-known enough that he's a plausible search term, but not notable. Smartyllama ( talk) 16:29, 24 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 14:12, 26 April 2019 (UTC) reply

Evan Barlow

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

fails WP:NHOCKEY and WP:GNG Joeykai ( talk) 13:50, 19 April 2019 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 14:00, 19 April 2019 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Ice hockey-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 14:00, 19 April 2019 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 14:00, 19 April 2019 (UTC) reply

Delete a non-notable hockey player. John Pack Lambert ( talk) 02:08, 20 April 2019 (UTC) reply
Delete Fails WP:NHOCKEY. ...William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 22:02, 22 April 2019 (UTC) reply
Delete He passed under the old standard of WP:NHOCKEY when the games played threshold was much lower. While the Calgary Herald article is about him, that is the only article of this nature of coverage; anything else where he is mentioned is just routine sports coverage. Deadman137 ( talk) 14:40, 24 April 2019 (UTC) reply
delete Fails to meet either WP:NHOCKEY or the GNG. Sandals1 ( talk) 17:56, 24 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. Everybody agrees that this is not mainspace-worthy. But opinions are divided between moving back to draft and deleting. By way of a compromise, I'm deleting it, but with the proviso that anybody who actually intends to work on it may request, via WP:REFUND, its restoration to draft or user space. Sandstein 14:12, 26 April 2019 (UTC) reply

Geometry of an algebraic curve

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

See the edit history of this article, which everyone admits is in draft form. Way back in August 2017, an admin protected the article because of an edit dispute. Ever since then, various parties have attempted to redirect, merge, or draftify the article, all of which are either impossible because of the old protection or have been resisted by the article creators. You will also see in the edit history a challenge by one of those vested editors to take it to AfD. So here it is. An article that even the creators have admitted is a draft is not ready for primetime. The page protection installed in August 2017, for an entirely different reason, is not an excuse to embarrass Wikipedia with a half-baked article. ~~The true solution to this conundrum is to Draftify and then the creators can take all the time they want to whip it into the proper shape, but this AfD is possibly the only viable procedure.~~ --- DOOMSDAYER520 ( Talk| Contribs) 12:41, 19 April 2019 (UTC) reply

Now my recommendation is to delete rather than draftify based on the ensuing discussion. --- DOOMSDAYER520 ( Talk| Contribs) 01:49, 21 April 2019 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Mathematics-related deletion discussions. --- DOOMSDAYER520 ( Talk| Contribs) 12:41, 19 April 2019 (UTC) reply

Return to draft. I am truly baffled by the history of this. It has been forcibly moved into mainspace against the wishes of the page creator who had been the only editor for two years. The highlights of the dispute are;
- August 2017, User:Legacypac adds an AFC submission template to the draft [4]
- The creator User:TakuyaMurata reverts on the grounds the draft has never been within scope of the AFC project [5]
- User:Hasteur moves the page regardless declaring that it is ready for mainspace [6]
- Creator moves the page back to draft [7]
- User:RHaworth moves the page back to mainspace [8] and ....
- ... immediately protect the page from further moves [9]. As clear a case of WP:INVOLVED as ever there was.
- A move request on the talk page was closed as "wrong venue"
- So there it has sat ever since with the creator being unable to do anything about it until April 2019 when he requested a merge to a different draft [10]
- This was also declined as wrong venue [11].

By this time I imagine the creator is feeling pretty exasperated. None of the editors involved in enforcing this move to mainspace has previously had much to do with mathematics articles so I question their competence to judge whether it is ready for mainspace. Reading between the lines, the motivation for this was likely to clear a very old draft from the category. Most of the subsequent comments have been of the WP:SOFIXIT variety. For what it's worth, this is not ready for mainspace imo. I think the best thing to do is move it to a userspace draft where the longstanding convention has been not to mess with established editors' drafts. Spinning Spark 17:22, 19 April 2019 (UTC) reply

