Home • Search • Translate
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< 2 July 4 July >

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 speedy delete G5. NinjaRobotPirate ( talk) 01:21, 4 July 2019 (UTC) reply

Markdabeast1

Markdabeast1 (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources:  Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Northing here suggests any notability. The refs are trivial and self-serving. Nothing reliable and independent. Fails WP:GNG   Velella   Velella Talk   23:03, 3 July 2019 (UTC) reply

  • Oppose clearly passes WP:GNG and also WP:ENT even though does not override the former as it is under the "Additonal criteria" section of the Notability policy. Meeting it only makes it more likely to be notable, but it does not guarantee it and the reverse also holds true; not meeting the additional criteria does not mean the subject in question is not notable. It meets the basic criteria as multiple reliable sources have been covered in his modeling career Even if WP:ENT did override WP:GNG, the subject in the article still meets criteria n°2 and possibly n°3. Londonboy88 ( talk) —Preceding undated comment added 00:21, 4 July 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. Sources have not been shown that enable the page to meet WP:GNG and I read 'delete' as the consensus. However, the term is defined in the lead of Congress Working Committee and I see a redirect there as being useful. I acknowledge, in saying that, that the term may need to be disambiguated but that is for future editorial consideration. Nothing is sourced so there is nothing to merge. Just Chilling ( talk) 20:05, 10 July 2019 (UTC) reply

Working President

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

Quoting back same rationale that was given before: Unsourced since 11 14 years and doesn't seem much a notable post either. Nor does it seem different from President of the Indian National Congress as of now. I considered boldly redirecting. But such a generic title would be wrongly redirected there. Hence proposing deletion. §§ Dharmadhyaksha§§ { Talk / Edits} 06:15, 26 June 2019 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. §§ Dharmadhyaksha§§ { Talk / Edits} 06:15, 26 June 2019 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. §§ Dharmadhyaksha§§ { Talk / Edits} 06:15, 26 June 2019 (UTC) reply
  • Delete I'll lend this an actual !vote this time around! An unsourced dictionary definition, willing to change my !vote if sources are found. SportingFlyer T· C 06:52, 26 June 2019 (UTC) reply
  • Keep. This is (or was) a real post in the Mrs Gandhi/Rajiv Gandhi era, verified in book sources [1] [2] [3]. Admittedly, this was not a powerful post – it seems to have been created mostly to put a democratic gloss on the autocratic behaviour of the Gandhis. Sources have discussed it in that context, but not in great depth. However, there is currently a proposal to bring back the post [4]. It is also worth noting that the "Working President" seems to be a common post in other parties in Indian politics TRS, Karnataka congress, BJP. Spinning Spark 20:01, 26 June 2019 (UTC) reply
As you rightly said, the post was maybe ceremonial/titular just for the sake of keeping up with democratic idea with little power vested in it. As regards to your statement that such post exists in other Indian parties too; i would like to state that this conclusion is not completely right. " Karnataka Congress" is nothing but state unit of Indian National Congress. What we come to know from that reference of yours is perhaps the "Working president" is a state-level position too. In context with BJP's Nadda being called "working president" please note that this is the first time this very month they have come up with such position. §§ Dharmadhyaksha§§ { Talk / Edits} 09:35, 28 June 2019 (UTC) reply
Looking through the sources provided, I think WP:V is satisfied but not much else. None of the sources really go into detail about the position. SportingFlyer T· C 16:01, 28 June 2019 (UTC) reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, 78.26 ( spin me / revolutions) 21:52, 3 July 2019 (UTC) reply
  • Delete I was going to suggest a merger with Congress Working Committee, as this article says a bit more about the Working President than that article does - but the three sources which Spinning Spark found suggest that what the article says about "the Working President often being a person of great influence within the organisational structure of the party rather than of great political popularity" is not actually correct (eg Nehru to the Nineties: "The so-called "Working President" of the party .. was never consulted.") While there may be other sources, those 3 are passing mentions, not discussions of the role, so I don't think they meet WP:GNG. The Congress Working Committee article could use some more references, so perhaps these sources could be added to that article. RebeccaGreen ( talk) 15:18, 9 July 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. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 09:59, 10 July 2019 (UTC) reply

David Firman

David Firman (  | 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 to meet WP:BIO or WP:CREATIVE. I'm unable to find independent sourcing for any of the content. SmartSE ( talk) 14:31, 17 June 2019 (UTC) reply

