Home • Search • Translate
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< 6 April 8 April >

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. At least at this time - the lasting impact may be reevaluated at a later time. Sandstein 07:03, 15 April 2019 (UTC) reply

2019 Campbellfield factory fire

2019 Campbellfield factory fire (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources:  Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Per WP:NOTNEWS, run-of-the-mill fire that is of no long-lasting importance other than to the local community. There are probably tens of such fires a week around the world. Step hen 23:14, 7 April 2019 (UTC) reply

  • No opinion. I am new to Wikipedia and this is my first article. If it's deemed inappropriate, please remove it. I created the page because there is also a page for the 2018 West Footscray warehouse fire (a similar fire occurring less than a year ago in the same city). Today's fire is larger than that one and has been mentioned in international news. 84percent ( talk) 23:47, 7 April 2019 (UTC) reply
  • Keep (at this time). As WP:LASTING says "It may take weeks or months to determine whether or not an event has a lasting effect. This does not, however, mean recent events with unproven lasting effect are automatically non-notable." This is a very recent event and, while it was perhaps premature to create an article so soon, I think our policy makes clear it is not automatically non-notable until events are fully played out. I imagine there will be investigations and an inquiry etc. I'd keep it for now. Kerry ( talk) 02:42, 8 April 2019 (UTC) reply
  • Weak keep. Industrial fires and explosions in major cities sometimes have lasting impact. See for example the Toronto propane explosion, which initially caused only one death. For the Campbellfield factory fire, there were two serious injuries. 2607:FEA8:1DE0:7B4:EDD6:545C:DDBA:D02 ( talk) 04:34, 8 April 2019 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. Eastmain ( talk • contribs) 05:10, 8 April 2019 (UTC) reply


Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. PriceDL ( talk) 22:50, 14 April 2019 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. Withdrawn by nominator w/o opposition, given the recent AFD. -- Patar knight - chat/ contributions 00:44, 8 April 2019 (UTC) reply

Russian interference in the 2016 Brexit referendum

AfDs for this article:
Russian interference in the 2016 Brexit referendum (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources:  Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

WP:SYNTHESIS at large. Many of the sources do not even mention Russia at all. RaviC ( talk) 22:32, 7 April 2019 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 22:51, 7 April 2019 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 22:52, 7 April 2019 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 22:52, 7 April 2019 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Russia-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 22:52, 7 April 2019 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was speedy keep. Nomination withdrawn. ( non-admin closure) The World's Signature ( talk) 01:38, 8 April 2019 (UTC) reply

Status Labs

Status Labs (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources:  Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

The company appears to be mostly notable for Wiki-PR editing of Wikipedia, so, after digging into it more, I think it should be redirected there. The World's Signature ( talk) 21:17, 7 April 2019 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. Ceethekreator ( talk) 22:10, 7 April 2019 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Ceethekreator ( talk) 22:10, 7 April 2019 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Texas-related deletion discussions. Ceethekreator ( talk) 22:10, 7 April 2019 (UTC) reply
Hi Bakazaka, I guess I should have explained myself more. I don't have any direct connection to Status Labs apart from the fact that I live in Austin and found the company interesting based on that. It was not my intent to promote them when I did my initial edits, merely wanted to bring the page up to what other Wiki pages for companies look like. The reason I decided to nomniate the page for deletion is because there was a notability tag added to the article by a more experienced user after my edits. If the page is going to be a short paragraph, seems to me it'd be more appropriate to have it as a section on Wiki-PR editing of Wikipedia rather than its own page. The World's Signature ( talk) 00:42, 8 April 2019 (UTC) reply
Thanks for your reply. So, to clarify, you're proposing a merge? There is no Status Labs content at your proposed target currently. Bakazaka ( talk) 00:45, 8 April 2019 (UTC) reply
Yes, precisely. Create a section labeled Status Labs there and move the existing content over. The World's Signature ( talk) 01:08, 8 April 2019 (UTC) reply
In that case you should withdraw this AfD nomination, and follow WP:MERGEPROP instructions instead. Bakazaka ( talk) 01:14, 8 April 2019 (UTC) reply
Ah! Thanks for pointing me in the right direction. The World's Signature ( talk) 01:32, 8 April 2019 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. —  JJMC89 ( T· C) 21:37, 14 April 2019 (UTC) reply

Doug Hall (painter)

Doug Hall (painter) (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources:  Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Struggling to see how he passes WP:GNG no in-depth coverage anywhere that I can see. Happy to be proved wrong though. Theroadislong ( talk) 21:07, 7 April 2019 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Artists-related deletion discussions. PriceDL ( talk) 21:36, 7 April 2019 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Missouri-related deletion discussions. PriceDL ( talk) 21:36, 7 April 2019 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. —  JJMC89 ( T· C) 20:51, 14 April 2019 (UTC) reply

Digital webber

Digital webber (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources:  Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Non notable firm. Fails WP:GNG, WP:NCORP. Rsrikanth05 ( talk) 20:31, 7 April 2019 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. Ceethekreator ( talk) 22:13, 7 April 2019 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Ceethekreator ( talk) 22:13, 7 April 2019 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Ceethekreator ( talk) 22:13, 7 April 2019 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. Ceethekreator ( talk) 22:14, 7 April 2019 (UTC) reply
There's nothing at Digital Webber to support that. Andy Dingley ( talk) 21:44, 8 April 2019 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was speedy keep. Nomination withdrawn. ( non-admin closure) Endymion.12 ( talk) 12:59, 9 April 2019 (UTC) reply

Tony Brown (journalist)

Tony Brown (journalist) (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources:  Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Fails WP:GNG. NYT reference is trivial, and I couldn't find any decent sources establishing notability. Appears to be a minor conspiracy theorist. Endymion.12 ( talk) 19:01, 7 April 2019 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Journalism-related deletion discussions. Ceethekreator ( talk) 20:29, 7 April 2019 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of West Virginia-related deletion discussions. Ceethekreator ( talk) 20:29, 7 April 2019 (UTC) reply
  • Keep – The New York Times piece is quite in-depth to be called trivial. As stated in the article in 1985 1982; “…Dapper, bespectacled and 48 years old, Tony Brown is the only black producer of a nationally televised serious black program, Tony Brown's Journal.” Believe this passes our Notability guidelines. ShoesssS Talk 20:43, 7 April 2019 (UTC) reply
@ Shoessss: Where is that quote taken from? It's not from the NYT article cited. Endymion.12 ( talk) 21:04, 7 April 2019 (UTC) reply
The quote is from The New York Times, but from a different article than the one cited in the article. ( Here is a link to it.) MarkZusab ( talk) 21:25, 7 April 2019 (UTC) reply
I am sorry I said 1985 it is actually 1982 [1] Sorry for the confusion. ShoesssS Talk 11:41, 8 April 2019 (UTC) reply
  • Keep as an obvious pass of WP:GNG and probably WP:AUTHOR as well. "I couldn't find any decent sources" is a statement about the nominator's capabilities, not the article subject's notability. Possible sources include Thomas, Keith L. (8 January 1989). "'Racism is green': Tony Brown: a talk show host who's not all talk". Chicago Tribune. p. J26., and Hasemyer, David (15 November 1995). "PBS' Tony Brown touts wisdom of racial accord". The San Diego Union-Tribune. p. B3., and the 1600-word profile Simmonds, Yussuf J. (7 January 2010). "Tony Brown". Los Angeles Sentinel. p. A12., and the 1800-word profile Higgins, Chester A, Sr. (6 November 1996). "Tony Brown had a vision". Michigan Chronicle. p. 7A.{{ cite news}}: CS1 maint: multiple names: authors list ( link), or a front page Christian Science Monitor story (Marquand, Robert (23 August 1988). "Tony Brown: tough on whites and blacks". The Christian Science Monitor. p. A1.). I'll stop there, but please note that I formatted these with the cite template in case anyone wants to actually improve the article using the numerous available sources. Bakazaka ( talk) 22:33, 7 April 2019 (UTC) reply
  • Strong Keep - Urban League's distinguished service award, JET 100 most influential Black Americans of 1977, dean of the school of communications at Howard University in the early 1970s, co-organizer of a MLK march in Detroit in 1963, Host of the at the time longest running black affairs show on television, the list goes on and on. Smmurphy( Talk) 18:13, 8 April 2019 (UTC) reply
  • Keep notable journalist, has own notable show, one of his books was notable. E.M.Gregory ( talk) 10:34, 9 April 2019 (UTC) reply
  • Note So I have clearly made a mistake by only performing a cursory google search before nominating this article. Would someone perhaps like to use the references listed above to actually improve the article? Unfortunately I have neither the time nor the interest to do so. Endymion.12 ( talk) 12:39, 9 April 2019 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was speedy keep. Nomination withdrawn. ( non-admin closure) Endymion.12 ( talk) 12:56, 9 April 2019 (UTC) reply

Tony Brown's Journal

Tony Brown's Journal (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources:  Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Appears to fail notability requirements. Endymion.12 ( talk) 19:08, 7 April 2019 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Journalism-related deletion discussions. Ceethekreator ( talk) 20:31, 7 April 2019 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. Ceethekreator ( talk) 20:31, 7 April 2019 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Ceethekreator ( talk) 20:31, 7 April 2019 (UTC) reply
  • Keep – The New York Times piece is quite in-depth to be called trivial. As stated in the article in 1985; “…Dapper, bespectacled and 48 years old, Tony Brown is the only black producer of a nationally televised serious black program, Tony Brown's Journal.” Believe this passes our Notability guidelines. ShoesssS Talk 20:44, 7 April 2019 (UTC) reply
  • Keep as obvious WP:GNG pass. WP:BEFORE should include Google Books searches, which would find, for example, extensive coverage of this specific program starting on page 117 of Black Power TV by Devorah Heitner (Duke University Press, 2013, [2]), also an archived 2-page article (followed by an ad for the program!) from Jet (February 15, 1979) [3]. Elsewhere there is Cottman, Michael H. (19 February 1989). "Do Unto Yourself: 'Tony Brown's Journal' preaches self-determination". Newsday. p. 81. I stopped looking after seeing numerous hits in newspaper databases covering the period. It's an older notability claim, but it checks out. Article could use some improvement, but it has the sources available, so deletion solves absolutely nothing here. Bakazaka ( talk) 22:16, 7 April 2019 (UTC) reply
  • Keep The very definition of notable. scope_creep Talk 10:29, 8 April 2019 (UTC) reply
  • Strong Keep - as with the AfD for Brown, this subjects encyclopedic nature speaks for itself. Being the at the time longest running black affairs show on TV and carried throughout the US on PBS seems more than sufficient to establish that the subject is encyclopedic. Smmurphy( Talk) 18:16, 8 April 2019 (UTC) reply
  • Keep sources support notability, and host is patently notable. E.M.Gregory ( talk) 10:35, 9 April 2019 (UTC) reply
  • Note So I have clearly made a mistake by only performing a cursory google search before nominating this article. Would someone perhaps like to use the references listed above to actually improve the article? Unfortunately I have neither the time nor the interest to do so. Endymion.12 ( talk) 12:39, 9 April 2019 (UTC) reply
  • User:Endymion.12, Perhaps you already know this, but while it is good that many article are improved after being brought to AfD, it is not required that an article be improved in order to be kept. Also, when Nom is persuaded that sources do exist to establish notability, Nom is permitted to say that and withdraw from the discussion, permitting the page to be kept as long as there are no votes to delete. It is a sort of courtesy to do so. This happens a lot because to err is human. E.M.Gregory ( talk) 12:48, 9 April 2019 (UTC) reply
User:E.M.Gregory I am aware—it was a suggestion to improve the article using the references available here. I will withdraw my nomination now. Endymion.12 ( talk) 12:53, 9 April 2019 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. —  JJMC89 ( T· C) 20:51, 14 April 2019 (UTC) reply