Return to draft I looked at the history of this and agree with Spinningspark's understanding of the matter. I'm not a fan of draft space myself but, while it exists, it's a reasonable place to put half-baked stuff like this and if the principal author wants it there, that's fine by me. The people trying to push it out of draft space seem to be acting in a pointy, disruptive way. Our policy, WP:NOTPAPER and WP:DEADLINE indicate that there's no practical limits and so we shouldn't go inventing them as a form of busywork. Andrew D. ( talk) 17:45, 19 April 2019 (UTC) reply
Delete Oh you sweet innocent children... I suggest you look up TakyuaMurata's history of taking potentially sub-sub-sub topics from a post-graduate geometry/mathematics textbook and creating a mainspace (or draftspace page) that has perhaps 2 lines in it in WP with a "I'll work on it some day" promise. Some day is nowhere in the near future (at least in practical terms of asking over a 2 year period) so we're left with all of these creations that are retaining dust. Now after a year and a half of it being a redirect to algebrac curve, Takuya decides to backdoor attempt to overturn @ XOR'easter:'s enactment of [ consensus]. Frankly I invite editors to look at some previous history to understand that this is just waiting out the fury for a few years only to attempt to overturn a previous consensus without actually establishing a new consensus. Hasteur ( talk) 22:02, 19 April 2019 (UTC) reply
- "Oh you sweet innocent children" ? Don't you think that is a little condescending? Now you put this article in mainspace yourself, against the wishes of the creator, declaring that it is ready for mainspace. You now want to delete it? Did you only move it to mainspace so you could delete it, by redirect? Until your response here, I was prepared to AGF on motives, but now this is looking more and more like a personal vendetta against Taku. Your alleged attempt at overturning consensus is a diff of adding a proposed merge template, hardly overturning anything, and the alleged consensus is a diff to a discussion that reached no firm conclusion as far as I can see, other than that the article as written shouldn't be in mainspace. There is nothing wrong with maintaining messy drafts for long periods of time: Waveguide filter was created on 7 November 2009, but not posted to mainspace until 25 April 2013 and becoming a Featured Article on 4 January 2014; Planar transmission line, created 3 May 2013, moved to mainspace 9 February 2017, Featured Article 14 February 2019; Electric bath (electrotherapy), created 29 March 2011, moved to mainspace 2 April 2018, Good Article 31 May 2018 ... I could go on, I have lots more like them. My point is, if editors are not allowed to let drafts mature over very long periods, some of these articles may never get written at all. Spinning Spark 23:28, 19 April 2019 (UTC) reply
  - I'll be condescending because either you are not cognizant of the previous history by lazyness or willfull ignorance. Please see WP:OWN to counteract against the wishes of the creator (Nobody owns a single page on wikipedia). All your other examples are WP:WAX. What we asked Taku for the longest time is to not create new drafts until they've fixed the existing ones. If you had even bothered to read, you would see that the Outcome of that RM was to merge/redirect the article to a parent article. We tried for 2 years to get Taku to improve the existing pages with promises of "I'll work on it" that effectively were attempts to get Taku to not use Draft namespace as a giant "I created this" land grab and instead edit existing closely related articles to the point that WP:SPINOUT is the best way to create the new page. Finally because you're argument is a WP:ATTP, it's clear that you didn't bother to read any of the history showing how Taku has been a persistent disruptive factor with these Post-Graduate abstract mathematics pages. You would see that many different strategies to retain the content (Merging,Redirecting, asking for a timeline, etc) only to be met with pulling out every last rule in the book to resist having the nearly hopeless drafts suggests that it's a vanity play instead of wanting to improve the encyclopedia. Hasteur ( talk) 01:15, 20 April 2019 (UTC) reply
    - In what way was moving the article to mainspace meant to fix any of those problems? In any case, it is entirely gratuitous to harangue an editor to get a draft completed. Editors are volunteers and can work on what they choose when they choose. You are not some kind of workflow supervisor and it is not your business to tell him not to create new drafts. My examples are not WP:WAX, they are perfectly valid examples of drafts that have hung around for a long time and gone on to become some of our best examples on Wikipedia. Here's another one, User:Spinningspark/Work in progress/Achieser-Zolotarev filter. I created it in October 2011, it's in about the same state as Taku's article and I've done nothing with it since despite creating dozens more drafts since then. That doesn't mean I'm never going to do anything with it, nor can you legitimately assume Taku will do nothing with his. Spinning Spark 07:40, 20 April 2019 (UTC) reply
~~Return to draft space~~ from which there was no good reason to remove it in the first place. Prior to my making the page into a redirect, I was fairly incensed that it had been moved into main space at all, as my exasperated edit summaries probably indicate. (My good-faith assumption at the time was that the move was done by someone who wanted to keep draft space tidy but had insufficient experience with mathematics to know just how fragmentary the prose was.) Having this in main space makes the encyclopedia worse; if having it in draft space furthers some obscure "land grab" to gain domination over an esoteric topic in abstract mathematics (which anyone else could start writing about if they cared, Taku's draft notwithstanding), well, I can't find it in myself to care. XOR'easter ( talk) 03:21, 20 April 2019 (UTC) reply
- ~~I would also be fine with deleting it.~~ XOR'easter ( talk) 16:18, 21 April 2019 (UTC) reply
Comment from Nominator - If it happens to come up, I had no prior familiarity with this mess and came across the article while doing work for the New Pages Patrol. The discussion here appears to illustrate the toxic environment of infighting and accusations behind this article's bizarre history. Any admin who reviews this AfD should absolutely not have any prior involvement ( WP:INVOLVED). I will admit however that my original recommendation was to draftify, but if that simply enables this pathetic saga to continue, perhaps pure deletion is the best option. --- DOOMSDAYER520 ( Talk| Contribs) 16:58, 20 April 2019 (UTC) reply
Delete - Like Doomsdayer520 I came upon this article through NPP, and I must have looked at 6 times, and passed on what to do with it. Normally, on math (or science articles, for that matter), I usually only review it for copyvio, formatting, and whether or not it is an actual topic. Then I put a request on the appropriate project page asking for someone with more knowledge in the specific area to take a look at it for accuracy, etc. But the article's history made this a difficult decision. Normally I'd suggest simply draftifying, but based on the above discussion, I think the best outcome in this case is deleting. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 19:58, 20 April 2019 (UTC) reply
Delete - Based on what I gathered about the history, I would say that the article should be draftified. However, the article itself isn't about a cohesive subject - it's a disjoint collection of topics related to the algebraic geometry of curves. This really belongs to algebraic curve unless such a section (which currently does not really exist) gets too large and a WP:SPINOUT is warranted. Another option is to merge this content into the algebraic curve article, but the material here is too unfinished to be worth merging in its current state. In the end, this article should be deleted as-is, unless someone is willing to merge it into the algebraic curve article in an expanded state. There is also a relevant discussion about spinning off material from the algebraic curve article into standalone articles that is still in progress. — MarkH21 ( talk) 09:24, 21 April 2019 (UTC) reply
- @ MarkH21: and @ Onel5969: I invite you to see that between September 2017 and April 2019 the page existed as a Redirect to algebraic curve with a involved (using the lower case involved and not Admin Involved) editor reverting the content back. Hasteur ( talk) 17:18, 21 April 2019 (UTC) reply
Return to the draft space for now. The creator of the page in question adds a lot of content, very often only after incubating it for a long time, and often relies on others to bring it into full compliance with some standard Wikipedia conventions. Michael Hardy ( talk) 16:02, 22 April 2019 (UTC) reply
- @ Michael Hardy: Please recondsier when looking at the history of the page:
  Page was created in draft space June 2nd 2015 and was actively worked until June 9th 2015.
  Page went undedited until August 19th 2017 when tracking for AFC was put on the page to ensure that an abuse of the Draft namespace was not being committed in addition to helping provide more appropriate categorization.
  The same day, the AFC template is reverted off.
  Based on a fair text reading, the content had at least a 50% chance of succeeding in mainspace, and therefore was promoted to mainspace
  Taku attempts to assert ownership and yank it back to draft space
  An administrator reviews and believes it's eligible for mainspace to the point of move-protecting the page.
  Through a Consensus discussion at WP Mathematics, it was decided to Blank & Redirect to Algabraeic geometry
  And so it remained until April 17th 2019, when Taku undid the blank/redirect and tried to argue to merge to Draft namespace (and get the content out of mainspace again)
  My point in taking this historical stroll is to show how fundamentally Taku wants to waste even more time with buerecratic wrangling to get his way. Hasteur ( talk) 23:52, 22 April 2019 (UTC) reply
  - There's no need for anyone to waste time on this. Let Taku have the draft in his userspace. Everyone else can proceed to forget about it. Spinning Spark 16:18, 23 April 2019 (UTC) reply
Comment @ TakuyaMurata: has split off and moved the material out of this article into other separate articles and a separate draft (that already contained other content) in order to reduce the drama and argument here. I think that has effectively resolved the issue and allows us to focus purely on the content rather than this issue of edit history. This happened before the above accusation of fundamentally Taku wants to waste even more time... and the proposal to move this back into draft space is now moot. See Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Mathematics#Geometry of an algebraic curve. — MarkH21 ( talk) 20:47, 23 April 2019 (UTC) reply
Delete Based on @ MarkH21's comment just above, there isn't any need to keep this non-article around as a draft. XOR'easter ( talk) 16:01, 24 April 2019 (UTC) reply
Return to draft. Once there, we can start applying the usual "can this potentially become and article and has anyone made improvements in the last six months" standard for whether to keep it around. — David Eppstein ( talk) 00:13, 25 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 14:07, 26 April 2019 (UTC) reply

Mana Ayukawa

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

Non-notable tennis player who fails to meet WP:NTENNIS and WP:GNG. Just routine sources about her minor-league tournaments but she has never actually participated in a WTA-level tournament. Adamtt9 ( talk) 10:51, 19 April 2019 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Japan-related deletion discussions. Eastmain ( talk • contribs) 11:23, 19 April 2019 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Eastmain ( talk • contribs) 11:24, 19 April 2019 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 11:35, 19 April 2019 (UTC) reply

Delete per nom. Though she did play in the qualifying of the 2013 Toray Pan Pacific Open (a WTA event), she lost in qualifying and thus still fails NTENNIS. Iffy★ Chat -- 12:23, 19 April 2019 (UTC) reply
Delete. Ayukawa competed in the WTA 125K series 2015 Nanchang in the main draw for doubles. She lost in the quarterfinals, so that appearance also doesn't meet the threshold of WP:NTENNIS. I was not able to find any in-depth independent coverage that might satisfy the General Notability Guideline. Scottyoak2 ( talk) 17:28, 19 April 2019 (UTC) reply
Delete.Per Scottyoak2 ( talk)- MA Javadi ( talk) 18:17, 20 April 2019 (UTC) reply
Delete - I see nothing notable per Wikiproject tennis guidelines or nsports. The person who deprod'd this should be ashamed of themselves for calling her a WTA player. She has never played in the main draw on the WTA tour. She has only gotten WTA points for playing in minor-minor league events. From what I can see she was let into qualifying for a WTA event in her home town, where she was crushed 6-2,6-0 in the first round of preliminary qualifying. The same happened when she tried to get into a minor league challenger qualifying. Then there is the minor-minor league ITF events. They range in prize money (for the entire event) from 10k to 125k. If you can can win one of these tournaments that pays out at least $35k (probably $2000 to the champion), you "could" be a notable player. Number of titles won in singles or doubles... zero. Fyunck(click) ( talk) 18:18, 23 April 2019 (UTC) reply
Delete since I was the one who put it up for PROD. Being linked 89 times to WP articles does not make one notable. Can someone put that in WP:ATA? FoxyGrampa75 ( talk) 01:36, 24 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 09:08, 26 April 2019 (UTC) reply