This source is now in the article and does provide the kind of coverage we need, but we still need more than just this to demonstrate notability and I am not able to find anything. SmartSE ( talk) 22:04, 17 June 2019 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. SmartSE ( talk) 14:31, 17 June 2019 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. SmartSE ( talk) 14:31, 17 June 2019 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 19:33, 17 June 2019 (UTC) reply
  • Keep the article needs to be reworked. The subject is notable. Some non-trivial coverage here, and score work in Hollywood productions. An article should be developed. Tonereport ( ☎)( My Work) 19:05, 22 June 2019 (UTC) reply
    • @ Tonereport: On what basis have you concluded The subject is notable? The coverage you link to is already mentioned in the nomination, but we require multiple sources like that, not just one. IMDB is a user-generated source so not suitable for determining notability. I have searched for more sources containing The Dark Crystal (1982), The Green Butchers (2003) and Allegro (2005) which are mentioned at IMDB but have not found anything suitable. SmartSE ( talk) 12:03, 24 June 2019 (UTC) reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America 1000 10:49, 24 June 2019 (UTC) reply
  • Draft move to draft as it does have potential with one good source but more are needed for mainspace. Having completed a long search I couldn't find any similarly good coverage, only passing mentions in reviews in reliable sources such as The Guardian and The Independent, thanks Atlantic306 ( talk) 21:15, 30 June 2019 (UTC) reply
  • Delete Draft for now - worthy individual who looks likely to become notable at some future point. However, the coverage is not there yet to meet WP:BIO nor achievements to meet WP:NCREATIVE. Whilst I am sympathetic to a Draftify, for that to be worthwhile we need a willing volunteer to develop the page. The article is not inspiring, being little more than a laundry list of the sort of routine jobs that we would expect of someone in his business. I would be prepared to userfy if someone, who is prepared to take the job on, has found more sources. Just Chilling ( talk) 20:07, 2 July 2019 (UTC) reply
  • Keep a notable conductor with reviews of a series of West End musicals where he conducted the orchestra when the musical opened in the West End visible in news archive search going back to the 90s. He has led a great many orchestras in special performances, and I can see so many articles about his conduction the Royal Philharmonic Orchestra that I presume he has some sort of ongoing contract with that orchestra. I do see the argument for moving it to draft, But I see no valid argument for deletion - there are just too many reviews of his work in the British and German and Canadian press. E.M.Gregory ( talk) 23:28, 2 July 2019 (UTC) reply
@ E.M.Gregory: there are just too many reviews of his work in the British and German and Canadian press This and this are presumably what you are referring to, but those are extremely brief mentions and to me, do not demonstrate either BIO or CREATIVE are met. Many mentions do not add up to notability. SmartSE ( talk) 00:03, 3 July 2019 (UTC) reply
Here are a few of the reviews visible in a news archive search:
  • Review: Theatre: Good Thing Going Cadogan Hall, London 4/5

Billington, Michael. The Guardian; London (UK) [London (UK)]08 Aug 2007: 34. " In this concert celebration of the composer-lyricist (Sondheim), devised by David Firman...

  • THEATRE: Enter the Guardsman With David Benedict. The Independent; London (UK) [London (UK)]23 Aug 1997: 20. "credit for the lush, sweeping sound, however, goes to the conductor and expert orchestrator David Firman. "
  • MUSIC REVIEWS Mahir, Ali. Weekend Australian; Canberra, A.C.T. [Canberra, A.C.T]18 Apr 2009: 22."David Firman's elegant soft jazz arrangement of this Stephen Foster classic makes it a highlight, "
  • Mickey Mouse job on a musical is no mean feat Bruce, Keith. The Herald; Glasgow (UK) [Glasgow (UK)]24 Dec 2013: 15. " Conductor David Firman has the sort of CV that brings him into contact with people that most conductors do not reach. The original West End productions of Jesus Christ Superstar, Evita, Cats and Chicago have all fallen under his baton. As a session keyboard player he has served Hollywood composers John Williams, Jerry Goldsmith, and Marvin Hamlisch. He gets calls to MD for Victoria Wood, Bryn Terfel, Micahel Ball and Lesley Garrett.

This week he is on the road with Mickey Mouse, recreating a live musical experience of Disney's Fantasia that was a triumph at London's Royal Albert Hall in modern arenas in Manchester, Brimingham and kicking off on Friday at Glasgow's new SSE Hydro. The show has been produced by Jonathan Heely, who has worked with Disney since 1981 when he helped recreate the score for the original classical animated film for a digital recording, a process he has continued through much of the classic Disney canon. The Fantasia show screens scenes from the 1940 Fantasia and its millennial revisitation, Fantasia 2000, with the music played live by the Royal Philharmonic Concert Orchestra. Its a process that demands much of Firman, but he is man who is absolutely across all the technology that keeping a big band synchronised with moving images requires. Firman points out that Walt Disney did not ask Leopold Stokowski to perform the same trick. When Fantasia was made, the music was recorded first and the animators made Mickey move to the beat. "There are times when I just look at the picture, and there is a click track from time to time, but more important are the 'punches' and 'streamers' that I can see on my screen, bursts of light and vertical lines that help me guage when a certain action or 'sync point' is going to arrive." Firman illustrates what he means vocally over the phone, with the opening bars of Beethoven's Fifth Symphony. It is perfectly clear to me at the time, but the English language lacks the vocabulary to pass that intelligence on, so you will just have to take my word for it. Firman's form in this discipline is bang up to date. He works a lot in Denmark, where he is Principal Guest Conductor with the Danish Radio Sinfonietta, and has performed the score of Pirates of the Caribbean there and in London with a screening of the film, a process he is about to repeat with the second film in the series, which has even better music, he says. "And gosh, isn't Keira Knightley gorgeous in that one?" he adds, suggesting that the images are not entirely ignored. "There's a lot more straightforward click track with that, because it is more modern music. Really with classical repertoire, it is counter-intuitive to stick so slavishly to the beat. You want to go faster or slower - tempi are so inate. But I think I enjoy it because of my history as a session player: I understand what the music is supposed to do." The Fantasia live show restores some music, like Debussy's Claire de Lune, that failed to make the final cut of the film, and combines it with an edited version of the full film, which Stokowski, the celebrity conductor of his day, saw very much as an "art" project, working closely with the stories the animators illustrated. Firman thinks that although there were already many serious composers at work in Hollywood, Fantasia helped give credibility to the music they were writing and introduced a new audience to the symphony orchestra. When the original film was released, Disney created a fancy new sound system for its screening, a sort of percursor of Dolby surround that Pirates of the Caribbean was written to make the most of, adding all those electronic effects and samples." Working on such proven hits is a very different experience than working in the West End, says Firman, who was off to see Andrew Lloyd Webber's new Profumo musical, Stephen Ward, on the day we spoke. "In musical theatre you can have no idea what will be a success or a failure. It is impossible to predict what will work. That is a story about a noble man with a great flaw and time of political revolution that threw up interesting characters. But do people still remember it?" By contrast, the successful Pirates is "very effective and tuneful, but not a work of genius". "It is a swashbuckling silly movie that leaves people time to take in the performance of the band too. Because people like seeing people doing live things." As well as looking at Keira Knightley - and Mickey Mouse. Caption: ON THE ROAD: Conductor David Firman is taking his live version of Disney's Fantasia to a wider audience."