Braxton Olita

Braxton Olita (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources:  Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Fails WP:MUSICIAN and WP:GNG. Clarityfiend ( talk) 19:03, 7 April 2019 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Ceethekreator ( talk) 20:32, 7 April 2019 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. Ceethekreator ( talk) 20:32, 7 April 2019 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Hawaii-related deletion discussions. Ceethekreator ( talk) 20:32, 7 April 2019 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was no consensus. After being listed here at AFD for a month, there's no clear consensus that this article needs to be deleted. Some discussion has risen about redirecting it, that's something that can be taken up on the talk page. (non-admin closure) Dusti *Let's talk!* 05:28, 14 April 2019 (UTC) reply

Friend Me

AfDs for this article:
Friend Me (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources:  Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Unaired show, it is unclear why it meets WP:GNG. It was a redirect for quite some time, and probably should have stayed a redirect. Ymblanter ( talk) 09:58, 17 March 2019 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. Icewhiz ( talk) 14:03, 17 March 2019 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. Icewhiz ( talk) 14:03, 17 March 2019 (UTC) reply
Keep unclear why it was a redirect; previous AFD closed as keep. As stated then, article has numerous wp:rs and as wp:ntemp, given that nothing has changed since then and now, no reason the article should now be deleted. Coverage more than demonstrates its notability. Dcfc1988 ( talk) 20:57, 22 March 2019 (UTC) reply
Well, since the last nomination it became clear that the project has been abandoned.-- Ymblanter ( talk) 21:14, 22 March 2019 (UTC) reply
That's not true. The series was cancelled in July and the AFD was raised in October. Dcfc1988 ( talk) 11:44, 23 March 2019 (UTC) reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America 1000 01:27, 24 March 2019 (UTC) reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 07:28, 31 March 2019 (UTC) reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Vanamonde ( Talk) 17:56, 7 April 2019 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was no consensus. Sandstein 07:04, 15 April 2019 (UTC) reply

Raguluthunna Bharatham

AfDs for this article:
Raguluthunna Bharatham (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources:  Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
(Find sources:  Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
(Find sources:  Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

As per WP:BEFORE searches, this is a non-notable film that does not meet WP:NFP or WP:NFO. North America 1000 10:34, 24 March 2019 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. North America 1000 10:35, 24 March 2019 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. North America 1000 10:35, 24 March 2019 (UTC) reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, So said The Great Wiki Lord. ( talk) 12:26, 31 March 2019 (UTC) reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Vanamonde ( Talk) 17:54, 7 April 2019 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was no consensus. Sandstein 18:03, 14 April 2019 (UTC) reply

Yoshihiko Kikuchi

AfDs for this article:
Yoshihiko Kikuchi (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources:  Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Non-notable subject that does not meet WP:BASIC. Coverage found in searches for independent, reliable sources is limited to name checks and very short passing mentions, none of which qualify notability.

Sources were presented in the previous AfD discussion, but only one, which I can't access, appears to be possibly usable to qualify notability. However, multiple independent sources that provide significant coverage are required, not just one. Below is a synopsis of the sources.

Source Analysis
Armand Mauss, All Abraham's Children: Changing Mormon Conceptions of Race and Lineage, 2010, University of Illinois Press Not significant coverage: consists of one sentence about the subject.
Newell G. Bringhurst, Darron Smith, co-editors Black and Mormon, 2005, University of Illinois Press. Not significant coverage: a 2-sentence mention
Reid L. Neilson, Taking the Gospel to the Japanese, 1901-2001, 2010, Brigham Young University Press Primary source: According to WorldCat ( here), this is not published by the University of Utah Press as stated in the previous AfD discussion. Rather, it is published by Brigham Young University Press, which is the university press of Brigham Young University. Brigham Young University is wholly owned by The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints. Primary sources such as these do not qualify notability.
[4] Not WP:SIGCOV: Per the snippet view, comes across as likely only having fleeting passing mentions
[5] Not significant coverage: a passing mention
Encyclopedia of Latter-Day Saint History I consider this to be a primary source, because it is published by the Deseret Book Company, which is a wholly-owned subsidiary of Deseret Management Corporation, which is wholly owned by the LDS Church.
Numano, Jiro. “Hasty Baptisms in Japan: The Early 1980s in the LDS Church.” Journal of Mormon History, vol. 36, no. 4, 2010, pp. 18–40. JSTOR, JSTOR, [www.jstor.org/stable/23291122]. I cannot access this source to assess the depth of coverage

– North America 1000 10:20, 24 March 2019 (UTC) reply

  • I disagree with North America on the two books by notable authors that he dismisses as "brief" because, read in context, these are about Kikuchi's role in the Church during the long, slow period when it moved away from its tradition of sorting humans into a hierarchy of races. One of the dismissed "snippets" is also meaningful in this context. Primarily, however, I find this table to be a false and inappropriate attempt to mislead editors about the available sources because of its dismissal of a long scholarly article about Kikuchi on the grounds that Nom cannot access it, and dismissal of a scholarly book that contains SIGCOV of Kikuchi. E.M.Gregory ( talk) 10:49, 10 April 2019 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. North America 1000 10:21, 24 March 2019 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. North America 1000 10:21, 24 March 2019 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Japan-related deletion discussions. North America 1000 10:21, 24 March 2019 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Hawaii-related deletion discussions. North America 1000 10:21, 24 March 2019 (UTC) reply
  • Keep The attempt to classify scholarly, univerisity press sources as "primary sources" is just unacceptable. BYU Studies approaches issues from a clearly scholarly perspective and the attempt to disqualify it is outrageous. There are either two or three sources, depending on the view of the Encyclopedia of Latter-day Saint history, that provide indepth coverage. That is clearly enough to pass the general notability guidelines and justify an article. Ownership cannot be used as ground to cast out university press publications. John Pack Lambert ( talk) 01:13, 27 March 2019 (UTC) reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, So said The Great Wiki Lord. ( talk) 12:27, 31 March 2019 (UTC) reply
  • Weak delete If this topic were notable, some reliable sources could be found that cover the the unsourced biographical information we currently include. An entire long section of our article includes a single citation that is being used to support the claim that he was born in "Horoizumi District", except that it doesn't say that: it just says "Horoizumi", and at the time of Kikuchi's birth Erimo, Hokkaido was apparently known as Horoizumi Town. I doubt the author of our dubious source knew the difference. The rest of the section is dubious hagiography that, if this discussion does not end in the page being deleted or redirected, should be immediately blanked pending an independent reliable source. Hijiri 88 ( 聖 やや) 12:23, 4 April 2019 (UTC) reply
The article currently claims his father was killed by a submarine and he attended university in Tokyo, but the earliest version said it was a bombing raid and the university was in Hokkaido. Is this another Bill Schnoebelen situation where a religious leader's autobiography he tells his followers has changed over the years? Neither version cited a written source, so I can't imagine why it would have been changed... Hijiri 88 ( 聖 やや) 12:37, 4 April 2019 (UTC) reply
Murky, incorrect family and childhood backgrounds are not all that rare. In such cases, it is best to phrase it carefully, "according to Kikuchi, his father was..." This makes it clear that we are reporting Kikuchi's memory or understand ing of the past. It would be different if a major newspaper had checked the war record. Most of us believe what we are told, even though many family stories are exaggerated, fabricated, mis-remembered, or deliberately edited to conceal certain details. Ignorant geographical details added by an American writing up a story about Japan, or an unvalidated family story about how Dad died don't really matter for notability. And notability is the question at issue here. The sources about his role in the Church are reliable. If the childhood background is not accurate, it can and should be fixed. But this does not affect the question of notability. E.M.Gregory ( talk) 21:21, 8 April 2019 (UTC) reply
It's basically irrelevant to the question of this subject's notability, though: the source was introduced in the previous AFD as "discussing or quoting" this subject in three places; quotes from the subject himself are near-useless for GNG, and the layout of the page numbers implies EMG just went to the index and looked for Kikuchi's name, without checking whether it was a quotation or a discussion that was on each of the pages in question, and I seriously doubt that each of pages 352, 353, 354 and 358 included a separate short "discussinon" of Kikuchi. Hijiri 88 ( 聖 やや) 04:52, 7 April 2019 (UTC) reply
Nb. I still feel that the subject does not meet notability guidelines. North America 1000 06:18, 7 April 2019 (UTC) reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Vanamonde ( Talk) 17:54, 7 April 2019 (UTC) reply
  • Keep per reasons and sources I provided in November 2018 when Nom last brought this individual to AfD. Note that the book published the Brigham University Press that was one of the sources I brought was disparaged by Nom on the grounds that the Press is not INDEPENDENT of the church. The quesiton was brought to the RS noticeboard, where editors judged that a reputable university press is independent of the government or church that sponsors the university, eliminating one of Nom's arguments for deletion. imho, it was tendentious to drag this one back to AfD. E.M.Gregory ( talk) 14:09, 8 April 2019 (UTC) reply
  • Note that the scholarly article in JSTOR that Nom cannot access is about Kikuchi's administration of LDS in Japan, I added it to the page last November, and I think my edit was a fair summary of the contents, except that with regard to notability I want to emphasize that the article is a scholarly analysis of Kikuchi's approach to recruiting converts and the problems that his approach caused. This is the very definition of WP:SIGCOV. E.M.Gregory ( talk) 14:35, 8 April 2019 (UTC) reply
  • Taking the Gospel to the Japanese, 1901–2001, by Reid Larkin Nielsen, Brigham Young University Press, 2006. Chapter 14, The Church in Japan Comes of Age, 1968–1980, by Terry G. Nelson discusses Kikuchi. It is less than 20 pages. I suggest that editors should feel an obligation to actually read such a source before undertaking to disparage it. The index - which is available online - shows that he is cited 7 times in that chapter. As far as I can tell, the chapters are not available online. Perhaps one of you gentlemen would be willing to walk to a library and give us your description/assessment of the source. In general, however, a chapter in a university press book is an indication of notability. And he was, after all, a major figure in LDS in Japan in 1968-1980, according to the JSTOR article and other sources. E.M.Gregory ( talk) 21:01, 8 April 2019 (UTC) reply
@ E.M.Gregory: So how do you feel about the unsourced biographical content? Can we blank it pending some reliable sources? Your !vote is for "keep", but the content of your comment doesn't actually appear to disagree with my "weak delete" on the substance of the matter and the question of whether the content of the present article is worth keeping. Also, please note that not everyone lives within walking distance of a library that stocks a lot of English-language literature about Mormons that isn't itself published by the Mormon Church or affiliated groups. Hijiri 88 ( 聖 やや) 07:24, 9 April 2019 (UTC) reply
This is irrelevant to the quesiton at AfD, but I agree that we can. Sourced to a dead link of an interview he gave, and not a particularly likely story (the U.S. Navy was not targeting fisherman in Japanese waters 2 weeks before V-J Day.) E.M.Gregory ( talk) 10:35, 10 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. The arguments to keep are essentially, "meets WP:FOOTY", but there's convincing arguments here that he doesn't. In addition, FOOTY is just a hint. Real sources are what matters, and nobody has come up with any. -- RoySmith (talk) 14:20, 15 April 2019 (UTC) reply