Jobanpreet Singh

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

A bit part actor who fails WP:NACTOR & sourced solely by WP:UGC. Cabayi ( talk) 08:19, 12 April 2019 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Cabayi ( talk) 08:19, 12 April 2019 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Cabayi ( talk) 08:19, 12 April 2019 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 08:54, 12 April 2019 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. PATH SLOPU 13:34, 12 April 2019 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Punjab-related deletion discussions. PATH SLOPU 13:34, 12 April 2019 (UTC) reply

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 10:20, 19 April 2019 (UTC) reply

Delete. He's had only two minor roles and no awards. Bearian ( talk) 21:32, 24 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 14:07, 26 April 2019 (UTC) reply

Thoth (newsreader)

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

Seems to fail WP:NSOFT. I don't see any in-depth reviews or other coverage. Few mentions in passing, including in few books, but they are, again, just mentions in passing. Nothing that suffices to meet NSOFT or GNG as far as I can tell. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus|
reply here} 09:15, 19 April 2019 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 10:19, 19 April 2019 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 10:19, 19 April 2019 (UTC) reply

delete when a technology related item doesn't have reliable coverage on the internet, it's a pretty good indication of lack of notability. Graywalls ( talk) 17:45, 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 delete. Sandstein 09:07, 26 April 2019 (UTC) reply

Ayia Napa sea monster

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

I first got suspicious of this article simply because, as a resident of a town close to Ayia Napa, I'd never heard of this "monster" and asking around produced the same result (though, obviously, that in itself doesn't mean the monster isn't a real legend). I then noticed that when you Google for the Ayia Napa sea monster, most results reflect the wording of the Wikipedia article, and just about everything post-dates the creation of this article. Then I saw that of the sources, one actually relates to an entirely different part of Cyprus and a pretty obvious single silly-season news story, another is a Department of Antiquities page that simply refers to Scylla rather than to any specifically Cypriot sea monster, and the third is not easily accessible. The television episode devoted to the Ayia Napa sea monster also post-dates the creation of this Wikipedia entry, and given the not exactly thorough nature of the research on Destination Truth it is entirely reasonable to suppose that the TV program was inspired by a hoax Wikipedia page. Finally, the creator's history does not exactly inspire confidence. I'm happy to be proved wrong, but I think that this page is a long standing hoax. Vizjim ( talk) 09:03, 19 April 2019 (UTC) reply

Delete. Likely WP:HOAX or WP:GNG fail. The only source that is not inspired by Wikipedia is the "HadjiPavlou, P: Cyprus Weekly, page 18. March 14 2007" but my search for HadjiPavlou "To Filiko Teras" -wiki or "Cyprus Weekly" "To Filiko Teras" -wiki produce nothing. See also Talk:Ayia Napa sea monster. Bottom line is we need sources, and an offline newspaper article that cannot be verified to even exist is not good enough. Btw, Polish Wikipedia links to this English language source Famagusta Gazette ( [12]), but it DOES not mention the term "Ayia Napa", instead it talks about the Kouris Dam location. That article also mentions the rumors started around 2005. So it's not a legend, just a recent urban legend. And even if the other article exists, two local newspaper results are unlikely sufficient - this is effectively a tabloid rumor at best. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus|
reply here} 09:28, 19 April 2019 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Cyprus-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 10:16, 19 April 2019 (UTC) reply

I Just discovered that that was old, uncaught vandalism. The original phrase was "O Filikos Teras".-- Auric talk 00:27, 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 delete. Sandstein 09:07, 26 April 2019 (UTC) reply

Case Lawrence

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

This article was created by an undeclared freelance paid editor, User:Suitstobed (see the unblock request here which says "I was then approached by a freelancer (suitstobed)..." regarding another article) and was edited by a confirmed sock master of an obvious paid editing group, User:Tokaria. Boing! said Zebedee ( talk) 08:53, 19 April 2019 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 09:01, 19 April 2019 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 09:02, 19 April 2019 (UTC) reply

Delete as paid-for spam. MER-C 17:02, 20 April 2019 (UTC) reply
Delete as violation of both WP:PAID and WP:TOU ☆ Bri ( talk) 21:12, 20 April 2019 (UTC) reply
Delete. Even assuming it's not spam although it smells and looks like it, this is a totally run of the mill business person. Read it - he makes kid's rides! Bearian ( talk) 21:34, 24 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. Sandstein 09:07, 26 April 2019 (UTC) reply

Derrick Morris

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

I do not see why that makes for encyclopedic notability, now or previously. It is not even claimed he was ever the longest in the world, not that I think even that would be suitable encyclopedic content. I do not think we include every successive European record here, or every sucessive world record holder. I'm not even sure we should include even the current world's record here. WP is not Guinness. NOT NEWS at the time, and not encyclopedic now. DGG ( talk ) 08:39, 19 April 2019 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 09:03, 19 April 2019 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Europe-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 09:03, 19 April 2019 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the Article Rescue Squadron's list of content for rescue consideration. Andrew D. ( talk) 09:40, 19 April 2019 (UTC) reply

Delete. I'm not even sure that he merits a mention in heart transplant; he certainly doesn't merit an article. -- Hoary ( talk) 09:12, 19 April 2019 (UTC) reply
Keep. As the creator you'd expect me to say that, but I don't always defend articles I wrote a long time ago. The fact is that Morris was a very early transplant patient, and in that context his survival was highly significant. Some of you, I'm guessing, are a lot younger than I am and don't remember those days. The UK had stopped doing heart transplants in 1971 because of the lack of success, and didn't start again until 1979. Morris was one of the first transplant patients operated on by Magdi Yacoub who went on to have a tremendous reputation. For many years, Morris was the poster boy for heart transplant success. To me, it's a record worth mentioning, and I really don't get the argument that it's not notable just because the record has now been exceeded by someone else. It's not like we are short of references. Deb ( talk) 09:34, 19 April 2019 (UTC) reply

you say "one of the youngest", or "very early" or "one of the first treat by..." --how is this a justification for keeping the article on this particular individual? I do remember those days. At the time, each individual patient was treated as a milestone. That's why we have NOT NEWS. DGG ( talk ) 13:54, 19 April 2019 (UTC) reply

Keep Passes WP:GNG. The nomination appears to be a personal opinion, contrary to WP:NPOV, WP:IDONTLIKEIT and WP:NOTENCYCLOPEDIC. Andrew D. ( talk) 09:40, 19 April 2019 (UTC) reply
Keep [13] He traveled the world as a keen fund raiser for the British Heart Foundation. Easily passes Passes WP:GNG. Surely even more news coverage of him back then, and in the various nations he visited. No government support at the time of his surgery, he had to help win people over [14]. Is there an official website mentioning him? I see www.heart-transplant.co.uk/derrick.html but can't get it to load. Dream Focus 11:42, 19 April 2019 (UTC) reply

certainly there was news coverage, which is why we have NOT NEWS. The interest was temporary for each successive patient. DGG ( talk ) 13:54, 19 April 2019 (UTC) reply

Temporary, yes, but it did last over 25 years... Deb ( talk) 15:31, 19 April 2019 (UTC) reply

I just want to point out that you seem to conflating two different parts of his story. He did not travel the world as a keen fund raiser, he was a keen fund raiser for the British Heart Foundation and, separately, traveled the world. There is probably not going to be coverage in the various nations he visited, because he was doing so as a private citizen on vacation, not as a fundraiser. Rorshacma ( talk) 23:14, 19 April 2019 (UTC) reply