  • This Hansel And Gretel is simply wicked!: Classical Mellor, David. Mail on Sunday; London (UK) [London (UK)]21 Dec 2008: 18. "Special appreciation must go to conductor David Firman, whose pacing is impeccable. "
  • That is usst a sampling of what exists. And There are also pre-reviews, like this"
  • WATCH: Kaiser Chiefs' Ricky Wilson scrubs up his acting skills Thistlethwaite, Felicity. Express (Online); London (UK) [London (UK)]10 June 2015. "The Royal Philharmonic Concert Orchestra will be unmissable at Sounds in the Grounds. Conducted by impeccable music sculptor and West End legend David Firman, teamed with the idyllic historical setting, there will be no better location to experience this iconic performance." E.M.Gregory ( talk) 00:47, 3 July 2019 (UTC) reply
  • Noting that passing WP:CREATIVE does not require coverage of his life, but of his work as a conductor, composer, and orchestrator with a role in creating notable films, West End musicals, and symphonic performances. We have pages on many authors and composers about whose lives little is known, even anonymous ones. Our guidelines judge CREATIVE types by the coverage garnered by the work, not the man. E.M.Gregory ( talk) 12:22, 3 July 2019 (UTC) reply
  • @ E.M.Gregory: Thanks, but again there only seems to be significant coverage in one source (The Herald) which is already included in the article and linked in the nomination. Obviously CREATIVE doesn't require biographical information to exist, but we do need substantial coverage in multiple reliable sources, which I still think is lacking. Nothing on google books seems to provide this either. SmartSE ( talk) 17:38, 3 July 2019 (UTC) reply
  • The books substantiate his role as a significant member of several teams (producer, director, writer, orchestrator, etc.) that created West End musicals, Films and other productions. As do the listings in IMDb, not itself a good source, but googling the credits found there leads to reliable sources for his creative work on notable films and TV. E.M.Gregory ( talk) 18:09, 3 July 2019 (UTC) reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, 78.26 ( spin me / revolutions) 21:46, 3 July 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. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 10:00, 10 July 2019 (UTC) reply

Gerardo Díaz y Su Gerarquía

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

Well the prod was removed, anyway band of questionable notability with no reliable sources. (On another note this is technically a orphan since all the links to Gerardo Díaz go to an athlete, something to keep in mind if that page is ever made) Wgolf ( talk) 21:22, 3 July 2019 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. MarginalCost ( talk) 21:39, 3 July 2019 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Mexico-related deletion discussions. MarginalCost ( talk) 21:39, 3 July 2019 (UTC) reply
  • Delete, and probably speedy A7, with no claim of notability in article, and no independent sources I can find with significant coverage. MarginalCost ( talk) 21:40, 3 July 2019 (UTC) reply
  • Delete Is "have made diverse presentations in cities around México" a claim of importance? Because this is pretty close to being a WP:CSD#A7 speedy deletion candidate. A Google search comes up empty: the only thing that can be verified is that the band exists and that its music is at least partially available on various streaming platforms but I found no significant coverage in reliable third-party sources. Pichpich ( talk) 21:41, 3 July 2019 (UTC) reply
Wasn't sure which one to pick (And as I said if the athlete page is ever created for the one that has links to this one-just ignore the fact that it was AFD), but yes a speedy would of been good as well. Wgolf ( talk) 21:48, 3 July 2019 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 01:48, 4 July 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. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 10:01, 10 July 2019 (UTC) reply

Jon Davis (Physio)

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

Quite simply not notable per WP:BIO or WP:GNG. Yes, there are 7 references provided in the article but none come close to qualifying as third-party significant coverage. Pichpich ( talk) 20:47, 3 July 2019 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 01:49, 4 July 2019 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Icewhiz ( talk) 11:20, 4 July 2019 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. Icewhiz ( talk) 11:20, 4 July 2019 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. Icewhiz ( talk) 11:21, 4 July 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. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 10:01, 10 July 2019 (UTC) reply

Peter and the Penny

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

Another short film I can't find much notability for at all. It apparently won an award-not sure how notable that is though. I can't find any sources (heck the IMDB doesn't even have a page!) Wgolf ( talk) 20:19, 3 July 2019 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 01:52, 4 July 2019 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 01:52, 4 July 2019 (UTC) reply
  • Delete. NFILM does not automatically extend instant permanent notability to every winner of every film award that exists — the Festival Images en vues is a small-fry film festival, not a major one, so its awards aren't an instant notability freebie that would exempt a film from actually having to have any real reliable sources. Cannes yes, TIFF yes, Berlin yes — these are film festivals that get press coverage. Images en vues in Cap-aux-Meules, not so much. Based on the creator's username I also suspect a direct conflict of interest even if I can't prove it outright. Bearcat ( talk) 17:11, 4 July 2019 (UTC) reply
  • Delete. I can't find it on google. Notability not established. Created by a short lived editor who made a few related and possibly also non notable articles. Szzuk ( talk) 12:23, 9 July 2019 (UTC) reply
  • Delete I have added extra information about this film to the article about the filmmaker, Denys Desjardins. With no sources and the same creator of the articles, there is really nothing to merge. RebeccaGreen ( talk) 16:50, 9 July 2019 (UTC) reply
  • Delete Googling doesn't bring up that much, and an award doesn't automatically make it notable unless the award is major. William2001( talk) 21:50, 9 July 2019 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Jo-Jo Eumerus ( talk, contributions) 20:53, 10 July 2019 (UTC) reply

Boris Lehman, filmmaker

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

Short film with little to no notability at all. I can't find any sources for it either. Wgolf ( talk) 20:16, 3 July 2019 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 01:53, 4 July 2019 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 01:53, 4 July 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. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 10:01, 10 July 2019 (UTC) reply