Eric Loyd

Eric Loyd (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources:  Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Our article says he played 4 WP:NFOOTY games in 2008 in the third-tier semi professional, non- WP:FPL USL Second Division. Other than that, Apparently hasn't played in any WP:FPLs and does not meet NFOOTY. Search results return no significant coverage to meet WP:GNG. Leviv  ich 17:25, 7 April 2019 (UTC) reply

Update: I have updated the nomination to reflect that this article no longer meets WP:NFOOTY because USL Second Division has been removed from WP:FPL per the note below. Leviv  ich 18:20, 10 April 2019 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Leviv  ich 17:25, 7 April 2019 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. Leviv  ich 17:25, 7 April 2019 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Leviv  ich 17:25, 7 April 2019 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Florida-related deletion discussions. Leviv  ich 17:25, 7 April 2019 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Michigan-related deletion discussions. Leviv  ich 17:25, 7 April 2019 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of North Carolina-related deletion discussions. Leviv  ich 17:25, 7 April 2019 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Leviv  ich 17:33, 7 April 2019 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was soft delete. WP:REFUND applies. —  JJMC89 ( T· C) 20:49, 14 April 2019 (UTC) reply

Dark Walker

Dark Walker (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources:  Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Lacked RS since creation in April 2007. Fails WP:NFILM and WP:GNG. Just Chilling ( talk) 16:29, 7 April 2019 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 17:06, 7 April 2019 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 17:06, 7 April 2019 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Sandstein 18:00, 14 April 2019 (UTC) reply

First Ladies and Gentlemen of Pakistan

First Ladies and Gentlemen of Pakistan (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources:  Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

This is a list of spouses of heads of state and heads of government of Pakistan. The title "first lady" or "first gentleman" is not formal, and has no legal recognition. On the face of it, this list looks like a directory (see WP:NOTDIRECTORY) compiled in an indiscriminate manner (as it collates spouses of both heads of state and heads of government). It also fails the criteria listed in WP:LISTN because the group as a whole (either while considering only the spouses of the heads of state, or while including spouses of heads of government) has not received sufficient coverage to pass the muster at WP:GNG. — Nearly Headless Nick {c} 12:06, 7 April 2019 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. MarginalCost ( talk) 14:21, 7 April 2019 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists of people-related deletion discussions. MarginalCost ( talk) 14:21, 7 April 2019 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. MarginalCost ( talk) 14:21, 7 April 2019 (UTC) reply
  • Delete per nom. Although individuals within this list may and do qualify for their own WP articles, this list does not seem to fulfill any significant purpose (or even interest?). Definitely does not pass WP:GNG. Skirts89 15:15, 7 April 2019 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Sandstein 18:00, 14 April 2019 (UTC) reply

Oshawott, Dewott, and Samurott

Oshawott, Dewott, and Samurott (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources:  Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Not really notable enough to have an article. No significant impact on the real world as far as I'm aware. Fails WP:SUSTAINED. InvalidOS talk 11:27, 7 April 2019 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Video games-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 17:11, 7 April 2019 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 17:11, 7 April 2019 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) Dusti *Let's talk!* 05:31, 14 April 2019 (UTC) reply

Production of Avengers: Infinity War and Avengers: Endgame

Production of Avengers: Infinity War and Avengers: Endgame (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources:  Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

I think this is FORK of both Avengers: Infinity War and Avengers: Endgame and seems fancruft. This has too many information that is not required and could easily be compressed and merged in the respective pages. If anything, I suggest creating a new one like Production of the Avengers films or Production of MCU films, which honestly would be better off. The existence of this kind of pages promotes too many unnecessary content. All the Avengers films have the same level of production value I believe. A good example is Production of the James Bond films. THE NEW ImmortalWizard (chat) 10:53, 7 April 2019 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. THE NEW ImmortalWizard (chat) 10:57, 7 April 2019 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Withdraw. (non-admin closure) Dusti *Let's talk!* 08:29, 14 April 2019 (UTC) reply

James Gillingham

James Gillingham (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources:  Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

I'm not seeing the notability for this person. He didn't invent prosthetic limbs, he was a manufacturer of them. Doing a Google search there's flyby mentions of him because he happened to have made that prosthetic limb, or it was a picture he took. I'm just not seeing how this passes WP:GNG. Dusti *Let's talk!* 09:58, 7 April 2019 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 10:10, 7 April 2019 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. MarginalCost ( talk) 14:24, 7 April 2019 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Disability-related deletion discussions. MarginalCost ( talk) 14:24, 7 April 2019 (UTC) reply
  • Keep. Clearly passes the general notability guideline by having significant coverage in independent reliable sources, including a 126-page book wholly about the subject. There's no need for someone to be the inventor of a concept to achieve notability. And I don't see how a search for web sites is relevant to the notability of someone who was active in the 19th century. Maybe some of our younger editors don't realise this, but the world-wide web wasn't around then. Phil Bridger ( talk) 20:58, 7 April 2019 (UTC) reply
  • Keep - A simple Google search turned up reliable sources with significant coverage. I expanded the article using some of those sources. A 2017 BBC documentary includes the subject, and, as pointed out by Phil Bridger, a 2001 book was written solely about the subject. Easily passes WP:GNG and WP:BIO. - AuthorAuthor ( talk) 21:17, 7 April 2019 (UTC) reply
  • Delete not a notable figure. I couldn't even tell why the article was written. Perhaps instead of him having his own article, add to an existing article about prosthetics? Disaposi ( talk) 15:52, 12 April 2019 (UTC) reply
  • Keep. Even if only searching online, there's plenty to be found, including the existence of a book about him, academic papers about his work ( [6]), the fact that his creations are exhibited in several museums in multiple countries ( [7], [8], [9]), and the BBC coverage ( [10], [11]), as well as other coverage available online ( [12], [13]). -- Michig ( talk) 07:57, 14 April 2019 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was redirect to Transport in Białystok. Sandstein 18:00, 14 April 2019 (UTC) reply

Zarząd Białostockiej Komunikacji Miejskiej

Zarząd Białostockiej Komunikacji Miejskiej (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources:  Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Does not meet WP:CORPDEPTH. Contested prod. SITH (talk) 12:34, 31 March 2019 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Icewhiz ( talk) 12:49, 31 March 2019 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. Icewhiz ( talk) 12:49, 31 March 2019 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Poland-related deletion discussions. Icewhiz ( talk) 12:49, 31 March 2019 (UTC) reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America 1000 09:56, 7 April 2019 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Sandstein 17:59, 14 April 2019 (UTC) reply

Soroush Dabbagh

Soroush Dabbagh (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources:  Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Doesn't meet WP:NSCHOLAR, his highest citation count is 1, total citations is 23, and doesn't appear to meet the position criteria either. Onel5969 TT me 12:17, 24 March 2019 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. CASSIOPEIA( talk) 13:06, 24 March 2019 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Philosophy-related deletion discussions. CASSIOPEIA( talk) 13:06, 24 March 2019 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Iran-related deletion discussions. CASSIOPEIA( talk) 13:06, 24 March 2019 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. CASSIOPEIA( talk) 13:06, 24 March 2019 (UTC) reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America 1000 09:03, 31 March 2019 (UTC) reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America 1000 09:25, 7 April 2019 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Sandstein 17:57, 14 April 2019 (UTC) reply

Aditi Budhathoki

Aditi Budhathoki (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources:  Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

With her single lead role, she doesn't appear to meet WP:NACTOR. Inside Edge 2 doesn't appear to have come out yet ( production wrapped in Nov 2018), but in any case there's nothing that indicates she's in a lead role in it. The rest of the references are celeb cruft or casting announcements, and that's hardly enough to substantiate notability. ♠ PMC♠ (talk) 16:42, 23 March 2019 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 20:13, 23 March 2019 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 20:13, 23 March 2019 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fashion-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 20:13, 23 March 2019 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Nepal-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 20:13, 23 March 2019 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 20:14, 23 March 2019 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 20:14, 23 March 2019 (UTC) reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America 1000 03:17, 31 March 2019 (UTC) reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America 1000 08:32, 7 April 2019 (UTC) reply
  • Draft or Delete can confirm that the subject is likely to become notable in the future. But, it's the classic case of WP:TOOSOON. Also, as a WP:BLP, it ought to be more careful on its content. The birthday mentioned, at least, seems to be contradicted by some other sources, credibility of any of them being hard to establish. Usedtobecool ( talk) 09:53, 13 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. Reviewing the comments and policy based opinions, it's clear that the consensus at this time is keep. (non-admin closure) Dusti *Let's talk!* 05:47, 14 April 2019 (UTC) reply

Lil Keed

Lil Keed (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources:  Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Subject is an upcoming American rapper. Sources are not IRS. He started his music career in 2018 and has not achieve any prominent in music industry. Fails to meet WP:MUSICBIO CASSIOPEIA( talk) 06:42, 7 April 2019 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. CASSIOPEIA( talk) 06:43, 7 April 2019 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. CASSIOPEIA( talk) 06:43, 7 April 2019 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Georgia (U.S. state)-related deletion discussions. CASSIOPEIA( talk) 06:43, 7 April 2019 (UTC) reply


*Comment -I oppose because Lil Keed's brother Lil Gotit has his own page, and Keed has just as many views as Gotit. Thus Keed also collaborated with well known Musical artists and is gaining views, so I oppose deletion. This is User:Proudpakistani11 73.74.141.157 ( talk) 18:55, 7 April 2019 (UTC) reply
*Comment - Notability is WP:NOTINHERITED - his brother has a page does not automatically gives the right for Keed to have his page in Wikipedia. Collaborating with well-know artists does not statisfy the notability requirements either. CASSIOPEIA( talk) 11:46, 8 April 2019 (UTC) reply


*Comment - None of the sources provided are either independent or reliable
(1) Complex - is not a reliable site, no series reputation editorial site for fact-checking and accuracy like Rolling Stones. The sites in various affiliate marketing programs, getting paid commission on purchases made through the site links.
(2 & 3 & 5) TheFader, XXL and Elevator Magazine - are an interview articles which make the source not indepedent as the info obtained is from the subject himself.
(4) HotNewHipHop is a musician subscription site and a "promotional powerhouse" - not such the source is not reliable.
(6) Pitchfork - the editor of the article is a contributor who is a university student who would like to pursue a journalism career in future - she is not a legit journalist and the source/article is not reliable.
CASSIOPEIA( talk) 11:46, 8 April 2019 (UTC) reply
  • Comment - Something is wrong with that analysis of sources by CASSIOPEIA. First, it is full of typos in a fashion uncharacteristic for that editor. More importantly: Complex, Fader, Pitchfork, and XXL are all listed as reliable sources at Wikipedia:WikiProject Albums/Sources, so they can be assumed to know what they're doing with artist articles as well. And saying that a young beginning journalist is not "legit" smacks of elitism, especially when that person works at a reliable publication with proper editing and management. --- DOOMSDAYER520 ( Talk| Contribs) 16:53, 9 April 2019 (UTC) reply

*Comment - to be merit a page in Wikipedia, significant coverage (multiple sources) with independent, reliable sources to support the content claimed is needed. Note, it the sources is reliable, it also has to be independent.— Preceding unsigned comment added by CASSIOPEIA ( talk • contribs)