Delete What DGG and Hoary says. ∯WBG ^converse 12:32, 19 April 2019 (UTC) reply
Delete Article is hung entirely on obituaries with most of the information taken from direct quotes from Morris himself. We claim, in Wikipedia's voice, that he "travelled the world", but looking at the source that is revealed to be a claim he made about himself, and he apparently clarified that by "the world" he meant "America and the Far East, Europe" -- well, my parents took me on a trip to Toronto when I was a baby, and I've lived about a third of my life in Japan, with the other two thirds spent mostly in Ireland, although I've travelled to most other countries in western Europe, but I certainly wouldn't call that "the world", and Wikipedia should not be either; if we cannot find any sources that cover this topic in more detail and are suitably independent of him (the BBC source is useless given its heavy reliance on direct quotation -- it's a nice obituary, but Wikipedia is not in that business). Hijiri 88 ( 聖やや) 16:11, 19 April 2019 (UTC) reply
Keep Passes WP:GNG. Not even pretend compliance with WP:Before. Article's sources already establish notability. WP:Not paper. 7&6=thirteen ( ☎) 17:47, 19 April 2019 (UTC) reply

@ 7&6=thirteen: Please drop the repeated bogus accusation "no compliance with BEFORE". You make this exact same accusation in what seems like half your AFD !votes, maybe more, and virtually every time I see it it makes no sense; what do you make of our article's claim, apparently even more bogus, that he "travelled the world", attributed to a primary source (a direct quotation -- the fact that the quotation appears on the BBC's website is irrelevant) wherein the subject himself defines "the world" as "America", "the Far East", and "Europe"? Hijiri 88 ( 聖やや) 01:29, 20 April 2019 (UTC) reply

聖 Please stop telling me what to say. And please stop with your tired claim that this line of WP:Before is "bogus". It isn't. This article is illustrative of a problem, which is WP:AFD discussions that are completely bogus. They ignore what is already in the article. This discussion, which is permitted under the rules we edit under, is a waste of valuable editor time. Indeed, your directions to me are officious, ineffective, and unhelpful. I will argue as I see fit. 7&6=thirteen ( ☎) 01:39, 20 April 2019 (UTC) reply

They ignore what is already in the article. Umm ... is that a joke? I explicitly asked you what you thought about something that is in the article now and is extremely dubiously sourced, and you appear to have ignored me. Hijiri 88 ( 聖やや) 02:00, 20 April 2019 (UTC) reply

Apparently you continue to be oblivious to the present article and its many WP:RSs. You can lead a horse to water, but you can't make him drink. 7&6=thirteen ( ☎) 13:53, 20 April 2019 (UTC) reply

I honestly have no earthly idea what you are talking about at this point. You are either trolling me for fun or pushing some kind of agenda. I honestly don't care enough to figure out which. Hijiri 88 ( 聖やや) 03:24, 21 April 2019 (UTC) reply

FWIW, shortly after posting the above I noticed some much stronger evidence that the above user is trolling me. [15] To go into it in more detail would be off-topic for an AFD, but it was a lot more inappopriate for the user to respond to my on-topic question with trolling like the above. Hijiri 88 ( 聖やや) 06:34, 21 April 2019 (UTC) reply

Keep. Interesting read; certainly encyclopaedic to the reader. Agree with all points by keepers. Llywelyn2000 ( talk) 20:51, 19 April 2019 (UTC) reply
Comment. I appreciate Deb's effort in creating this article, which, although modest, looks rather carefully done. And I appreciate Deb's response above. I may be wrong: Morris may merit more than a mere mention in heart transplant, and he may merit a important part of the article on Magdi Yacoub. But nothing beyond these, as far as I can see. As for 7&6's talk of ignoring WP:Before, which signs of notability had the nominator (DGG) or I lazily failed to look for? 7&6, you have fleshed out the article a little, but what additional notability have you shown? -- Hoary ( talk) 05:30, 20 April 2019 (UTC) reply
- I'd mention a couple of things: the reason most of the references are from obituaries is that, at the time of the transplant, there wasn't an internet, so these are the easiest on-line sources to find. I didn't really want to start expanding the article at length and beginning the search for print sources if it's going to be deleted; there is an article on the Welsh language wiki, which will survive regardless. Deb ( talk) 07:32, 20 April 2019 (UTC) reply

Comment Hoary, to respond to you. I added a couple of sources. I formatted all the sources in the article. But more importantly, I mined the existing sources and expanded the article. He is notable precisely because of his extended survival, and because of his symbolic effect on public opinion about transplants. The sourcing is no longer "entirely on obituaries."

WP:Before requires nothing less. Potential expansion, increased sourcing, and seeing what the article can become are all part of the equation. It is a hurdle one should traverse before starting an AFD discussion. I hope you agree, and I hope we all act accordingly in the future. Cheers. 7&6=thirteen ( ☎) 13:00, 20 April 2019 (UTC) reply

This is no longer the article it was when this WP:AFD was proposed. So we are clear as to what I did, and could have been done, the article history shows:

Total edits 39

Minor edits 21 (53.8%)

(Semi-)automated edits 2 (5.1%)

Reverted edits1 2 (5.1%)

Added (bytes)3 4,328

Deleted (bytes) -433

And that doesn't include the subsequent contributions by other editors.

Thank you

You are shooting at a moving target. 7&6=thirteen ( ☎) 14:45, 20 April 2019 (UTC) reply

Keep Ten independent sources testify to notability. Rathfelder ( talk) 16:32, 20 April 2019 (UTC) reply
Keep An interesting and well-written article. Dormskirk ( talk) 16:49, 20 April 2019 (UTC) reply
Keep. He seems to have been a notable patient. Ruslik_ Zero 18:16, 20 April 2019 (UTC) reply
Keep Articke meets WP:GNG. MarnetteD| Talk 18:21, 20 April 2019 (UTC) reply
keep per above four editors-- Ozzie10aaaa ( talk) 18:26, 20 April 2019 (UTC) reply
Keep Passes WP:GNG. sources already establish notability. WP:Not paper. Lubbad85 ( ☎) 00:55, 21 April 2019 (UTC) reply
Weak keep Has more coverage than many of our ~~BLPs~~ articles about people. Has actual coverage about him by the BBC. [16] Just maybe crosses the line for bringing awareness to this condition. So many other BLPs still need deletion for lacking notability however. Doc James ( talk · contribs · email) 01:40, 21 April 2019 (UTC) reply

This is not a BLP as the subject died in 2005. See WP:CRYBLP. Andrew D. ( talk) 02:27, 21 April 2019 (UTC) reply

Keep - of course. It was perhaps borderline when AfD'd but it is not now. Oculi ( talk) 10:11, 21 April 2019 (UTC) reply
keep...Without the backing of any WP...etc... the article is about a recipient who survived for so long unexpectedly. He died from something unrelated to the transplant (unusual too). There are many sources. It is also unusual to mention his name. His transplant was clearly followed closely by the BBC (and see DocJames's BBC link above) and Yacoub mentions his name too (unusual), despite Morris not being the 1st but being the 11th in UK. There is a category for heart transplant recipients and Morris is clearly notable in this category. I have tried to add some information...hope it helps. If additional information required...I would look at his contribution to fundraising. Whispyhistory ( talk) 16:16, 22 April 2019 (UTC) reply
Keep per this, this, this and this. Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 18:09, 22 April 2019 (UTC) reply
Keep He meets the GNG as demonstrated by Ritchie. Philafrenzy ( talk) 18:45, 22 April 2019 (UTC) reply
Keep - Pretty obvious GNG keep per Ritchie above. Carrite ( talk) 19:05, 23 April 2019 (UTC) reply
Strong Keep Quite notable, as many others have said.-- Dthomsen8 ( talk) 14:27, 24 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 is that the subject meets notability guidelines. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 08:10, 26 April 2019 (UTC) reply

Maureen Hingert

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

This article has been around for 7 years and still has no sources. She's mentioned in Google searches, but I'm not seeing any decent WP:RS for her. Most others from same pageant ( Miss Universe Sri Lanka) don't have articles. A bunch are up for deletion, and probably all should stay or all should go--except for those that are notable for other reasons.