The Blue Mauritius (upcoming film)

The Blue Mauritius (upcoming film) (  | 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:TOOSOON BOVINEBOY 2008 19:58, 3 July 2019 (UTC) reply

Delete, with no opposition to recreation when the time comes. – eggofreason( talk · contribs) 20:49, 3 July 2019 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 01:55, 4 July 2019 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Germany-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 01:55, 4 July 2019 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of South Africa-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 01:56, 4 July 2019 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of France-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 01:56, 4 July 2019 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 01:56, 4 July 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. Tone 18:18, 10 July 2019 (UTC) reply

Elf Lyons

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

Several reasons for this nom: most significantly - notability. The subject just isn't notable. Low social media following (1720 facebook page likes, 6268 twitter followers and 2714 instagram followers in total). Low level of 'significant, independent coverage in reliable sources' - a couple of articles/interviews/profiles (one guardian, one standard being the limit of what matches this criteria - two in total does not represent significance).
The article itself is sparsely detailed, because there is little info of note about the subject - something that confirms lack of notability.
The article is poorly formatted, not to basic wiki standards. This can be fixed though.
The article is poorly referenced - two in total - one of subject's own site, another being the review of an Adelaide fringe performance on a blog.
Some curious weirdness from the article's creator - as part of their efforts, they added this Original version before quickly trimming the strange content. This was immediately followed by quite transparently COI activity from an SPA IP with these edits - admittedly slightly outside of the immediate scope of AfD but significant in that if we strip out the unreferenced content added by the subject themselves, the article would be fully devoid of content, further re-inforcing the notability issue.

Rayman60 ( talk) 17:38, 3 July 2019 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Rayman60 ( talk) 17:38, 3 July 2019 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Theatre-related deletion discussions. Rayman60 ( talk) 17:38, 3 July 2019 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. Rayman60 ( talk) 17:38, 3 July 2019 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. Rayman60 ( talk) 17:38, 3 July 2019 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 19:36, 3 July 2019 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 19:37, 3 July 2019 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 19:37, 3 July 2019 (UTC) reply
  • Keep. This comedian and writer has been profiled in The Times, The Evening Standard and The Guardian. Vogue named her as one of the top 5 new comedians. She has performed numerous one-woman acts to acclaim at the Edinburgh Fringe and other festivals. She has also written for major newspapers. A simple Google search turns up much more serious coverage.. Someone needs to do the research and pull out some info from all these sources to expand the article, but there are lots of sources to choose from. -- Ssilvers ( talk) 20:28, 3 July 2019 (UTC) reply
  • Keep as has significant coverage in multiple reliable sources such as The Guardian, The Times, Evening Standard and others so passes WP:GNG. The other problems can be edited out by neutral editors, thanks Atlantic306 ( talk) 21:24, 7 July 2019 (UTC) reply
  • I would add that "social media" (sorry, but I have to put that in quotes because these sites are far from social) following is irrelevant to notability in either direction. The more common problem that we have is with people saying that someone must be notable because of a high following, but it is equally fallacious to claim that someone is not notable because of a low following. I have no followers on any of these sites, simply because I have no reason to use them (I actually talk to my friends and family), but that is not the reason why I am not notable. Phil Bridger ( talk) 21:35, 7 July 2019 (UTC) reply
  • Comment: Thanks to SSilver's efforts, notability is clearly demonstrated. Phil Bridger - whilst social media following is a rather crude metric, it does constitute part of the WP:ENT notability in assessing whether they have, or lack, a significant fan base. No-one can argue the case for someone being a global entertainment icon if they have 37 followers across 4 major platforms. Rayman60 ( talk) 16:20, 8 July 2019 (UTC) reply
  • The number of social media followers can only be relevant for people who actively pursue large numbers of social media followers. It is still quite possible for entertainers to eschew this path and for their fan bases to consist of real people choosing to actually watch and listen to their performances, rather than virtual people following or liking them. Phil Bridger ( talk) 18:11, 8 July 2019 (UTC) reply
  • Why do you say that people who use social media are not "real"? A nasty prejudice there which I fear (although I hope not, obviously) might have to do with racial resentment over (some of) the people who have been boosted by it. RobinCarmody ( talk) 20:47, 8 July 2019 (UTC) reply
  • Nasty prejudice? Racial resentment? Really? Please don't make such silly accusations. And social media accounts do not equate to real people, in that it is possible for one real person to use multiple accounts or for multiple real people to use one account. Notability on Wikipedia is defined by coverage in independent reliable sources, not such easily gamed things as social media followers. Phil Bridger ( talk) 21:11, 8 July 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. Tone 18:16, 10 July 2019 (UTC) reply

List of Indian entrepreneurs

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

Very subjective, no criterea. Delete per WP:LISTCRUFT. Störm (talk) 12:13, 24 June 2019 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 12:50, 24 June 2019 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 12:50, 24 June 2019 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists of people-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 12:51, 24 June 2019 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 12:51, 24 June 2019 (UTC) reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 16:55, 3 July 2019 (UTC) reply
  • Keep WP:LISTCRUFT is neither policy not guideline, just a crude insult, and so there's no case to answer. The current version needs work as it seems to lack a historical perspective but addressing this seems quite feasible by reference to sources such as Indian Merchants and Entrepreneurs in Historical Perspective. Andrew D. ( talk) 22:01, 3 July 2019 (UTC) reply
  • Keep - I somewhat agree with the concern about the lack of a clear inclusion criterion ("entrepeneur" is often used as a vague buzzphrase instead of an objective description). But this flaw is no reason for deletion. Maybe the list could be further limited to notable businesspeople who founded at least one notable business, or "entrepeneur" should be defined more clearly in this context. Anyway, discuss such concerns on article talk - this primarily navigational list is not unsalvageable imo. GermanJoe ( talk) 08:47, 9 July 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 based on additional sources found. RL0919 ( talk) 16:23, 10 July 2019 (UTC) reply