Enough coverage exists in reliable sources to merit an article. WP:GNG. StaticVapor message me! 20:45, 12 April 2019 (UTC) reply
  • Weak Keep - See my comment above on reliable sources, in which this rapper has a few introductory articles. Those media mentions are indeed brief and some are reliant on interviews in which the rapper merely talks about himself, but the coverage shows some minor notice in the hip hop community, perhaps enough for a stub here. If the article is kept, promotional language needs to be removed, and I would not argue with anyone voting to delete under the WP:TOOSOON standard. But previous delete arguments based on suitability of sources are not convincing. --- DOOMSDAYER520 ( Talk| Contribs) 17:05, 9 April 2019 (UTC) reply
  • Comment - Notability is the guidelines. For a artist to have minor media coverage and the sources are either not reliable or not independent - that fails the notability guidelines. It is WP:TOOSOON.— Preceding unsigned comment added by CASSIOPEIA ( talk • contribs)
  • Delete when an article says someone is upcoming that means right now they are not yet notable. John Pack Lambert ( talk) 04:03, 10 April 2019 (UTC) reply
  • Weak keep: per DOOMSDAYER520 and a Google search provides reliable sources to support notability, passes WP:MUSICBIO#5 through this. The subject is also signed to a notable record label. Ceethekreator ( talk) 20:11, 11 April 2019 (UTC) reply
  • KeepSigned to a famous lable, is almost upcoming and is famous enough, this is 73.74.141.157.
  • Comment Pls see WP:MUSICBIO#5 which lead to Major labels and YSL Records has only about 10 artist, it is not considered a major record labble - Subject is WP:TOOSOON.— Preceding unsigned comment added by CASSIOPEIA ( talk • contribs)
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 17:55, 14 April 2019 (UTC) reply

Jorge Vargas González

AfDs for this article:
Jorge Vargas González (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources:  Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

I can't understand why this page was kept at a previous AFD. The subject's main claim to fame is being mayor of a 13,000 person town. The nav box shows an serious effort to build out content around everyone that has been a mayor of this little village. There is even Mayors of Pichilemu which seems to have been deleted and recreated. Legacypac ( talk) 01:57, 7 April 2019 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. Eastmain ( talk • contribs) 04:47, 7 April 2019 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Chile-related deletion discussions. Eastmain ( talk • contribs) 04:48, 7 April 2019 (UTC) reply
I've seen building complexes in China with morr people. Legacypac ( talk) 05:14, 7 April 2019 (UTC) reply
  • Delete. Quibbling over whether a population of 13,000 makes a place a "little village" or not is entirely orthogonal to the point, which is that a population of 13,000 is not enough to hand all of the place's mayors an automatic inclusion freebie just for existing as mayors. Yes, maybe a mayor of a place this size could manage to pass WP:NPOL #2 on depth of press coverage, but it's far from clear that that's true here: this is entirely too dependent on primary sources (birth and marriage certificates from the civil registry office) and routine election coverage and glancing namechecks of his existence in coverage that isn't about him — and while there are a few sources that are actually reliable and independent and strongly enough about him to count for something, there aren't enough of those once you discount all the weaksauce stuff. Every mayor of everywhere can always show three or four or five media hits, so the way to make a smaller town's mayor notable is not just to show three or four or five media hits — it's to show a depth and range and volume of coverage that marks him out as a special case of significantly greater notability than most other mayors of places this size. But the volume of reliable and substantive coverage in genuinely GNG-worthy sources shown here is not accomplishing that: it's just matching "what every mayor can always show", not lifting him into the realm of the special. Bearcat ( talk) 13:14, 8 April 2019 (UTC) reply
  • Delete local politicians get local coverage. We need more to show notability. John Pack Lambert ( talk) 04:00, 10 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 17:55, 14 April 2019 (UTC) reply

José Martínez (football manager)

José Martínez (football manager) (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources:  Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Contested PROD. Concern was Article about a football manager who does not WP:GNG or WP:NFOOTBALL. PROD was contested on the grounds that This figure has coached at the first tier level in Denmark, Sweden, and Spain. Given that in these coaching positions he was either an analyst or assistant manager, this does not satisfy WP:NFOOTY, and there is no indication that he has received sufficient coverage to meet WP:GNG. Sir Sputnik ( talk) 23:00, 31 March 2019 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. Sir Sputnik ( talk) 23:00, 31 March 2019 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Sir Sputnik ( talk) 23:00, 31 March 2019 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. Ceethekreator ( talk) 23:17, 31 March 2019 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sweden-related deletion discussions. Ceethekreator ( talk) 23:17, 31 March 2019 (UTC) reply
  • Delete – WP:NFOOTY says "manager" so it doesn't seem that being an assistant manager, even for an WP:FPL league, would count. I can't find any coverage of him other than this, and that reads like a routine profile-of-the-new-guy interview. No NFooty + one borderline example of SIGCOV for WP:GNG = delete for me. Leviv  ich 23:50, 31 March 2019 (UTC) reply
  • Keep - WP:NFOOTY says "manager" which does qualify him, as other sports such as basketball allow pages such as [14] to remain, even though he has no top-tier or professional, head coaching or playing experience. The WP:NFOOTY definition needs to be clarified before this case is ruled on. To address SIGCOV he has articles such as the one above, and the following are other examples from just his transfer to Malmö FF alone: [15], [16], [17], [18], [19], [20], [21], [22], [23], [24]. User Talk:Trevanbaxter 23:50, 31 March 2019 (UTC) reply
Looking through those, they all appear to be routine non-significant coverage, plus some unrealiable sources and dead links. The basketball article is an WP:OSE argument. Leviv  ich 17:51, 13 April 2019 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Giant Snowman 10:19, 1 April 2019 (UTC) reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Drmies ( talk) 01:37, 7 April 2019 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Michig ( talk) 07:32, 14 April 2019 (UTC) reply

David French (charity administrator)

David French (charity administrator) (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources:  Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Finding very little on this director of various charities and other organisations. The article's only link is to Debrett's. I found a Guardian reference but not really anything else. Tacyarg ( talk) 01:34, 7 April 2019 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. CASSIOPEIA( talk) 06:46, 7 April 2019 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Sandstein 17:54, 14 April 2019 (UTC) reply

Martin Deeley

AfDs for this article:
Martin Deeley (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources:  Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Think this dog trainer has not had enough coverage to be notable. There is a link to an interview in Orlando Magazine, and a write-up at International Association of Canine Professionals Hall of Fame, but not much else. Tacyarg ( talk) 01:22, 7 April 2019 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Animal-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 07:19, 7 April 2019 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Florida-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 07:19, 7 April 2019 (UTC) reply
  • Weak delete. Seems to be highly regarded by other dog trainers, e.g. is mentioned a few times in Cesar Milan's book, but beyond being quoted a few times I didn't find much coverage. -- Michig ( talk) 07:19, 14 April 2019 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Speedy keep. Wrong venue for discussing a content merge or formation for redirect. Afd cannot be used to discuss or force merges per WP:MERGEPROP (non-admin closure) scope_creep Talk 11:18, 7 April 2019 (UTC) reply

C18 (C standard revision)

C18 (C standard revision) (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources:  Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

"C17 (C standard revision)" should be the main page. "C18 (C standard revision)" should be redirected to the former. The reason is that all mainstream c compilers uses C17 instead of C18. [1] [2] 

https://gcc.gnu.org/onlinedocs/gcc/Standards.html

https://clang.llvm.org/docs/CommandGuide/clang.html 
Yoonghm (
talk) 
01:15, 7 April 2019 (UTC)
reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Language-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 07:20, 7 April 2019 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 07:21, 7 April 2019 (UTC) reply

Speedy Keep: Misuse of AfD as proper WP:BEFORE indicates a merge proposal is more appropriate. An article should not be taken to AfD to discuss a merge per WP:MERGEPROP. Thankyou. Djm-leighpark ( talk) 10:07, 7 April 2019 (UTC) reply

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

The result was delete. Sandstein 17:54, 14 April 2019 (UTC) reply

Sabeetha Wanniarachchi

Sabeetha Wanniarachchi (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources:  Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Fails WP:ANYBIO, national winner of a non-notable beauty contest. Dan arndt ( talk) 23:03, 30 March 2019 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sri Lanka-related deletion discussions. Dan arndt ( talk) 23:09, 30 March 2019 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fashion-related deletion discussions. Dan arndt ( talk) 23:09, 30 March 2019 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Beauty pageants-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 06:30, 31 March 2019 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 06:30, 31 March 2019 (UTC) reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ad Orientem ( talk) 01:09, 7 April 2019 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Speedy deleted as WP:A10. (non-admin closure) Ceethekreator ( talk) 13:07, 7 April 2019 (UTC) reply

Slim Dunkin (musician)

Slim Dunkin (musician) (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources:  Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Was not sure what to say about this. It appears the article for the person ( Slim Dunkin) is already a redirect to 1017 Records. So I guess if this passes for notability the other one should be a article. But I'm not sure if he does, so delete. Wgolf ( talk) 00:49, 7 April 2019 (UTC) reply

  • Comment-yeah I know I could of made a redirect from this page from there, but it seemed kind of pointless to do to me. (or do a speedy deletion for similar page if that counted) Wgolf ( talk) 00:51, 7 April 2019 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 07:21, 7 April 2019 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Michigan-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 07:23, 7 April 2019 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 07:23, 7 April 2019 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was redirect to Young Dolph. Sandstein 17:54, 14 April 2019 (UTC) reply

Paper Route Campaign

Paper Route Campaign (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources:  Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Likely fails WP:NALBUM, unsourced. - I could not find any substantial coverage online of this mixtape, and could not find any evidence it has charted on a national level. Zingarese talk · contribs 00:42, 7 April 2019 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 07:23, 7 April 2019 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Illinois-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 07:44, 7 April 2019 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Tennessee-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 07:44, 7 April 2019 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 07:44, 7 April 2019 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was redirect to Jam Handy#Filmmaking. (non-admin closure) Dusti *Let's talk!* 05:48, 14 April 2019 (UTC) reply

Nicky Nome

Nicky Nome (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources:  Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

De-prodded without rationale. Only improvement was removing dead links with YouTube links. No in-depth coverage to show notability. Onel5969 TT me 00:30, 7 April 2019 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 07:45, 7 April 2019 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 07:45, 7 April 2019 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 07:46, 7 April 2019 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Michig ( talk) 07:09, 14 April 2019 (UTC) reply

Jordan Smallwood (American football)

Jordan Smallwood (American football) (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources:  Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Meets neither WP:NGRIDIRON or WP:NCOLLATH. Onel5969 TT me 00:26, 7 April 2019 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 07:49, 7 April 2019 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 07:49, 7 April 2019 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Oklahoma-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 07:49, 7 April 2019 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of American football-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 07:49, 7 April 2019 (UTC) reply
  • Delete as Smallwood doesn't meet any notability guideline, including those listed by Onel5969and John from Idegon. WP:GRIDIRON states players are generally considered notable if they "Have appeared in at least one regular season or post season game in any one of the following professional leagues: the Arena Football League, the Canadian Football League, the National Football League, the fourth American Football League, the All-America Football Conference or the United States Football League, or any other top-level professional league." Practice squads don't do it. Jacona ( talk) 12:00, 8 April 2019 (UTC) reply
  • Speedy Delete fails all notability guidelines on this website. (Especially WP:NGRIDIRON). He had just 3 touchdowns in college and hasn't made an NFL roster. James-the-Charizard ( talk) 17:48, 10 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.
Retrieved from " https://en.wikipedia.org/?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Log/2019_April_7&oldid=1142614762"
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< 6 April 8 April >