On further reflection, I think we should delete and Redirect to Miss Universe Sri Lanka#Titleholders -- David Tornheim ( talk) 08:03, 19 April 2019 (UTC) [revised 08:40, 19 April 2019 (UTC)][revised 09:10, 19 April 2019 (UTC)] reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 08:14, 19 April 2019 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Netherlands-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 08:14, 19 April 2019 (UTC) reply

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

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Dance-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 08:20, 19 April 2019 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fashion-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 08:23, 19 April 2019 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 08:23, 19 April 2019 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sri Lanka-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 08:24, 19 April 2019 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 08:25, 19 April 2019 (UTC) reply

Keep - sources added; notable for being most successful Sri Lankan contestant in a major international pageant. Also went on to have acting career. MurielMary ( talk) 12:31, 21 April 2019 (UTC) reply
Keep as multiple references to significant reliable sources coverage have been added to the article so that WP:GNG is passed and the article should be kept imv Atlantic306 ( talk) 18:02, 21 April 2019 (UTC) reply
Keep Passes GNG per referencing with third-party RS. -- qedk ( t 桜 c) 13:38, 25 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. -- Scott Burley ( talk) 07:30, 26 April 2019 (UTC) reply

Zorii Fain

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

No citations in article body, no links from the mainspace. Unclear notability (the article says the Ukranian president gave him "an honorary title of Honored Artist of Ukraine", but I'm not sure that automatically makes someone notable.) Eman 235/ talk 07:27, 19 April 2019 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 07:39, 19 April 2019 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 07:40, 19 April 2019 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 07:40, 19 April 2019 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 07:41, 19 April 2019 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Ukraine-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 07:41, 19 April 2019 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Photography-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 07:42, 19 April 2019 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 07:42, 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 delete. -- Scott Burley ( talk) 07:21, 26 April 2019 (UTC) reply

Paralikkunnu Juma Masjid

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

No evidence of notability or significance at all. Just "a mosque" in "a village". Daiyusha ( talk) 03:08, 12 April 2019 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Islam-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 04:32, 12 April 2019 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 04:33, 12 April 2019 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 04:34, 12 April 2019 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Architecture-related deletion discussions. Necrothesp ( talk) 14:12, 12 April 2019 (UTC) reply

Delete I can't find anything useful on the subject in a search, it does not appear to be notable and fails WP:GNG. Simply being listed in a local police website is not an indication of notability. Hzh ( talk) 19:30, 18 April 2019 (UTC) reply

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: This would normally be a good candidate for a soft delete. However, the article is about a mosque located in India, so the best sourcing may be hard to locate for English speakers. I'm going to give this more time for more people to look over.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Spirit of Eagle ( talk) 04:31, 19 April 2019 (UTC) reply

Delete Nothing found which could prove notability. The mosque seems to exist, but that's all that can be found. MezzoMezzo ( talk) 03:49, 23 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. -- Scott Burley ( talk) 07:20, 26 April 2019 (UTC) reply

Portia Reiners

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

This article was deprodded without explanation, just a blanket statement that it should be sent to AfD without any reason given as to why. To begin with, I am unconvinced that she has had multiple significant roles in notable productions. Even her in a soap opera 47 episode role is not to me clear that it is significant. Repeating roles in soap operas have to be weighed both on the scale of the episodes they encompass and also against the totality to the production. It is only the totality of the production, not individual episodes that is notable. Beyond this we have a total failure of the general notability guidelines. My search for sources produced nothing more substantial, and her twitter account is not at all a useable source at least to add towards notability. IMDb is not only an unreliable source, often including inaccurate information and on occasion down right hoaxes, but it aims to cover every person who has ever appeared in film, and close to the same level for appearances in programic television, I think it does not extend to news broadcasts and reality shows, but if it is a pre-scripted TV show, I think IMDb generally aims to include the whole cast, even people who were never credited. This is absurdly more broad than our inclusions criteria, yet we at present have dozens if not hundreds of articles that have IMDb as the only source. The fact that prod deletes for such articles routine get rejected shows to what extent Wikipedia is still under the control of the radical inclusionists who ruined Wikipedia credibility with their reckless creationism from 2006-2012. John Pack Lambert ( talk) 01:50, 12 April 2019 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 04:37, 12 April 2019 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 04:37, 12 April 2019 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 04:37, 12 April 2019 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 04:38, 12 April 2019 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 04:38, 12 April 2019 (UTC) reply

Comment The IMDb episode counts can be very incomplete also. This is especially true for older, more obscure shows and soap operas, which produces so many episodes. Some actors have been in many more episodes than IMDb has listed for them (especially true for soap opera actors, especially ones with long term roles). I forget which year IMDb added the feature to easily add individual episodes and the actors in the particular episodes, but it's very incomplete for some shows prior to that. Ones after that tend to be more (or closer to being) accurate. I'm not familiar with Reiners', so this might not apply to her. Just something to be taken into consideration. GoldenAgeFan1 ( talk) 22:38, 13 April 2019 (UTC) reply
Keep That nomination took quite a turn there at the end. Anyway, she easily passes WP:NACTOR#1. Twelve Thirty, for example, was widely reviewed, e.g. by Stephen Holden in The New York Times, by Andrew Schenker in The Village Voice, and Bill Goodykoontz in The Arizona Republic, among others, including commentary on her specific performance in the film. She's also had a stage career that isn't mentioned at all in the article, such as her lead role in the 2002 play The Notebook, which was reviewed by Anita Gates for The New York Times, as well as in NYDN and Newsday. She's obviously "had significant roles in multiple notable films, television shows, stage performances, or other productions", which is what the actual notability guidelines require. Bakazaka ( talk) 19:35, 16 April 2019 (UTC) reply

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Spirit of Eagle ( talk) 04:28, 19 April 2019 (UTC) reply

Keep as per the last post she has multiple significant roles in notable productions in television, film and Broadway theatre productions so deserves to be kept in the encyclopedia, reliable sources have been identified above that confirm that she passes WP:NACTOR, thanks Atlantic306 ( talk) 12:30, 21 April 2019 (UTC) reply
Keep but should retain the Additional Citations tag. Meets notability requirements but some work should be done to improve references. -- PhobosIkaros ✉ 17:45, 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 delete. -- Scott Burley ( talk) 07:19, 26 April 2019 (UTC) reply

Azmat Tarin

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

Not notable enough, fails WP:ANYBIO. Störm (talk) 03:11, 19 April 2019 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 03:52, 19 April 2019 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 03:53, 19 April 2019 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 03:53, 19 April 2019 (UTC) reply

Delete a non-notable banker. John Pack Lambert ( talk) 01:59, 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. -- Scott Burley ( talk) 07:28, 26 April 2019 (UTC) reply

Ras Al Khaimah Media Free Zone

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

Doesn't appear to meet the notability guidelines for organisations (the subject is a free trade zone, so a sort of organisation, though not a company) or the general notability guideline. I haven't been able to find any sources that are any more substantial or any more recent than those in the article, so I think deletion is preferable to merging this into Ras Al Khaimah. – Arms & Hearts ( talk) 15:30, 4 April 2019 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. CASSIOPEIA^(
talk) 15:32, 4 April 2019 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Finance-related deletion discussions. CASSIOPEIA^(
talk) 15:32, 4 April 2019 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United Arab Emirates-related deletion discussions. CASSIOPEIA^(
talk) 15:32, 4 April 2019 (UTC) reply

Keep with Merge. Merge with Ras Al Khaima as per short text in WP:MERGEREASON.-- PATH SLOPU 16:53, 4 April 2019 (UTC) reply

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Natg 19 ( talk) 19:50, 12 April 2019 (UTC) reply

Delete There's almost no text, just a list of individuals associated with the subject. The sources are all 2006/2007, and they are all reporting announcements that the zone will be set up - there's nothing saying that it ever actually was. I did find this, which might be related or something else entirely - but none of the people listed on our article are mentioned on the ' leadership' page. So we can't tell whether the zone ever actually came into existence, and we are listing people by name who seem not to be involved with it any more if it was set up. Delete and start again with a new article under the proper name (probably Ras Al Khaima Economic Zone, with a small section about the Media Zone). GirthSummit _(blether) 11:28, 18 April 2019 (UTC) reply