Freeway (software)

Freeway (software) (  | 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 software package. Only sources/ELs are to the software's publisher and repositories; no third-party coverage indicated, nor can I find any. TJRC ( talk) 19:16, 18 June 2019 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. Ceethekreator ( talk) 21:02, 18 June 2019 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. Ceethekreator ( talk) 21:02, 18 June 2019 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. Ceethekreator ( talk) 21:02, 18 June 2019 (UTC) reply
  • Delete. I also do not see any non-trivial coverage in independent sources. Novabrahm ( talk) 21:23, 18 June 2019 (UTC) reply
  • Keep There are reviews and product comparisons in Mac related and other magazines: eg. Macworld, April 1997, p.58 (Uniqorn full page review); MacLife, September 2008, p. 61 (Freeway 2/3 page review); InfoWorld, 27 October 1997, p. 92A, 92F (Freeway 1.0 half page review). Enough to satisfy GNG. Pavlor ( talk) 09:36, 19 June 2019 (UTC) reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America 1000 00:49, 25 June 2019 (UTC) reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Just Chilling ( talk) 15:06, 3 July 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. WP:SNOW: clearly not worth rehashing the series of conversations that have happened on all three other articles previously. Coverage, popularity of articles, and the opportunities for continuous improvement because of the continued coverage suggest that a group nominating is highly inappropriate for these. Sadads ( talk) 17:05, 4 July 2019 (UTC) reply

Carole Middleton

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

Has got no notability at all, being related to a member of the royal family doesn't make her notable. WikiSmartLife ( talk) 14:49, 3 July 2019 (UTC) I am also nominating the following related pages because of the same cause: reply

Pippa Middleton (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
James Middleton (British businessman) (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 15:23, 3 July 2019 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 15:24, 3 July 2019 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 15:24, 3 July 2019 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 15:25, 3 July 2019 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 15:26, 3 July 2019 (UTC) reply
  • Keep Lots of sources and so all three subjects easily pass WP:GNG. They have all been nominated previously and all kept. This nomination doesn't say anything new or substantial. Andrew D. ( talk) 15:34, 3 July 2019 (UTC) reply
  • Keep. While indeed being related to the royal family (or, for that matter, being a "her royal highness" by dint of marriage) is not grounds for notability, WP:SIGCOV is. All 3 subjects nominated have been covered in an in-depth fashion, over a period of several years, by the UK and international press (both tabloid and, more interesting for us, non-tabloid). All 3 subjects have also been covered in what some may see as literature - e.g. [8] [9] [10]. Pippa has also authored literature that received secondary coverage - [11]. It's July, but I feel a snowy winter is coming to this AfD... Icewhiz ( talk) 15:36, 3 July 2019 (UTC) reply
  • Keep. The mother of a future Queen Consort and the grandmother of a future King?! Of course she's notable! The other two are less inherently notable, but have been massively covered in the media and clearly meet WP:GNG. -- Necrothesp ( talk) 15:37, 3 July 2019 (UTC) reply
  • Keep and any recurrence (Pippa Middleton?) should be reason to lok at a TBAN. This is so far beyond plausible as to be firmly into disruptive. She's not WP:Notable because she's related to the royals, she's WP:Notable because such a vast number of sources, even beyond the tabloids, cover her because she's related to the royals. Andy Dingley ( talk) 15:45, 3 July 2019 (UTC) reply
  • Keep Very notable subject with plenty of solid sources. Lightburst ( talk) 20:11, 3 July 2019 (UTC) reply
  • Keep all Folding Pippa into this nom takes this into WP:BADFAITH for me. Plenty of WP:N with all three subjects. There are subjects I feel non-notable myself (streamers and Instagram influencers) that I choose not to nom because many more people actually do and I just ignore it otherwise because there's plenty of other things to do here; I'd suggest doing the same from hereon out. Nate • ( chatter) 00:29, 4 July 2019 (UTC) reply
  • Keep all This is ridiculous - all three persons have been written about in books, interviewed for feature articles by UK The Times "et al" and continue to feature in novels and newspaper articles regularly 175.32.82.245 ( talk) 09:33, 4 July 2019 (UTC) reply
  • Keep all Regardless of whether you believe that being related to other famous people should generate enough significant coverage to pass WP:GNG, in the case of James Middleton it clearly has. The other Middleton's (especially Pippa!) have had even more coverage. Caeciliusinhorto ( talk) 16:40, 4 July 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 Family Stadium for now at least. Could be restored to a full article in the future if sufficient reliable source coverage is found. RL0919 ( talk) 16:10, 10 July 2019 (UTC) reply

Family Stadium 2003

Family Stadium 2003 (  | 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 video game does not meet WP:GNG for the lack of significant coverage in multiple reliable sources. Nothing to be found in my searches except for the IGN paragraph on [12], nothing on Moby, Metacritic or archives. Was deprodded with a WP:THEREMUSTBESOURCES rationale. Jovanmilic97 ( talk) 08:58, 25 June 2019 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Video games-related deletion discussions. Jovanmilic97 ( talk) 08:58, 25 June 2019 (UTC) reply
Comment Looks like a Japan-only release to me. May have better luck finding sources under the name Famista 2003 and the Japanese title for the series which seems to be ファミスタシリーズ - X201 ( talk) 09:38, 25 June 2019 (UTC) reply
Comment -- Jovan, could you also tag the Japan related AfD list, as what is needed here is someone who can look for Japanese sources? matt91486 ( talk) 09:51, 26 June 2019 (UTC) reply
Keep -- I cannot speak Japanese, but as far as I can tell, the Famitsu page for the game is [13]. This also seems to be relevant directly [14]. There are lots of links from sites like this [15] or [16] or [17] that I lack the background to speak for their ability to count as reliable sources, but clearly are about the topic. Language expertise is needed. But at first glance with as best as I can do language wise, there seem to be sufficient cites available, as expected, even if they will require someone who can properly speak Japanese to say for sure and/or incorporate them. matt91486 ( talk) 10:01, 26 June 2019 (UTC) reply
  • @ Jovanmilic97: - I'm personally still inclined toward keep; however, I do think a merger and redirect would be a preferable resolution to an outright delete. I am still hopeful that if we get it on the list of Japanese-related deletions, we might be able to get someone who can far more effectively search than I was able to, to see what sources are out there. matt91486 ( talk) 05:46, 27 June 2019 (UTC) reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Just Chilling ( talk) 14:43, 3 July 2019 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Baseball-related deletion discussions. Icewhiz ( talk) 15:37, 3 July 2019 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Japan-related deletion discussions. Icewhiz ( talk) 15:37, 3 July 2019 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. Sandstein 14:40, 10 July 2019 (UTC) reply