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. At least at this time - the lasting impact may be reevaluated at a later time. Sandstein 07:03, 15 April 2019 (UTC) reply

2019 Campbellfield factory fire

2019 Campbellfield factory fire (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources:  Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Per WP:NOTNEWS, run-of-the-mill fire that is of no long-lasting importance other than to the local community. There are probably tens of such fires a week around the world. Step hen 23:14, 7 April 2019 (UTC) reply

  • No opinion. I am new to Wikipedia and this is my first article. If it's deemed inappropriate, please remove it. I created the page because there is also a page for the 2018 West Footscray warehouse fire (a similar fire occurring less than a year ago in the same city). Today's fire is larger than that one and has been mentioned in international news. 84percent ( talk) 23:47, 7 April 2019 (UTC) reply
  • Keep (at this time). As WP:LASTING says "It may take weeks or months to determine whether or not an event has a lasting effect. This does not, however, mean recent events with unproven lasting effect are automatically non-notable." This is a very recent event and, while it was perhaps premature to create an article so soon, I think our policy makes clear it is not automatically non-notable until events are fully played out. I imagine there will be investigations and an inquiry etc. I'd keep it for now. Kerry ( talk) 02:42, 8 April 2019 (UTC) reply
  • Weak keep. Industrial fires and explosions in major cities sometimes have lasting impact. See for example the Toronto propane explosion, which initially caused only one death. For the Campbellfield factory fire, there were two serious injuries. 2607:FEA8:1DE0:7B4:EDD6:545C:DDBA:D02 ( talk) 04:34, 8 April 2019 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. Eastmain ( talk • contribs) 05:10, 8 April 2019 (UTC) reply


Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. PriceDL ( talk) 22:50, 14 April 2019 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. Withdrawn by nominator w/o opposition, given the recent AFD. -- Patar knight - chat/ contributions 00:44, 8 April 2019 (UTC) reply

Russian interference in the 2016 Brexit referendum

AfDs for this article:
Russian interference in the 2016 Brexit referendum (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources:  Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

WP:SYNTHESIS at large. Many of the sources do not even mention Russia at all. RaviC ( talk) 22:32, 7 April 2019 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 22:51, 7 April 2019 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 22:52, 7 April 2019 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 22:52, 7 April 2019 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Russia-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 22:52, 7 April 2019 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was speedy keep. Nomination withdrawn. ( non-admin closure) The World's Signature ( talk) 01:38, 8 April 2019 (UTC) reply

Status Labs

Status Labs (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources:  Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

The company appears to be mostly notable for Wiki-PR editing of Wikipedia, so, after digging into it more, I think it should be redirected there. The World's Signature ( talk) 21:17, 7 April 2019 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. Ceethekreator ( talk) 22:10, 7 April 2019 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Ceethekreator ( talk) 22:10, 7 April 2019 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Texas-related deletion discussions. Ceethekreator ( talk) 22:10, 7 April 2019 (UTC) reply
Hi Bakazaka, I guess I should have explained myself more. I don't have any direct connection to Status Labs apart from the fact that I live in Austin and found the company interesting based on that. It was not my intent to promote them when I did my initial edits, merely wanted to bring the page up to what other Wiki pages for companies look like. The reason I decided to nomniate the page for deletion is because there was a notability tag added to the article by a more experienced user after my edits. If the page is going to be a short paragraph, seems to me it'd be more appropriate to have it as a section on Wiki-PR editing of Wikipedia rather than its own page. The World's Signature ( talk) 00:42, 8 April 2019 (UTC) reply
Thanks for your reply. So, to clarify, you're proposing a merge? There is no Status Labs content at your proposed target currently. Bakazaka ( talk) 00:45, 8 April 2019 (UTC) reply
Yes, precisely. Create a section labeled Status Labs there and move the existing content over. The World's Signature ( talk) 01:08, 8 April 2019 (UTC) reply
In that case you should withdraw this AfD nomination, and follow WP:MERGEPROP instructions instead. Bakazaka ( talk) 01:14, 8 April 2019 (UTC) reply
Ah! Thanks for pointing me in the right direction. The World's Signature ( talk) 01:32, 8 April 2019 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. —  JJMC89 ( T· C) 21:37, 14 April 2019 (UTC) reply

Doug Hall (painter)

Doug Hall (painter) (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources:  Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Struggling to see how he passes WP:GNG no in-depth coverage anywhere that I can see. Happy to be proved wrong though. Theroadislong ( talk) 21:07, 7 April 2019 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Artists-related deletion discussions. PriceDL ( talk) 21:36, 7 April 2019 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Missouri-related deletion discussions. PriceDL ( talk) 21:36, 7 April 2019 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. —  JJMC89 ( T· C) 20:51, 14 April 2019 (UTC) reply

Digital webber

Digital webber (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources:  Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Non notable firm. Fails WP:GNG, WP:NCORP. Rsrikanth05 ( talk) 20:31, 7 April 2019 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. Ceethekreator ( talk) 22:13, 7 April 2019 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Ceethekreator ( talk) 22:13, 7 April 2019 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Ceethekreator ( talk) 22:13, 7 April 2019 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. Ceethekreator ( talk) 22:14, 7 April 2019 (UTC) reply
There's nothing at Digital Webber to support that. Andy Dingley ( talk) 21:44, 8 April 2019 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was speedy keep. Nomination withdrawn. ( non-admin closure) Endymion.12 ( talk) 12:59, 9 April 2019 (UTC) reply

Tony Brown (journalist)

Tony Brown (journalist) (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources:  Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Fails WP:GNG. NYT reference is trivial, and I couldn't find any decent sources establishing notability. Appears to be a minor conspiracy theorist. Endymion.12 ( talk) 19:01, 7 April 2019 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Journalism-related deletion discussions. Ceethekreator ( talk) 20:29, 7 April 2019 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of West Virginia-related deletion discussions. Ceethekreator ( talk) 20:29, 7 April 2019 (UTC) reply
  • Keep – The New York Times piece is quite in-depth to be called trivial. As stated in the article in 1985 1982; “…Dapper, bespectacled and 48 years old, Tony Brown is the only black producer of a nationally televised serious black program, Tony Brown's Journal.” Believe this passes our Notability guidelines. ShoesssS Talk 20:43, 7 April 2019 (UTC) reply
@ Shoessss: Where is that quote taken from? It's not from the NYT article cited. Endymion.12 ( talk) 21:04, 7 April 2019 (UTC) reply
The quote is from The New York Times, but from a different article than the one cited in the article. ( Here is a link to it.) MarkZusab ( talk) 21:25, 7 April 2019 (UTC) reply
I am sorry I said 1985 it is actually 1982 [1] Sorry for the confusion. ShoesssS Talk 11:41, 8 April 2019 (UTC) reply
  • Keep as an obvious pass of WP:GNG and probably WP:AUTHOR as well. "I couldn't find any decent sources" is a statement about the nominator's capabilities, not the article subject's notability. Possible sources include Thomas, Keith L. (8 January 1989). "'Racism is green': Tony Brown: a talk show host who's not all talk". Chicago Tribune. p. J26., and Hasemyer, David (15 November 1995). "PBS' Tony Brown touts wisdom of racial accord". The San Diego Union-Tribune. p. B3., and the 1600-word profile Simmonds, Yussuf J. (7 January 2010). "Tony Brown". Los Angeles Sentinel. p. A12., and the 1800-word profile Higgins, Chester A, Sr. (6 November 1996). "Tony Brown had a vision". Michigan Chronicle. p. 7A.{{ cite news}}: CS1 maint: multiple names: authors list ( link), or a front page Christian Science Monitor story (Marquand, Robert (23 August 1988). "Tony Brown: tough on whites and blacks". The Christian Science Monitor. p. A1.). I'll stop there, but please note that I formatted these with the cite template in case anyone wants to actually improve the article using the numerous available sources. Bakazaka ( talk) 22:33, 7 April 2019 (UTC) reply
  • Strong Keep - Urban League's distinguished service award, JET 100 most influential Black Americans of 1977, dean of the school of communications at Howard University in the early 1970s, co-organizer of a MLK march in Detroit in 1963, Host of the at the time longest running black affairs show on television, the list goes on and on. Smmurphy( Talk) 18:13, 8 April 2019 (UTC) reply
  • Keep notable journalist, has own notable show, one of his books was notable. E.M.Gregory ( talk) 10:34, 9 April 2019 (UTC) reply
  • Note So I have clearly made a mistake by only performing a cursory google search before nominating this article. Would someone perhaps like to use the references listed above to actually improve the article? Unfortunately I have neither the time nor the interest to do so. Endymion.12 ( talk) 12:39, 9 April 2019 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was speedy keep. Nomination withdrawn. ( non-admin closure) Endymion.12 ( talk) 12:56, 9 April 2019 (UTC) reply

Tony Brown's Journal

Tony Brown's Journal (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources:  Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Appears to fail notability requirements. Endymion.12 ( talk) 19:08, 7 April 2019 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Journalism-related deletion discussions. Ceethekreator ( talk) 20:31, 7 April 2019 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. Ceethekreator ( talk) 20:31, 7 April 2019 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Ceethekreator ( talk) 20:31, 7 April 2019 (UTC) reply
  • Keep – The New York Times piece is quite in-depth to be called trivial. As stated in the article in 1985; “…Dapper, bespectacled and 48 years old, Tony Brown is the only black producer of a nationally televised serious black program, Tony Brown's Journal.” Believe this passes our Notability guidelines. ShoesssS Talk 20:44, 7 April 2019 (UTC) reply
  • Keep as obvious WP:GNG pass. WP:BEFORE should include Google Books searches, which would find, for example, extensive coverage of this specific program starting on page 117 of Black Power TV by Devorah Heitner (Duke University Press, 2013, [2]), also an archived 2-page article (followed by an ad for the program!) from Jet (February 15, 1979) [3]. Elsewhere there is Cottman, Michael H. (19 February 1989). "Do Unto Yourself: 'Tony Brown's Journal' preaches self-determination". Newsday. p. 81. I stopped looking after seeing numerous hits in newspaper databases covering the period. It's an older notability claim, but it checks out. Article could use some improvement, but it has the sources available, so deletion solves absolutely nothing here. Bakazaka ( talk) 22:16, 7 April 2019 (UTC) reply
  • Keep The very definition of notable. scope_creep Talk 10:29, 8 April 2019 (UTC) reply
  • Strong Keep - as with the AfD for Brown, this subjects encyclopedic nature speaks for itself. Being the at the time longest running black affairs show on TV and carried throughout the US on PBS seems more than sufficient to establish that the subject is encyclopedic. Smmurphy( Talk) 18:16, 8 April 2019 (UTC) reply
  • Keep sources support notability, and host is patently notable. E.M.Gregory ( talk) 10:35, 9 April 2019 (UTC) reply
  • Note So I have clearly made a mistake by only performing a cursory google search before nominating this article. Would someone perhaps like to use the references listed above to actually improve the article? Unfortunately I have neither the time nor the interest to do so. Endymion.12 ( talk) 12:39, 9 April 2019 (UTC) reply
  • User:Endymion.12, Perhaps you already know this, but while it is good that many article are improved after being brought to AfD, it is not required that an article be improved in order to be kept. Also, when Nom is persuaded that sources do exist to establish notability, Nom is permitted to say that and withdraw from the discussion, permitting the page to be kept as long as there are no votes to delete. It is a sort of courtesy to do so. This happens a lot because to err is human. E.M.Gregory ( talk) 12:48, 9 April 2019 (UTC) reply
User:E.M.Gregory I am aware—it was a suggestion to improve the article using the references available here. I will withdraw my nomination now. Endymion.12 ( talk) 12:53, 9 April 2019 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. —  JJMC89 ( T· C) 20:51, 14 April 2019 (UTC) reply