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Dusti ^{*Let's talk!*} 02:59, 19 April 2019 (UTC) reply

~~Keep~~ Merge The article is terrible. The subject is notable on the basis of its citations. I'm not aware of a recency criteria when it comes to a notability judgement. It could be defunct, but still notable. It was covered with significance in Gulf News and Khaleej Times, both of which are reliable and secondary, and probably as independent as you'll find when it comes to local politics in a small country. romnempire ( talk) 04:38, 19 April 2019 (UTC) reply
- Change of heart, I think this is unlikely to be expanded, so per WP:ATD-M it should get merged somewhere. romnempire ( talk) 04:56, 19 April 2019 (UTC) reply

Quick question - Romnempire did you notice that all of the sources (which I agree are reliable) are talking about an announcement of something that was going to happen? They none of them say that this zone was ever actually set up. As far as I've been able to work out, it never was, or it was set up as a sub-zone of the RAKEZ. Cheers GirthSummit _(blether) 06:10, 19 April 2019 (UTC) reply

Comment - Girth So according to the gulf news article, the Media Free Zone was supposed to be established under the corporate management of the investment authority (RAKIA). As far as I can tell, RAKIA was given its mandate by Emiri Decree No. 2 of 2005 and RAKIA was merged into RAKEZ by Law No. 2 of 2017, probably in response to the khater massad case. As far as I can tell, the Media Free Zone was never intended to be an independent corporate entity. I think we're laboring under the misapprehension the Media Free Zone is an "organization". It is probably just a room in an office somewhere with the delegated authority to establish FZ LLCs for Media purposes and grant leases to land in a delegated office park to those LLCs. But that's a moot point, notability doesn't depend on an entity's status as an organization. And, on the subject of moot points, an entity doesn't even need to have actually existed to be notable. I think these people on this page were involved in building a "film city" as an entity licensed by the Media Free Zone, and that venture collapsed. But the page wasn't about them, and the sources weren't about them, they were about the issuing authority that brokered their relationship with the government of Ras al Khaimah. I think the appropriate course of action is to remove the people from the page on the basis that they aren't actually relevant to the subject of the article, and then merge the article itself and its sources into Ras_Al_Khaimah_Investment_Authority, and then update the RAKIA page to be a page on RAKEZ. A delete might be easier, but I don't think it's technically the right thing to do. romnempire ( talk) 01:09, 20 April 2019 (UTC) reply

Thanks Romnempire, you obviously did a your homework there! If there would be any content left after the removal of the people's names, I'd agree with you about a merge - however, the article only makes two other assertions. It says that the finance company is Ramshir & Asr Farasazan Pars (despite the fact that this company isn't mentioned in any of the refs), and it says that the Free City was launched in 2006 - that's it, nothing else. I don't see the point of merging that. I would be in favour of improving and expanding Ras_Al_Khaimah_Investment_Authority in the ways you suggest though. GirthSummit _(blether) 07:18, 20 April 2019 (UTC) reply

Delete. fails WP:CORP. No inherent notability. Ok... so it exists.. and existence isn't notability. Graywalls ( talk) 01:43, 25 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. -- Scott Burley ( talk) 07:13, 26 April 2019 (UTC) reply

Northwest District Explosion

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

Fails WP:EVENT. This 2016 natural gas explosion in Portland, Oregon received significant coverage in local news outlets—such as OregonLive ( [17]), KGW ( [18]), and KATU ( [19] [20])—but has not received the breadth of coverage required to establish notability. In particular, the event does not meet WP:DIVERSE, which states that "Significant national or international coverage is usually expected for an event to be notable." All of the sources I have been able to find on this event are local media in the Portland area. In my evaluation, the event has not received enough coverage to warrant inclusion in a global encyclopedia. Lord Bolingbroke ( talk) 20:46, 12 April 2019 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Oregon-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 20:48, 12 April 2019 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 20:50, 12 April 2019 (UTC) reply

Merge with List of gas explosions. This article could potentially be saved if some larger scale sources were found (such as NBC or AP), but I think it would be better off to just merge it with List of gas explosions because although this incident deserves a little recognition on Wikipedia due to its scale, a standalone article is probably not fitting. That article also does not mention the incident and as a result does not link to this page. Seanthemouse ( talk) 12:35, 13 April 2019 (EST)

@ Seanthemouse:, It does now. Have a look. The article looks like someone started it and abandoned it. I made some changes to it. I don't see any notability issues now. Graywalls ( talk) 14:46, 14 April 2019 (UTC) reply

strong keep This wasn't an average gas explosion that blew off a sliding door or a routine drug cookery gone wrong. I remember when this happened. It had a significant community impact and received significant and repeated coverage as they investigate the event. It continued to get coverage beyond a brief period after the event. KPTV Nov 2018. In other AfD discussions I have been involved in, the general perception was that the Oregonian is considered regional. This story was aired nationally. Associated Press, ABC News via YouTube, NBC News via KGW CBS News Bay Area via YouTube Graywalls ( talk) 21:56, 13 April 2019 (UTC) reply

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Dusti ^{*Let's talk!*} 02:59, 19 April 2019 (UTC) reply

Strong Keep per Graywalls. Mosaicberry ( talk) 13:06, 19 April 2019 (UTC) reply
Keep - My initial thought was to propose a merge, but after reading the above comments and gathering some more information on the subject, I believe this article does meet notability criteria and should be kept. Spyder212 ( talk) 19:17, 20 April 2019 (UTC) reply
Keep, meets WP:GNG with sustained significant coverage in independent, national, reliable sources. This AP wire is national coverage two years after the explosion. This is regional coverage one year later. This and this (paywall) are regional coverage two years later. Plus there was a bunch of national contemporary coverage (e.g., Fox, NBC, AP, US News, USA Today). Here is what the article looked like when it was nominated, but since then, Graywalls has rescued it by expanding it significantly. Well done! Leviv ich 18:12, 25 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 speedy redirect to Realm of Kings with no impediment to recreation of a more in-depth article Spinning Spark 16:01, 19 April 2019 (UTC) reply

Cancerverse

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

Minor Marvel Comics universe probably better covered in Multiverse (Marvel Comics) Xevus11 ( talk) 02:30, 19 April 2019 (UTC) reply

Speedy restore previous redirect to Realm of Kings. This AFD nomination is unnecessary bureaucratic overkill. The redirect to Realm of Kings was stable for a long time until another user changed the redirect today to a badly-written single line, and instead of going to AFD over such a small fragment, the redirect could simply have been restored with a note to the user who wrote that line that if that editor wants to turn the redirect into a real article, he or she can do so but needs to do better than that single line. I think a redirect to Realm of Kings is better for now than a redirect to Multiverse (Marvel Comics) because, at present, there is actually discussion of the Cancerverse in the former article but not the latter. — Lowellian ( reply) 02:59, 19 April 2019 (UTC) reply
Speedy restore to redirect I agree with Lowellian in regards to most of their argument. I don't want to accidentally argue along the lines of WP:ADHOM, but the editor in question who made the edit has a history of making such edits or vandalism (especially in this topic). It's worth noting that the page was specifically created as a redirect for when/if someone wanted to make it into an article, according to the first edit comment. There's a little bit written about the article topic in some news articles, mostly in relation to the upcoming Marvel movie, but I can't tell if the sources are reliable. The edit by this user here might also be vandalism, since looking at The Thanos Imperative (which might be another good candidate for the redirect) the description of Cancerverse is different. Userqio ( talk) 05:24, 19 April 2019 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. Sam Sailor 05:58, 19 April 2019 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Comics and animation-related deletion discussions. Sam Sailor 05:58, 19 April 2019 (UTC) reply