Dirk Bezemer

Dirk Bezemer (  | 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 BLP prod, no evidence of notability. Acroterion (talk) 16:47, 25 June 2019 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. ___ CAPTAIN MEDUSA talk 16:56, 25 June 2019 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Germany-related deletion discussions. Owlf 17:08, 25 June 2019 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple ( talk) 11:13, 28 June 2019 (UTC) reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Just Chilling ( talk) 14:34, 3 July 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. Tone 18:17, 10 July 2019 (UTC) reply

Galilee of the Nations

AfDs for this article:
Galilee of the Nations (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources:  Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Israel-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 21:50, 25 June 2019 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 21:50, 25 June 2019 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Judaism-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 21:50, 25 June 2019 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 21:50, 25 June 2019 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Tennessee-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 21:50, 25 June 2019 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 21:51, 25 June 2019 (UTC) reply
  • Keep This appears to be refutable on its face; despite the label not meeting WP:MUSIC's sense of one of the more important indie labels, it still seems to reach the GNG without a significant roster, as it's been covered by Billboard multiple times (which are already in the article). (Perhaps, with better coverage of Israeli music, we will see that it meets both criteria.) Chubbles ( talk) 01:52, 26 June 2019 (UTC) reply

*Delete fails WP:CORP, fails WP:GNG. I searched google, books and proquest newspapers, and all that I found were the sort of mentions User:Chubbles describes, where a recording is describes as issues by Galilee, and a news article about the hiring of of a new pastor by a local church which mentions that he had worked for this church. Most hits on this phrase are about other stuff entirely (a proposed Christian theme part; a theological concept...) There is no doubt that this Christian record label exists, but no evidence that it is a notable label. E.M.Gregory ( talk) 14:58, 26 June 2019 (UTC) reply

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Just Chilling ( talk) 14:33, 3 July 2019 (UTC) reply
Not with three pieces in Billboard - the top American publication for record label info - and a further article from a major Christian magazine, as is currently in the article? Chubbles ( talk) 04:30, 4 July 2019 (UTC) reply
  • Keep the Billboard coverage is independent of the label, demonstrating notability.-- Epiphyllumlover ( talk) 21:33, 5 July 2019 (UTC) reply
  • Keep as has independent reliable sources coverage such as multiple articles in Billboard and Cross Rythms (a Christian music reliable source) so passes WP:GNG thanks Atlantic306 ( talk) 16:15, 6 July 2019 (UTC) reply
  • tepid keep. My searches find only mentions in the context of albums released, and an album reviewed. I have added some to the page. No in depth coverage, but I suppose that an argument can be made that a small record label is like a small publisher, notable because it is useful to know who produced a work of musical merit. And the fact that albums produced are reviewed in WP:RS publications supports notability of publisher. E.M.Gregory ( talk) 18:18, 7 July 2019 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Jo-Jo Eumerus ( talk, contributions) 14:06, 10 July 2019 (UTC) reply

Islamabad Orchards

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

Permastub about a housing project created by an WP:SPA fails WP:GEOLAND and WP:GNG. Nothing in a WP:BEFORE search shows this meets notability criteria. Dom from Paris ( talk) 13:55, 3 July 2019 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Architecture-related deletion discussions. Dom from Paris ( talk) 13:55, 3 July 2019 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. Dom from Paris ( talk) 13:55, 3 July 2019 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. 78.26 ( spin me / revolutions) 14:34, 10 July 2019 (UTC) reply

River Gardens, Islamabad

River Gardens, Islamabad (  | 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:GEOLAND nothing found in a WP:BEFORE search to show this meets WP:GNG. It is a housing development project and the page was created by an WP:SPA Dom from Paris ( talk) 13:32, 3 July 2019 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Architecture-related deletion discussions. Dom from Paris ( talk) 13:32, 3 July 2019 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. Dom from Paris ( talk) 13:32, 3 July 2019 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. 78.26 ( spin me / revolutions) 14:34, 10 July 2019 (UTC) reply

Potohari Arts & Crafts Village, Islamabad

Potohari Arts & Crafts Village, Islamabad (  | 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 and WP:GEOLAND article one of many created by an WP:SPA probably connected to the project creator. Dom from Paris ( talk) 13:29, 3 July 2019 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Architecture-related deletion discussions. Dom from Paris ( talk) 13:29, 3 July 2019 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. Dom from Paris ( talk) 13:29, 3 July 2019 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. 78.26 ( spin me / revolutions) 14:34, 10 July 2019 (UTC) reply