Braxton Olita

Braxton Olita (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources:  Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Fails WP:MUSICIAN and WP:GNG. Clarityfiend ( talk) 19:03, 7 April 2019 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Ceethekreator ( talk) 20:32, 7 April 2019 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. Ceethekreator ( talk) 20:32, 7 April 2019 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Hawaii-related deletion discussions. Ceethekreator ( talk) 20:32, 7 April 2019 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was no consensus. After being listed here at AFD for a month, there's no clear consensus that this article needs to be deleted. Some discussion has risen about redirecting it, that's something that can be taken up on the talk page. (non-admin closure) Dusti *Let's talk!* 05:28, 14 April 2019 (UTC) reply

Friend Me

AfDs for this article:
Friend Me (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources:  Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Unaired show, it is unclear why it meets WP:GNG. It was a redirect for quite some time, and probably should have stayed a redirect. Ymblanter ( talk) 09:58, 17 March 2019 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. Icewhiz ( talk) 14:03, 17 March 2019 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. Icewhiz ( talk) 14:03, 17 March 2019 (UTC) reply
Keep unclear why it was a redirect; previous AFD closed as keep. As stated then, article has numerous wp:rs and as wp:ntemp, given that nothing has changed since then and now, no reason the article should now be deleted. Coverage more than demonstrates its notability. Dcfc1988 ( talk) 20:57, 22 March 2019 (UTC) reply
Well, since the last nomination it became clear that the project has been abandoned.-- Ymblanter ( talk) 21:14, 22 March 2019 (UTC) reply
That's not true. The series was cancelled in July and the AFD was raised in October. Dcfc1988 ( talk) 11:44, 23 March 2019 (UTC) reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America 1000 01:27, 24 March 2019 (UTC) reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 07:28, 31 March 2019 (UTC) reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Vanamonde ( Talk) 17:56, 7 April 2019 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was no consensus. Sandstein 07:04, 15 April 2019 (UTC) reply

Raguluthunna Bharatham

AfDs for this article:
Raguluthunna Bharatham (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources:  Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
(Find sources:  Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
(Find sources:  Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

As per WP:BEFORE searches, this is a non-notable film that does not meet WP:NFP or WP:NFO. North America 1000 10:34, 24 March 2019 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. North America 1000 10:35, 24 March 2019 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. North America 1000 10:35, 24 March 2019 (UTC) reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, So said The Great Wiki Lord. ( talk) 12:26, 31 March 2019 (UTC) reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Vanamonde ( Talk) 17:54, 7 April 2019 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was no consensus. Sandstein 18:03, 14 April 2019 (UTC) reply

Yoshihiko Kikuchi

AfDs for this article:
Yoshihiko Kikuchi (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources:  Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Non-notable subject that does not meet WP:BASIC. Coverage found in searches for independent, reliable sources is limited to name checks and very short passing mentions, none of which qualify notability.

Sources were presented in the previous AfD discussion, but only one, which I can't access, appears to be possibly usable to qualify notability. However, multiple independent sources that provide significant coverage are required, not just one. Below is a synopsis of the sources.

Source Analysis
Armand Mauss, All Abraham's Children: Changing Mormon Conceptions of Race and Lineage, 2010, University of Illinois Press Not significant coverage: consists of one sentence about the subject.
Newell G. Bringhurst, Darron Smith, co-editors Black and Mormon, 2005, University of Illinois Press. Not significant coverage: a 2-sentence mention
Reid L. Neilson, Taking the Gospel to the Japanese, 1901-2001, 2010, Brigham Young University Press Primary source: According to WorldCat ( here), this is not published by the University of Utah Press as stated in the previous AfD discussion. Rather, it is published by Brigham Young University Press, which is the university press of Brigham Young University. Brigham Young University is wholly owned by The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints. Primary sources such as these do not qualify notability.
[4] Not WP:SIGCOV: Per the snippet view, comes across as likely only having fleeting passing mentions
[5] Not significant coverage: a passing mention
Encyclopedia of Latter-Day Saint History I consider this to be a primary source, because it is published by the Deseret Book Company, which is a wholly-owned subsidiary of Deseret Management Corporation, which is wholly owned by the LDS Church.
Numano, Jiro. “Hasty Baptisms in Japan: The Early 1980s in the LDS Church.” Journal of Mormon History, vol. 36, no. 4, 2010, pp. 18–40. JSTOR, JSTOR, [www.jstor.org/stable/23291122]. I cannot access this source to assess the depth of coverage

– North America 1000 10:20, 24 March 2019 (UTC) reply

  • I disagree with North America on the two books by notable authors that he dismisses as "brief" because, read in context, these are about Kikuchi's role in the Church during the long, slow period when it moved away from its tradition of sorting humans into a hierarchy of races. One of the dismissed "snippets" is also meaningful in this context. Primarily, however, I find this table to be a false and inappropriate attempt to mislead editors about the available sources because of its dismissal of a long scholarly article about Kikuchi on the grounds that Nom cannot access it, and dismissal of a scholarly book that contains SIGCOV of Kikuchi. E.M.Gregory ( talk) 10:49, 10 April 2019 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. North America 1000 10:21, 24 March 2019 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. North America 1000 10:21, 24 March 2019 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Japan-related deletion discussions. North America 1000 10:21, 24 March 2019 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Hawaii-related deletion discussions. North America 1000 10:21, 24 March 2019 (UTC) reply
  • Keep The attempt to classify scholarly, univerisity press sources as "primary sources" is just unacceptable. BYU Studies approaches issues from a clearly scholarly perspective and the attempt to disqualify it is outrageous. There are either two or three sources, depending on the view of the Encyclopedia of Latter-day Saint history, that provide indepth coverage. That is clearly enough to pass the general notability guidelines and justify an article. Ownership cannot be used as ground to cast out university press publications. John Pack Lambert ( talk) 01:13, 27 March 2019 (UTC) reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, So said The Great Wiki Lord. ( talk) 12:27, 31 March 2019 (UTC) reply
  • Weak delete If this topic were notable, some reliable sources could be found that cover the the unsourced biographical information we currently include. An entire long section of our article includes a single citation that is being used to support the claim that he was born in "Horoizumi District", except that it doesn't say that: it just says "Horoizumi", and at the time of Kikuchi's birth Erimo, Hokkaido was apparently known as Horoizumi Town. I doubt the author of our dubious source knew the difference. The rest of the section is dubious hagiography that, if this discussion does not end in the page being deleted or redirected, should be immediately blanked pending an independent reliable source. Hijiri 88 ( 聖 やや) 12:23, 4 April 2019 (UTC) reply
The article currently claims his father was killed by a submarine and he attended university in Tokyo, but the earliest version said it was a bombing raid and the university was in Hokkaido. Is this another Bill Schnoebelen situation where a religious leader's autobiography he tells his followers has changed over the years? Neither version cited a written source, so I can't imagine why it would have been changed... Hijiri 88 ( 聖 やや) 12:37, 4 April 2019 (UTC) reply
Murky, incorrect family and childhood backgrounds are not all that rare. In such cases, it is best to phrase it carefully, "according to Kikuchi, his father was..." This makes it clear that we are reporting Kikuchi's memory or understand ing of the past. It would be different if a major newspaper had checked the war record. Most of us believe what we are told, even though many family stories are exaggerated, fabricated, mis-remembered, or deliberately edited to conceal certain details. Ignorant geographical details added by an American writing up a story about Japan, or an unvalidated family story about how Dad died don't really matter for notability. And notability is the question at issue here. The sources about his role in the Church are reliable. If the childhood background is not accurate, it can and should be fixed. But this does not affect the question of notability. E.M.Gregory ( talk) 21:21, 8 April 2019 (UTC) reply
It's basically irrelevant to the question of this subject's notability, though: the source was introduced in the previous AFD as "discussing or quoting" this subject in three places; quotes from the subject himself are near-useless for GNG, and the layout of the page numbers implies EMG just went to the index and looked for Kikuchi's name, without checking whether it was a quotation or a discussion that was on each of the pages in question, and I seriously doubt that each of pages 352, 353, 354 and 358 included a separate short "discussinon" of Kikuchi. Hijiri 88 ( 聖 やや) 04:52, 7 April 2019 (UTC) reply
Nb. I still feel that the subject does not meet notability guidelines. North America 1000 06:18, 7 April 2019 (UTC) reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Vanamonde ( Talk) 17:54, 7 April 2019 (UTC) reply
  • Keep per reasons and sources I provided in November 2018 when Nom last brought this individual to AfD. Note that the book published the Brigham University Press that was one of the sources I brought was disparaged by Nom on the grounds that the Press is not INDEPENDENT of the church. The quesiton was brought to the RS noticeboard, where editors judged that a reputable university press is independent of the government or church that sponsors the university, eliminating one of Nom's arguments for deletion. imho, it was tendentious to drag this one back to AfD. E.M.Gregory ( talk) 14:09, 8 April 2019 (UTC) reply
  • Note that the scholarly article in JSTOR that Nom cannot access is about Kikuchi's administration of LDS in Japan, I added it to the page last November, and I think my edit was a fair summary of the contents, except that with regard to notability I want to emphasize that the article is a scholarly analysis of Kikuchi's approach to recruiting converts and the problems that his approach caused. This is the very definition of WP:SIGCOV. E.M.Gregory ( talk) 14:35, 8 April 2019 (UTC) reply
  • Taking the Gospel to the Japanese, 1901–2001, by Reid Larkin Nielsen, Brigham Young University Press, 2006. Chapter 14, The Church in Japan Comes of Age, 1968–1980, by Terry G. Nelson discusses Kikuchi. It is less than 20 pages. I suggest that editors should feel an obligation to actually read such a source before undertaking to disparage it. The index - which is available online - shows that he is cited 7 times in that chapter. As far as I can tell, the chapters are not available online. Perhaps one of you gentlemen would be willing to walk to a library and give us your description/assessment of the source. In general, however, a chapter in a university press book is an indication of notability. And he was, after all, a major figure in LDS in Japan in 1968-1980, according to the JSTOR article and other sources. E.M.Gregory ( talk) 21:01, 8 April 2019 (UTC) reply
@ E.M.Gregory: So how do you feel about the unsourced biographical content? Can we blank it pending some reliable sources? Your !vote is for "keep", but the content of your comment doesn't actually appear to disagree with my "weak delete" on the substance of the matter and the question of whether the content of the present article is worth keeping. Also, please note that not everyone lives within walking distance of a library that stocks a lot of English-language literature about Mormons that isn't itself published by the Mormon Church or affiliated groups. Hijiri 88 ( 聖 やや) 07:24, 9 April 2019 (UTC) reply
This is irrelevant to the quesiton at AfD, but I agree that we can. Sourced to a dead link of an interview he gave, and not a particularly likely story (the U.S. Navy was not targeting fisherman in Japanese waters 2 weeks before V-J Day.) E.M.Gregory ( talk) 10:35, 10 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. The arguments to keep are essentially, "meets WP:FOOTY", but there's convincing arguments here that he doesn't. In addition, FOOTY is just a hint. Real sources are what matters, and nobody has come up with any. -- RoySmith (talk) 14:20, 15 April 2019 (UTC) reply