Restore redirect to Realm of Kings and categorize it as an {{ R comics from related word}}. The essay Wikipedia:Notability (fiction) asks us to consider the general notability guideline, but Cancerverse is not notable for a stand-alone article. As a search term the title is valid, and a redirect is thus an appropriate policy-based alternative to deletion.
A redirect may always be boldly made per WP:ATD-R and WP:BLAR, and in a case like this restored. Unless the redirect is challenged and consensus is not subsequently reached on the talk page, an AFD discussion is not necessarily needed. The script User:DannyS712/Redirectify.js can come in handy in some of these situations (although not this one). Sam Sailor 09:51, 19 April 2019 (UTC) reply
Speedy restore last redirect to Realm of Kings. per Lowellian, Userqio and Sam. Mosaicberry ( talk) 13:07, 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 soft delete. WP:REFUND applies. -- Scott Burley ( talk) 07:10, 26 April 2019 (UTC) reply

Vicious Delicious

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

Never charted nor received sales certification, not enough reviews to warrant significant coverage, fails WP:NALBUM. Jalen D. Folf (talk) 19:55, 4 April 2019 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. Ceethekreator ( talk) 20:04, 4 April 2019 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. Ceethekreator ( talk) 20:04, 4 April 2019 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Israel-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 20:32, 4 April 2019 (UTC) reply

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ceethekreator ( talk) 20:14, 11 April 2019 (UTC) reply

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, B dash ( talk) 02:25, 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 soft delete. WP:REFUND applies. -- Scott Burley ( talk) 07:09, 26 April 2019 (UTC) reply

Mau King

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

Non-notable app. I'm not totally clear on whether or not the "reviews" aren't just press releases, but either way, they might not meet WP:RS. – Roscelese ( talk ⋅ contribs) 22:01, 11 April 2019 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Video games-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 22:21, 11 April 2019 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Europe-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 22:22, 11 April 2019 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Germany-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 22:23, 11 April 2019 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Brazil-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 22:23, 11 April 2019 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. PATH SLOPU 13:43, 12 April 2019 (UTC) reply

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, B dash ( talk) 02:25, 19 April 2019 (UTC) reply

I see just about nothing in Google and nothing in the WP:VGSE to indicate this topic meets the WP:GNG. Delete. -- Izno ( talk) 23:22, 24 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. -- Scott Burley ( talk) 07:08, 26 April 2019 (UTC) reply

Hoax (band)

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

Promotion for Non notable band. Lacks coverage in independent reliable sources. Article is bombarded with multiple sources but none are independent reliable sources with any depth of coverage of the band. duffbeerforme ( talk) 12:10, 12 April 2019 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. CASSIOPEIA^(
talk) 12:50, 12 April 2019 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. CASSIOPEIA^(
talk) 12:50, 12 April 2019 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. CASSIOPEIA^(
talk) 12:50, 12 April 2019 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. PATH SLOPU 13:29, 12 April 2019 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Entertainment-related deletion discussions. PATH SLOPU 13:29, 12 April 2019 (UTC) reply

Weak Keep - The article absolutely needs to be cleaned up, to remove trivial tidbits and to reduce its reliance on self-created social media sources. However, they have gotten some notice in the alternative music press in some regions: [21], [22]. Admittedly there is not much more to be found, so my vote is "weak keep" and I would not argue with anyone who votes to delete under the WP:TOOSOON standard. --- DOOMSDAYER520 ( Talk| Contribs) 17:51, 13 April 2019 (UTC) reply
Comment I am unsure about the notability of this group. Lubbad85 ( ☎) 23:49, 16 April 2019 (UTC) reply

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 02:20, 19 April 2019 (UTC) reply

Weak keep per DOOMSDAYER520. Mosaicberry ( talk) 13:11, 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. -- Scott Burley ( talk) 07:06, 26 April 2019 (UTC) reply

India Gants

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

Having been turned into a redirect last year due to the subject bein notable for only a single event (winning America's Next Top Model (season 23), it's back now on the strength of what appears to be promotional material only [23] [24] [25] [26] [27] [28]. There still appears to be insufficient notability from anything outside her ANTM win, and the assessment from that discussion still seems to hold. -- Elmidae ( talk · contribs) 23:17, 4 April 2019 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Ceethekreator ( talk) 23:21, 4 April 2019 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Ceethekreator ( talk) 23:21, 4 April 2019 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. Ceethekreator ( talk) 23:21, 4 April 2019 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fashion-related deletion discussions. Ceethekreator ( talk) 23:21, 4 April 2019 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Washington-related deletion discussions. Ceethekreator ( talk) 23:21, 4 April 2019 (UTC) reply

Keep The citations are not promotional because they detail in a neutral point of view. Also it should be kept anyway because all reality show participants are automatically given a page due to winning the competition. And yes, Teyona and Kyla deserve pages too.

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 06:04, 5 April 2019 (UTC) reply

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Randykitty ( talk) 13:00, 12 April 2019 (UTC) reply

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 02:19, 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. -- Scott Burley ( talk) 07:05, 26 April 2019 (UTC) reply

Accrediting Commission International

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

Insufficient coverage in reliable sources to establish notability. It gets a few paragraphs in articles about people with degrees from associated institutions, but with just a single dedicated piece in QuackWatch, seeems to fall short. BiologicalMe ( talk) 19:01, 4 April 2019 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 20:34, 4 April 2019 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 20:34, 4 April 2019 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Arkansas-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 20:35, 4 April 2019 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 20:35, 4 April 2019 (UTC) reply

Keep. The sourcing looks fine to me. The subject of the article appears to be notable precisely because it is not accredited. Mccapra ( talk) 00:22, 12 April 2019 (UTC) reply

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Natg 19 ( talk) 19:48, 12 April 2019 (UTC) reply

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 02:18, 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. -- Scott Burley ( talk) 07:04, 26 April 2019 (UTC) reply

International Aviation College, Ilorin

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

Flight Schools like all such training organisations are rarely noteworthy for an article and I dont see anything about this one that makes it standout from the hundreds of other such non-notable flying schools. MilborneOne ( talk) 14:21, 5 April 2019 (UTC) reply

The International Aviation College, Ilorin is notable, because it meets the notability criteria and it has sufficient coverage in the media and it is one of four flight schools in Nigeria. Timmylegend ( talk) 14:35, 5 April 2019 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Aviation-related deletion discussions. MilborneOne ( talk) 14:27, 5 April 2019 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Nigeria-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 14:50, 5 April 2019 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 14:51, 5 April 2019 (UTC) reply

Weak keep some sources I found: [29], [30], [31], [32], and [33], but that may not be significant enough coverage. -- DannyS712 ( talk) 21:40, 6 April 2019 (UTC) reply

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Natg 19 ( talk) 20:00, 12 April 2019 (UTC) reply

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 02:17, 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 delete. — JJMC89 ( T· C) 01:29, 26 April 2019 (UTC) reply

Bont

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

Pretty sure this is a hoax, unsourced since creation in 2006 (!) by a SPA, could not find sources as the word could refer to several other topics, there are two links in the mainspace, both of which are meant to link somewhere else. - CHAMPION ^{(
talk) (
contributions) (
logs)} 01:05, 19 April 2019 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. - CHAMPION ^{(
talk) (
contributions) (
logs)} 01:05, 19 April 2019 (UTC) reply