Gulberg, Islamabad

Gulberg, Islamabad (  | 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:GEOLAND and GNG. Looks like a promotional piece by a WP:COI account. Dom from Paris ( talk) 13:16, 3 July 2019 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. Dom from Paris ( talk) 13:16, 3 July 2019 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Architecture-related deletion discussions. North America 1000 13:32, 3 July 2019 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. North America 1000 13:32, 3 July 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 delete as hoax vandalism. I couldn't find a trace of such a festival, either. Normally I would simply add that to the discussion. Then I looked at other edits by the creator's account, including old versions of some pages. That convinced me that deletion on sight is quite safe in this instance. I did not spot anything else in article space that has not long since been dealt with. Uncle G ( talk) 17:43, 3 July 2019 (UTC) reply

GIMP Festival

GIMP Festival (  | 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 find absolutely no evidence that this music festival has ever existed. Lord Belbury ( talk) 12:47, 3 July 2019 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. Icewhiz ( talk) 12:56, 3 July 2019 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. Icewhiz ( talk) 12:56, 3 July 2019 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. Icewhiz ( talk) 12:56, 3 July 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. Tone 07:09, 10 July 2019 (UTC) reply

Biker metal

Biker metal (  | 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:NOTABILITY. The term "Biker metal" does not appear to refer to a specific genre of music and instead seems to refer to multiple styles of rock, punk, and metal music TankieMrBanky ( talk) 16:23, 19 June 2019 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. Thanks, L3X1 ◊distænt write◊ 17:02, 19 June 2019 (UTC) reply
These references don't really say what "biker metal" is. Is it just heavy metal music that bikers like? Is it metal influenced by punk music? If so, what differentiates this from crust punk, speed metal, or NWOBHM? These references to the term don't really seem to differentiate it as a genre. TankieMrBanky ( talk) 16:27, 26 June 2019 (UTC) reply
loudwire.com/motorhead-overkill-album-anniversary/ describes it as "bluesy" and "bombastic"; www.loudersound.com/features/flash-metal-suicide-steve-jones says its "glam metal gone Mad Max"; in Teenage Wasteland: Suburbia's Dead End Kids by Donna Gaines it's described as a fusion of metal, punk and rock and roll. Most of the sources culminate in basically just saying it's the whole sound that Motorhead spawned. Issan Sumisu ( talk) 18:05, 26 June 2019 (UTC) reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America 1000 09:02, 26 June 2019 (UTC) reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America 1000 12:35, 3 July 2019 (UTC) reply
  • Keep. Added a paragraph on the musical characteristics of biker metal, with references. The term is definitely used in several reliable publications when referring to music, and there exists significant coverage of the nature of biker metal as a distinct genre (and not just 'metal that bikers like'). Gilded Snail ( talk) 20:11, 3 July 2019 (UTC) reply
  • Keep — whether a musical genre is well-defined or not isn't an argument for or against deletion. Featured articles on genres where there is no universal consensus on the definition include Grunge, Heavy metal music, Punk Rock, New wave of British heavy metal and Viking metal. If reliable sources use the term, then the basis for an article exists. Sourcing is sufficient to meet WP:GNG. Perhaps the reliable sources who recognize this genre are wrong; we have articles about things that are wrong, like Phlogiston theory. Perhaps the content could be upmerged into some broader topic for organizational and structural reasons (rather than failing notability) but that falls to local consensus, not AfD. To me it doesn't look like a good merge candidate. -- Dennis Bratland ( talk) 21:29, 6 July 2019 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Sandstein 14:39, 10 July 2019 (UTC) reply

American Innovation $1 Coin Program Design - Obverse

American Innovation $1 Coin Program Design - Obverse (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View AfD · [23])
(Find sources:  Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

I don't believe that the rejected obverse designs of the American Innovation $1 Coin Program are notable enough for their own article. ZLEA T\ C 11:57, 3 July 2019 (UTC) reply

I would be fine with combining the pages so we have a record of the options the government considered, and what changes were made from the final design to the finished product. That being said, I don't think the sub-page meets any of the criteria for deletion. Iceman0426 ( talk) 15:25, 3 July 2019 (UTC) reply
I too am fine with merging, but a table of the proposed designs might be a little too much. I think we should mention that twelve design proposals were made, and compare the chosen design drawing to the eventual coin design. Having a table of proposed designs might lead to people questioning why there isn't a similar table for each reverse design. - ZLEA T\ C 18:12, 3 July 2019 (UTC) reply
The committee's mandate is to do this process for all of the coins. So we will be able to do the same thing for all 57 coins in the program. I think adding the winning design to the main page is a good idea. I realize that the design pages will be smaller than the main pages, but I don't see a problem with having them. Iceman0426 ( talk) 19:55, 3 July 2019 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Finance-related deletion discussions. Icewhiz ( talk) 13:00, 3 July 2019 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Icewhiz ( talk) 13:00, 3 July 2019 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletion discussions. Icewhiz ( talk) 13:02, 3 July 2019 (UTC) reply
  • Delete I would encourage a link the in the main article to the Mint's website with rejected designs, but we should not have a separate article just to memorialize failed alternatives in a gallery - these are simply not notable and do not receive substantive tertiary coverage. This doesn't even belong in the main article but should be limited to a brief mention per ZLEA. Do NOT do this for every coin reverse design – not even the individual coins in the series are notable, much less what didn't actually get minted. Reywas92 Talk 07:43, 4 July 2019 (UTC) reply
  • Keep I disagree that the designs are not notable. In addition to being on the usmint.gov and the ccac.gov, here are some places where the designs also receive attention: mintnewsblog.com, new.coinupdate.com, thepatrioticmint.com, numismaticnews.net, coinworld.com, usstatequarters.com. This demonstrates that there is interest in the designs and the process. I mentioned to ZLEA a few different options to make everybody happy. I redid the table and put a sample at the bottom of the obverse page as an example that could be used for any of the ideas so that it would take up much less room. First, with the smaller format we could put it on the main page. Second, the page could be renamed (something like "American Innovation $1 Coin Program Proposed Designs), and all designs put on a single page. Finally, they could be put on under the CCAC's page. Iceman0426 ( talk) 01:54, 6 July 2019 (UTC) reply
Just because the designs are on a government website and recieve attention from websites that track progress of CCAC design eliminations, that does not mean they are notable. If you think the rejected designs are notable enough to be included in a separate article or even in the main article despite the lack of secondary sources, then you should be able to tell us why they are significant. - ZLEA T\ C 12:13, 6 July 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 14:32, 10 July 2019 (UTC) reply