Eric Loyd

Eric Loyd (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources:  Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Our article says he played 4 WP:NFOOTY games in 2008 in the third-tier semi professional, non- WP:FPL USL Second Division. Other than that, Apparently hasn't played in any WP:FPLs and does not meet NFOOTY. Search results return no significant coverage to meet WP:GNG. Leviv  ich 17:25, 7 April 2019 (UTC) reply

Update: I have updated the nomination to reflect that this article no longer meets WP:NFOOTY because USL Second Division has been removed from WP:FPL per the note below. Leviv  ich 18:20, 10 April 2019 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Leviv  ich 17:25, 7 April 2019 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. Leviv  ich 17:25, 7 April 2019 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Leviv  ich 17:25, 7 April 2019 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Florida-related deletion discussions. Leviv  ich 17:25, 7 April 2019 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Michigan-related deletion discussions. Leviv  ich 17:25, 7 April 2019 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of North Carolina-related deletion discussions. Leviv  ich 17:25, 7 April 2019 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Leviv  ich 17:33, 7 April 2019 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was soft delete. WP:REFUND applies. —  JJMC89 ( T· C) 20:49, 14 April 2019 (UTC) reply

Dark Walker

Dark Walker (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources:  Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Lacked RS since creation in April 2007. Fails WP:NFILM and WP:GNG. Just Chilling ( talk) 16:29, 7 April 2019 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 17:06, 7 April 2019 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 17:06, 7 April 2019 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Sandstein 18:00, 14 April 2019 (UTC) reply

First Ladies and Gentlemen of Pakistan

First Ladies and Gentlemen of Pakistan (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources:  Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

This is a list of spouses of heads of state and heads of government of Pakistan. The title "first lady" or "first gentleman" is not formal, and has no legal recognition. On the face of it, this list looks like a directory (see WP:NOTDIRECTORY) compiled in an indiscriminate manner (as it collates spouses of both heads of state and heads of government). It also fails the criteria listed in WP:LISTN because the group as a whole (either while considering only the spouses of the heads of state, or while including spouses of heads of government) has not received sufficient coverage to pass the muster at WP:GNG. — Nearly Headless Nick {c} 12:06, 7 April 2019 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. MarginalCost ( talk) 14:21, 7 April 2019 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists of people-related deletion discussions. MarginalCost ( talk) 14:21, 7 April 2019 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. MarginalCost ( talk) 14:21, 7 April 2019 (UTC) reply
  • Delete per nom. Although individuals within this list may and do qualify for their own WP articles, this list does not seem to fulfill any significant purpose (or even interest?). Definitely does not pass WP:GNG. Skirts89 15:15, 7 April 2019 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Sandstein 18:00, 14 April 2019 (UTC) reply

Oshawott, Dewott, and Samurott

Oshawott, Dewott, and Samurott (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources:  Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Not really notable enough to have an article. No significant impact on the real world as far as I'm aware. Fails WP:SUSTAINED. InvalidOS talk 11:27, 7 April 2019 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Video games-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 17:11, 7 April 2019 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 17:11, 7 April 2019 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) Dusti *Let's talk!* 05:31, 14 April 2019 (UTC) reply

Production of Avengers: Infinity War and Avengers: Endgame

Production of Avengers: Infinity War and Avengers: Endgame (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources:  Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

I think this is FORK of both Avengers: Infinity War and Avengers: Endgame and seems fancruft. This has too many information that is not required and could easily be compressed and merged in the respective pages. If anything, I suggest creating a new one like Production of the Avengers films or Production of MCU films, which honestly would be better off. The existence of this kind of pages promotes too many unnecessary content. All the Avengers films have the same level of production value I believe. A good example is Production of the James Bond films. THE NEW ImmortalWizard (chat) 10:53, 7 April 2019 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. THE NEW ImmortalWizard (chat) 10:57, 7 April 2019 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Withdraw. (non-admin closure) Dusti *Let's talk!* 08:29, 14 April 2019 (UTC) reply

James Gillingham

James Gillingham (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources:  Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

I'm not seeing the notability for this person. He didn't invent prosthetic limbs, he was a manufacturer of them. Doing a Google search there's flyby mentions of him because he happened to have made that prosthetic limb, or it was a picture he took. I'm just not seeing how this passes WP:GNG. Dusti *Let's talk!* 09:58, 7 April 2019 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 10:10, 7 April 2019 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. MarginalCost ( talk) 14:24, 7 April 2019 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Disability-related deletion discussions. MarginalCost ( talk) 14:24, 7 April 2019 (UTC) reply
  • Keep. Clearly passes the general notability guideline by having significant coverage in independent reliable sources, including a 126-page book wholly about the subject. There's no need for someone to be the inventor of a concept to achieve notability. And I don't see how a search for web sites is relevant to the notability of someone who was active in the 19th century. Maybe some of our younger editors don't realise this, but the world-wide web wasn't around then. Phil Bridger ( talk) 20:58, 7 April 2019 (UTC) reply
  • Keep - A simple Google search turned up reliable sources with significant coverage. I expanded the article using some of those sources. A 2017 BBC documentary includes the subject, and, as pointed out by Phil Bridger, a 2001 book was written solely about the subject. Easily passes WP:GNG and WP:BIO. - AuthorAuthor ( talk) 21:17, 7 April 2019 (UTC) reply
  • Delete not a notable figure. I couldn't even tell why the article was written. Perhaps instead of him having his own article, add to an existing article about prosthetics? Disaposi ( talk) 15:52, 12 April 2019 (UTC) reply
  • Keep. Even if only searching online, there's plenty to be found, including the existence of a book about him, academic papers about his work ( [6]), the fact that his creations are exhibited in several museums in multiple countries ( [7], [8], [9]), and the BBC coverage ( [10], [11]), as well as other coverage available online ( [12], [13]). -- Michig ( talk) 07:57, 14 April 2019 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was redirect to Transport in Białystok. Sandstein 18:00, 14 April 2019 (UTC) reply

Zarząd Białostockiej Komunikacji Miejskiej

Zarząd Białostockiej Komunikacji Miejskiej (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources:  Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Does not meet WP:CORPDEPTH. Contested prod. SITH (talk) 12:34, 31 March 2019 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Icewhiz ( talk) 12:49, 31 March 2019 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. Icewhiz ( talk) 12:49, 31 March 2019 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Poland-related deletion discussions. Icewhiz ( talk) 12:49, 31 March 2019 (UTC) reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America 1000 09:56, 7 April 2019 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Sandstein 17:59, 14 April 2019 (UTC) reply

Soroush Dabbagh

Soroush Dabbagh (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources:  Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Doesn't meet WP:NSCHOLAR, his highest citation count is 1, total citations is 23, and doesn't appear to meet the position criteria either. Onel5969 TT me 12:17, 24 March 2019 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. CASSIOPEIA( talk) 13:06, 24 March 2019 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Philosophy-related deletion discussions. CASSIOPEIA( talk) 13:06, 24 March 2019 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Iran-related deletion discussions. CASSIOPEIA( talk) 13:06, 24 March 2019 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. CASSIOPEIA( talk) 13:06, 24 March 2019 (UTC) reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America 1000 09:03, 31 March 2019 (UTC) reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America 1000 09:25, 7 April 2019 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Sandstein 17:57, 14 April 2019 (UTC) reply

Aditi Budhathoki

Aditi Budhathoki (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources:  Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

With her single lead role, she doesn't appear to meet WP:NACTOR. Inside Edge 2 doesn't appear to have come out yet ( production wrapped in Nov 2018), but in any case there's nothing that indicates she's in a lead role in it. The rest of the references are celeb cruft or casting announcements, and that's hardly enough to substantiate notability. ♠ PMC♠ (talk) 16:42, 23 March 2019 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 20:13, 23 March 2019 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 20:13, 23 March 2019 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fashion-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 20:13, 23 March 2019 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Nepal-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 20:13, 23 March 2019 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 20:14, 23 March 2019 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 20:14, 23 March 2019 (UTC) reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America 1000 03:17, 31 March 2019 (UTC) reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America 1000 08:32, 7 April 2019 (UTC) reply
  • Draft or Delete can confirm that the subject is likely to become notable in the future. But, it's the classic case of WP:TOOSOON. Also, as a WP:BLP, it ought to be more careful on its content. The birthday mentioned, at least, seems to be contradicted by some other sources, credibility of any of them being hard to establish. Usedtobecool ( talk) 09:53, 13 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. Reviewing the comments and policy based opinions, it's clear that the consensus at this time is keep. (non-admin closure) Dusti *Let's talk!* 05:47, 14 April 2019 (UTC) reply

Lil Keed

Lil Keed (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources:  Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Subject is an upcoming American rapper. Sources are not IRS. He started his music career in 2018 and has not achieve any prominent in music industry. Fails to meet WP:MUSICBIO CASSIOPEIA( talk) 06:42, 7 April 2019 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. CASSIOPEIA( talk) 06:43, 7 April 2019 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. CASSIOPEIA( talk) 06:43, 7 April 2019 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Georgia (U.S. state)-related deletion discussions. CASSIOPEIA( talk) 06:43, 7 April 2019 (UTC) reply


*Comment -I oppose because Lil Keed's brother Lil Gotit has his own page, and Keed has just as many views as Gotit. Thus Keed also collaborated with well known Musical artists and is gaining views, so I oppose deletion. This is User:Proudpakistani11 73.74.141.157 ( talk) 18:55, 7 April 2019 (UTC) reply
*Comment - Notability is WP:NOTINHERITED - his brother has a page does not automatically gives the right for Keed to have his page in Wikipedia. Collaborating with well-know artists does not statisfy the notability requirements either. CASSIOPEIA( talk) 11:46, 8 April 2019 (UTC) reply


*Comment - None of the sources provided are either independent or reliable
(1) Complex - is not a reliable site, no series reputation editorial site for fact-checking and accuracy like Rolling Stones. The sites in various affiliate marketing programs, getting paid commission on purchases made through the site links.
(2 & 3 & 5) TheFader, XXL and Elevator Magazine - are an interview articles which make the source not indepedent as the info obtained is from the subject himself.
(4) HotNewHipHop is a musician subscription site and a "promotional powerhouse" - not such the source is not reliable.
(6) Pitchfork - the editor of the article is a contributor who is a university student who would like to pursue a journalism career in future - she is not a legit journalist and the source/article is not reliable.
CASSIOPEIA( talk) 11:46, 8 April 2019 (UTC) reply
  • Comment - Something is wrong with that analysis of sources by CASSIOPEIA. First, it is full of typos in a fashion uncharacteristic for that editor. More importantly: Complex, Fader, Pitchfork, and XXL are all listed as reliable sources at Wikipedia:WikiProject Albums/Sources, so they can be assumed to know what they're doing with artist articles as well. And saying that a young beginning journalist is not "legit" smacks of elitism, especially when that person works at a reliable publication with proper editing and management. --- DOOMSDAYER520 ( Talk| Contribs) 16:53, 9 April 2019 (UTC) reply

*Comment - to be merit a page in Wikipedia, significant coverage (multiple sources) with independent, reliable sources to support the content claimed is needed. Note, it the sources is reliable, it also has to be independent.— Preceding unsigned comment added by CASSIOPEIA ( talk • contribs)