Comment. If actually a hoax, this would be one of the top ten oldest hoaxes found on Wikipedia. See Wikipedia:List of hoaxes on Wikipedia for a list. MarkZusab ( talk) 01:50, 19 April 2019 (UTC) reply
- Yeah, I realize that, having previously found one a few months ago, which really make me questions how many more there might be out there. - CHAMPION ^{(
  talk) (
  contributions) (
  logs)} 03:54, 19 April 2019 (UTC) reply
Comment Bont actually sounds a lot like the actual sport Field Hockey so I'm wondering if there's any connection. Maybe it's a local/personal variation? Anyways the page has been around so long it precedes the disambiguation page Bont (disambiguation) by a few good years, and all of the references on the internet to this form of the word Bont seem to have been created in response to the Wikipedia article. Userqio ( talk) 06:02, 19 April 2019 (UTC) reply
Comment. There is a company called Bont [34] that makes skates and I'm seeing some evidence that they promote roller hockey competitions. No comment on whether that is related in any way. Spinning Spark 15:23, 19 April 2019 (UTC) reply
Delete. Regardless of whether this is a hoax, it is clearly non-notable. All the incoming links are intended for the company I mentioned above, not for a sport. Needless to say, it should also be removed as the primary topic on the disambiguation page. Spinning Spark 15:51, 19 April 2019 (UTC) reply
Delete - The complete lack of sources really does make this sport seem like something that was WP:MADEUP. Regardless, it is definitely not notable. Rorshacma ( talk) 16:56, 19 April 2019 (UTC) reply
Comment The only reason I'm holding back on a delete !vote for this is because hoaxes get different treatment than regular non-notable pages. Bont seems so close to Field Hockey and Indoor hockey, in that it shares the number of players and length of time with Indoor Hockey and that the original creation of the page [35] suggested a prominence in the 1800s (which is somewhat supported by Field Hockey's article in the English Wikipedia as well as the French's [36]). It's not uncommon for people to play variants on games, so I can't be sure that this is a WP:HOAX since if there wasn't any intent to deceive it's just a poor article. On account of this being such a old article, figuring out whether this is a hoax seems pertinent. Userqio ( talk) 18:12, 19 April 2019 (UTC) reply
The edit summary of WP:DEAD (at the time meaning WP:DEADEND) is an odd reason to give for removing the information about the 1890s. That is most likely an editing error and should be restored if the article is kept as it may help in the search for sources. I don't know what you mean by hoaxes are treated differently. We often protect hoax pages from recreation, but only if it is done repeatedly, and other classes of deleted page are protected for the same reason. Spinning Spark 19:05, 19 April 2019 (UTC) reply
Delete, does not meet WP:GNG, nothing relevant found under various gsearch permutations ("bont", "bont game", "bont ball game", "bont ball and stick game", with and without "france"), only mirrors of this article seen, i note that frenchWP does not have an article on this. Coolabahapple ( talk) 01:24, 21 April 2019 (UTC) reply
Delete - Long-lasting hoax, destined for stardom on that count. Will life imitate art? Who's up for a game of bont? Carrite ( talk) 19:07, 23 April 2019 (UTC) reply

sorry, can't, too busy training for farnarkeling tryouts. Coolabahapple ( talk) 08:21, 24 April 2019 (UTC) reply

The article has never cited any sources, and I can find no sources confirming anything in the article or the existence of any such subject. Notability is irrelevant here. This is unverifiable. Delete. Uncle G ( talk) 14:08, 24 April 2019 (UTC) reply

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

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

The result was delete. — JJMC89 ( T· C) 01:29, 26 April 2019 (UTC) reply

RJ Sooraj

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

Non-notable RJ. Only coverage is tabloid-style, puffery or otherwise unreliable/not in depth coverage and everything else is about an apology. Praxidicae ( talk) 00:55, 19 April 2019 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Radio-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 03:59, 19 April 2019 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 03:59, 19 April 2019 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 03:59, 19 April 2019 (UTC) reply

Delete - Fails ( WP:GNG) Overly Promotional and no evidence of notability -- Padavalam Kuttan Pilla Talk 13:48, 25 April 2019 (UTC) reply

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

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

The result was delete. — JJMC89 ( T· C) 01:29, 26 April 2019 (UTC) reply

Lisa Catara

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

Non-notable actress. The only viable source for the article is the one cited in the article; GNews pulls up a blog and a litany of name-drops (string: "Lisa Catara"). — A little blue Bori v^_^v ^Bori! 00:00, 19 April 2019 (UTC) reply

Delete - non-notable performer; no meaningful results from web searches, one weak source in article, from hometown paper ("local up-and-coming in Hollywood"). -- Orange Mike | Talk 00:59, 19 April 2019 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 04:01, 19 April 2019 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 04:01, 19 April 2019 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fashion-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 04:02, 19 April 2019 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Ohio-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 04:02, 19 April 2019 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 04:03, 19 April 2019 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 04:05, 19 April 2019 (UTC) reply

Delete - The was created nearly five years ago so her casreer does not seem to have taken off. If it ever does the article can be recreated. MarnetteD| Talk 04:06, 19 April 2019 (UTC) reply
Delete a local paper running an article on someone from their readership area trying to make it big in film is not enough to show notability. John Pack Lambert ( talk) 02:20, 20 April 2019 (UTC) reply
Delete: Clearly fails the WP:GNG and WP:NACTRESS. -- LACaliNYC ✉ 20:14, 21 April 2019 (UTC) reply
AFDgoers should be aware that this article was deleted from August 2015 until April 2019, and not assume that all the sources that are out there are already in the article. (Well, you shouldn't do that anyway. But more so than usual here.)
That said, I haven't been able to find anything else. Looking at her IMDB credits, I wouldn't expect to, either: stuntspeople generate orders of magnitude less coverage than equivalently-successful actresses, and her non-stunt credits appear to be limited to single-episode parts, largely uncredited. — Cryptic 20:33, 21 April 2019 (UTC) reply
I did my due diligence before nominating it for deletion - before the article was even undeleted, even. — A little blue Bori v^_^v ^Bori! 21:00, 21 April 2019 (UTC) reply
It wasn't my intention to accuse you of not having done so (I also looked for sources at the time of the original WP:REFUND request), nor anyone else above specifically, and I apologize if I came across that way. — Cryptic 22:31, 21 April 2019 (UTC) reply
Delete per WP:SNOW and WP:SALT. There's not enough coverage in the past that shows she's notable in any way. Imbd is not reliable. Absent her dyeing her hair blonde, killing off Melania, and becoming Donald Trump's fourth wife, I don't know how she could become notable - stunt actors have a limited career expectancy. This is a run of the mill stunt/stage actress, whose roles appear mostly to have been red shirts. Bearian ( talk) 21:11, 24 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. (non-admin closure) Spirit of Eagle ( talk) 05:02, 26 April 2019 (UTC) reply

Led By Donkeys

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

Fails WP:GNG; media reports about the organisation are trivial. RaviC ( talk) 00:00, 19 April 2019 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 04:10, 19 April 2019 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 04:10, 19 April 2019 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 04:10, 19 April 2019 (UTC) reply

Keep for now.
Disagree with the characterization of media reports as trivial. While some of the reports are incidental mentions (e.g. "they unfurled this banner" within news coverage of the People's Vote March) there are also other sources, including citations already included such as [ 1], [ 4] that are focused specifically on the group and its activities, including (anonymously) interviewing and profiling the members, discussing their motivations, and providing more background on the genesis of the campaign. These are not mere passing mentions. Furthermore there exist multiple corroborating reports from independent sources, several of which are reputable mainstream news outlets, and includes international coverage e.g. NPR, Irish News. Although the group are on hiatus as of 16 Apr 2019, it seems they are planning to resume activities in the future. With the Brexit situation still ongoing and evolving, I'd like to echo some of the sentiments from here and suggest to hold off for now, wait for current events play out, let the dust settle, and then reconsider if this should be kept or merged with this one or some other appropriate article. — 2406:3003:2077:179A:C998:20C6:8CCF:5730 ( talk) 05:06, 19 April 2019 (UTC)— 2406:3003:2077:179A:C998:20C6:8CCF:5730 ( talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. reply

Keep per WP:GNG. The group and their campaign have been the subject of numerous articles in reliable sources, including in the international media. I'm sorry you consider them to be "trivial". I've cited a few more, lest there be any ambiguity about this, including this excellent, lengthy article in Wired magazine: [37], and this Guardian article: [38]. -- The Anome ( talk) 11:27, 19 April 2019 (UTC) reply
keep. The title at first looked like a silly joke, but the coverage in the Guardian is about this subject; and it is quite extensive. For this reason, keeping it is justified. Graywalls ( talk) 17:14, 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.

Videos

Websites

Encyclopedia

Facebook