Enough coverage exists in reliable sources to merit an article. WP:GNG. StaticVapor message me! 20:45, 12 April 2019 (UTC) reply
  • Weak Keep - See my comment above on reliable sources, in which this rapper has a few introductory articles. Those media mentions are indeed brief and some are reliant on interviews in which the rapper merely talks about himself, but the coverage shows some minor notice in the hip hop community, perhaps enough for a stub here. If the article is kept, promotional language needs to be removed, and I would not argue with anyone voting to delete under the WP:TOOSOON standard. But previous delete arguments based on suitability of sources are not convincing. --- DOOMSDAYER520 ( Talk| Contribs) 17:05, 9 April 2019 (UTC) reply
  • Comment - Notability is the guidelines. For a artist to have minor media coverage and the sources are either not reliable or not independent - that fails the notability guidelines. It is WP:TOOSOON.— Preceding unsigned comment added by CASSIOPEIA ( talk • contribs)
  • Delete when an article says someone is upcoming that means right now they are not yet notable. John Pack Lambert ( talk) 04:03, 10 April 2019 (UTC) reply
  • Weak keep: per DOOMSDAYER520 and a Google search provides reliable sources to support notability, passes WP:MUSICBIO#5 through this. The subject is also signed to a notable record label. Ceethekreator ( talk) 20:11, 11 April 2019 (UTC) reply
  • KeepSigned to a famous lable, is almost upcoming and is famous enough, this is 73.74.141.157.
  • Comment Pls see WP:MUSICBIO#5 which lead to Major labels and YSL Records has only about 10 artist, it is not considered a major record labble - Subject is WP:TOOSOON.— Preceding unsigned comment added by CASSIOPEIA ( talk • contribs)
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 17:55, 14 April 2019 (UTC) reply

Jorge Vargas González

AfDs for this article:
Jorge Vargas González (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources:  Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

I can't understand why this page was kept at a previous AFD. The subject's main claim to fame is being mayor of a 13,000 person town. The nav box shows an serious effort to build out content around everyone that has been a mayor of this little village. There is even Mayors of Pichilemu which seems to have been deleted and recreated. Legacypac ( talk) 01:57, 7 April 2019 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. Eastmain ( talk • contribs) 04:47, 7 April 2019 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Chile-related deletion discussions. Eastmain ( talk • contribs) 04:48, 7 April 2019 (UTC) reply
I've seen building complexes in China with morr people. Legacypac ( talk) 05:14, 7 April 2019 (UTC) reply
  • Delete. Quibbling over whether a population of 13,000 makes a place a "little village" or not is entirely orthogonal to the point, which is that a population of 13,000 is not enough to hand all of the place's mayors an automatic inclusion freebie just for existing as mayors. Yes, maybe a mayor of a place this size could manage to pass WP:NPOL #2 on depth of press coverage, but it's far from clear that that's true here: this is entirely too dependent on primary sources (birth and marriage certificates from the civil registry office) and routine election coverage and glancing namechecks of his existence in coverage that isn't about him — and while there are a few sources that are actually reliable and independent and strongly enough about him to count for something, there aren't enough of those once you discount all the weaksauce stuff. Every mayor of everywhere can always show three or four or five media hits, so the way to make a smaller town's mayor notable is not just to show three or four or five media hits — it's to show a depth and range and volume of coverage that marks him out as a special case of significantly greater notability than most other mayors of places this size. But the volume of reliable and substantive coverage in genuinely GNG-worthy sources shown here is not accomplishing that: it's just matching "what every mayor can always show", not lifting him into the realm of the special. Bearcat ( talk) 13:14, 8 April 2019 (UTC) reply
  • Delete local politicians get local coverage. We need more to show notability. John Pack Lambert ( talk) 04:00, 10 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 17:55, 14 April 2019 (UTC) reply

José Martínez (football manager)

José Martínez (football manager) (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources:  Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Contested PROD. Concern was Article about a football manager who does not WP:GNG or WP:NFOOTBALL. PROD was contested on the grounds that This figure has coached at the first tier level in Denmark, Sweden, and Spain. Given that in these coaching positions he was either an analyst or assistant manager, this does not satisfy WP:NFOOTY, and there is no indication that he has received sufficient coverage to meet WP:GNG. Sir Sputnik ( talk) 23:00, 31 March 2019 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. Sir Sputnik ( talk) 23:00, 31 March 2019 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Sir Sputnik ( talk) 23:00, 31 March 2019 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. Ceethekreator ( talk) 23:17, 31 March 2019 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sweden-related deletion discussions. Ceethekreator ( talk) 23:17, 31 March 2019 (UTC) reply
  • Delete – WP:NFOOTY says "manager" so it doesn't seem that being an assistant manager, even for an WP:FPL league, would count. I can't find any coverage of him other than this, and that reads like a routine profile-of-the-new-guy interview. No NFooty + one borderline example of SIGCOV for WP:GNG = delete for me. Leviv  ich 23:50, 31 March 2019 (UTC) reply
  • Keep - WP:NFOOTY says "manager" which does qualify him, as other sports such as basketball allow pages such as [14] to remain, even though he has no top-tier or professional, head coaching or playing experience. The WP:NFOOTY definition needs to be clarified before this case is ruled on. To address SIGCOV he has articles such as the one above, and the following are other examples from just his transfer to Malmö FF alone: [15], [16], [17], [18], [19], [20], [21], [22], [23], [24]. User Talk:Trevanbaxter 23:50, 31 March 2019 (UTC) reply
Looking through those, they all appear to be routine non-significant coverage, plus some unrealiable sources and dead links. The basketball article is an WP:OSE argument. Leviv  ich 17:51, 13 April 2019 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Giant Snowman 10:19, 1 April 2019 (UTC) reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Drmies ( talk) 01:37, 7 April 2019 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Michig ( talk) 07:32, 14 April 2019 (UTC) reply

David French (charity administrator)

David French (charity administrator) (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources:  Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Finding very little on this director of various charities and other organisations. The article's only link is to Debrett's. I found a Guardian reference but not really anything else. Tacyarg ( talk) 01:34, 7 April 2019 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. CASSIOPEIA( talk) 06:46, 7 April 2019 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Sandstein 17:54, 14 April 2019 (UTC) reply

Martin Deeley

AfDs for this article:
Martin Deeley (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources:  Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Think this dog trainer has not had enough coverage to be notable. There is a link to an interview in Orlando Magazine, and a write-up at International Association of Canine Professionals Hall of Fame, but not much else. Tacyarg ( talk) 01:22, 7 April 2019 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Animal-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 07:19, 7 April 2019 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Florida-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 07:19, 7 April 2019 (UTC) reply
  • Weak delete. Seems to be highly regarded by other dog trainers, e.g. is mentioned a few times in Cesar Milan's book, but beyond being quoted a few times I didn't find much coverage. -- Michig ( talk) 07:19, 14 April 2019 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Speedy keep. Wrong venue for discussing a content merge or formation for redirect. Afd cannot be used to discuss or force merges per WP:MERGEPROP (non-admin closure) scope_creep Talk 11:18, 7 April 2019 (UTC) reply

C18 (C standard revision)

C18 (C standard revision) (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources:  Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

"C17 (C standard revision)" should be the main page. "C18 (C standard revision)" should be redirected to the former. The reason is that all mainstream c compilers uses C17 instead of C18. [1] [2] 

https://gcc.gnu.org/onlinedocs/gcc/Standards.html

https://clang.llvm.org/docs/CommandGuide/clang.html 
Yoonghm (
talk) 
01:15, 7 April 2019 (UTC)
reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Language-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 07:20, 7 April 2019 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 07:21, 7 April 2019 (UTC) reply

Speedy Keep: Misuse of AfD as proper WP:BEFORE indicates a merge proposal is more appropriate. An article should not be taken to AfD to discuss a merge per WP:MERGEPROP. Thankyou. Djm-leighpark ( talk) 10:07, 7 April 2019 (UTC) reply

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

The result was delete. Sandstein 17:54, 14 April 2019 (UTC) reply

Sabeetha Wanniarachchi

Sabeetha Wanniarachchi (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources:  Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Fails WP:ANYBIO, national winner of a non-notable beauty contest. Dan arndt ( talk) 23:03, 30 March 2019 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sri Lanka-related deletion discussions. Dan arndt ( talk) 23:09, 30 March 2019 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fashion-related deletion discussions. Dan arndt ( talk) 23:09, 30 March 2019 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Beauty pageants-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 06:30, 31 March 2019 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 06:30, 31 March 2019 (UTC) reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ad Orientem ( talk) 01:09, 7 April 2019 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Speedy deleted as WP:A10. (non-admin closure) Ceethekreator ( talk) 13:07, 7 April 2019 (UTC) reply

Slim Dunkin (musician)

Slim Dunkin (musician) (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources:  Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Was not sure what to say about this. It appears the article for the person ( Slim Dunkin) is already a redirect to 1017 Records. So I guess if this passes for notability the other one should be a article. But I'm not sure if he does, so delete. Wgolf ( talk) 00:49, 7 April 2019 (UTC) reply

  • Comment-yeah I know I could of made a redirect from this page from there, but it seemed kind of pointless to do to me. (or do a speedy deletion for similar page if that counted) Wgolf ( talk) 00:51, 7 April 2019 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 07:21, 7 April 2019 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Michigan-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 07:23, 7 April 2019 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 07:23, 7 April 2019 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was redirect to Young Dolph. Sandstein 17:54, 14 April 2019 (UTC) reply

Paper Route Campaign

Paper Route Campaign (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources:  Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Likely fails WP:NALBUM, unsourced. - I could not find any substantial coverage online of this mixtape, and could not find any evidence it has charted on a national level. Zingarese talk · contribs 00:42, 7 April 2019 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 07:23, 7 April 2019 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Illinois-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 07:44, 7 April 2019 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Tennessee-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 07:44, 7 April 2019 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 07:44, 7 April 2019 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was redirect to Jam Handy#Filmmaking. (non-admin closure) Dusti *Let's talk!* 05:48, 14 April 2019 (UTC) reply

Nicky Nome

Nicky Nome (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources:  Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

De-prodded without rationale. Only improvement was removing dead links with YouTube links. No in-depth coverage to show notability. Onel5969 TT me 00:30, 7 April 2019 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 07:45, 7 April 2019 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 07:45, 7 April 2019 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 07:46, 7 April 2019 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Michig ( talk) 07:09, 14 April 2019 (UTC) reply

Jordan Smallwood (American football)

Jordan Smallwood (American football) (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources:  Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Meets neither WP:NGRIDIRON or WP:NCOLLATH. Onel5969 TT me 00:26, 7 April 2019 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 07:49, 7 April 2019 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 07:49, 7 April 2019 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Oklahoma-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 07:49, 7 April 2019 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of American football-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 07:49, 7 April 2019 (UTC) reply
  • Delete as Smallwood doesn't meet any notability guideline, including those listed by Onel5969and John from Idegon. WP:GRIDIRON states players are generally considered notable if they "Have appeared in at least one regular season or post season game in any one of the following professional leagues: the Arena Football League, the Canadian Football League, the National Football League, the fourth American Football League, the All-America Football Conference or the United States Football League, or any other top-level professional league." Practice squads don't do it. Jacona ( talk) 12:00, 8 April 2019 (UTC) reply
  • Speedy Delete fails all notability guidelines on this website. (Especially WP:NGRIDIRON). He had just 3 touchdowns in college and hasn't made an NFL roster. James-the-Charizard ( talk) 17:48, 10 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.
Retrieved from " https://en.wikipedia.org/?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Log/2019_April_7&oldid=1142614762"

Videos

Youtube | Vimeo | Bing

Websites

Google | Yahoo | Bing

Encyclopedia

Google | Yahoo | Bing

Facebook




Top Of Page

Home • Search • Translate

© CSE