Bioinvent

Bioinvent (  | 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 PRODded this, saying "Article lacks proper secondary sourcing; nothing in here makes it somehow automatically notable." Creator removed the tag, saying "does have secondary sources"--yeah, but not proper ones, except for one short article in a local Swedish paper, and one (about the founder, mostly) in a publication from the University of Lund. Given that the company was founded in 1983, that's not a lot, to put it mildly. Drmies ( talk) 18:16, 19 June 2019 (UTC) reply

It does have proper ones, Sydsvenskan, Dagens industri, and Lund University are proper sources. Ljuvlig ( talk) 18:23, 19 June 2019 (UTC) reply
Sydsvenskan is the dominating newspaper in southern Sweden. I wouldn't lump it together with "local papers" in general. / Julle ( talk) 23:37, 19 June 2019 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 19:12, 19 June 2019 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sweden-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 19:12, 19 June 2019 (UTC) reply
Dagens Nyheter, which is Swedens biggest newspaper, has now been added to the list. Ljuvlig ( talk) 08:01, 20 June 2019 (UTC) reply
  • Weak keep, but better yet create Carl Borrebaeck and merge into that. I can't see the Dagens Nyheter article beyond the opening, which suggests it offers little more than corroboration of one of the listed collaborations with other companies. The Dagens industri search link yielded nothing I saw as useful beyond referencing the company's research focus (2 of the 3 articles there are focused on their financials). I agree Sydsvenskan is not to be sneezed at, but I'd like to see at least one similar article all about the company rather than what we have, which is that plus a couple of short articles and the Lund University mag on Borrebaeck. Borrebaeck, in contrast, appears to meet our notability standard handily: first professor of immunology in Scandinavia, member of a learned society, has received what appears to be a major award, and much coverage mentions more than one of the companies he's founded (one source says this was the first). Yngvadottir ( talk) 16:23, 20 June 2019 (UTC) reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America 1000 08:59, 26 June 2019 (UTC) reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America 1000 11:34, 3 July 2019 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Sandstein 14:30, 10 July 2019 (UTC) reply

Shadow Gunner: The Robot Wars

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

No sign of meeting WP:GNG or WP:NVG. I recognise that this is an old game and coverage may be offline, but since I can find not one RS to indicate any kind of lasting influence, I'm working on the assumption this didn't attract "significant commentary or analysis" even at the time. Considered a merge, but the developer has no page, and there is nothing worth merging to the publisher Ubi Soft. Hugsyrup ( talk) 10:31, 3 July 2019 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Video games-related deletion discussions. Hugsyrup ( talk) 10:31, 3 July 2019 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of France-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 11:08, 3 July 2019 (UTC) reply
  • Delete. Upon a search, absolutely no actual coverage of this game is findable. The only things out there are listings on old game databases and pricelists. (Changing search results to French, searching "shadow gunner jeu video", and looking for other apocryphal mentions of the game on Reddit also yield nothing.) Gilded Snail ( talk) 19:36, 3 July 2019 (UTC) reply
  • Found four sources - three magazine sources that I found on Mobygames and one source mentioning it in passing. However, the number of sources is rather too low, so delete. - Bryn (talk) (contributions) 21:03, 3 July 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. Tone 07:08, 10 July 2019 (UTC) reply

Open-Realty

Open-Realty (  | 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 refs provided are all to the organisation’s own site and I am not able to find any reliable independent sources to support it. Mccapra ( talk) 05:33, 3 July 2019 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Advertising-related deletion discussions. Mccapra ( talk) 05:33, 3 July 2019 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Mccapra ( talk) 05:33, 3 July 2019 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. Mccapra ( talk) 05:33, 3 July 2019 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. Mccapra ( talk) 05:33, 3 July 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. Tone 07:08, 10 July 2019 (UTC) reply

Geoffrey Steele

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

Actor with questionable notability. Despite being in over 25 roles, most of them appear uncredited. So he isn't really even a character actor. Not a single role stands out. If not delete-a redirect to his wife. Wgolf ( talk) 05:11, 3 July 2019 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of South Africa-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 06:17, 3 July 2019 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 06:17, 3 July 2019 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 06:18, 3 July 2019 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 06:18, 3 July 2019 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 06:19, 3 July 2019 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 06:19, 3 July 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) 06:49, 10 July 2019 (UTC) reply

The Adventures of Super Pickle

The Adventures of Super Pickle (  | 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 book per WP:BK. SL93 ( talk) 04:08, 3 July 2019 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 06:21, 3 July 2019 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 06:21, 3 July 2019 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) Spirit of Eagle ( talk) 03:32, 10 July 2019 (UTC) reply

Holy Holy (band)

Holy Holy (band) (  | 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 article Holy Holy (band) is one of two bands with the name of Holy Holy, neither is primary, so this should be further differentiated to separate it from the Australian band, Holy Holy (Australian band), but when searching for a defining characteristic for this band, it reveals itself as an undistinguished band with no importance or stand-alone notability and no sources supporting the article. Mburrell ( talk) 03:32, 3 July 2019 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Eastmain ( talk • contribs) 05:39, 3 July 2019 (UTC) reply
  • Keep. Probably notable because several of its members are individually notable and because of its national and international touring of the United Kingdom, Japan and the United States. Eastmain ( talk • contribs) 05:41, 3 July 2019 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 06:27, 3 July 2019 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Japan-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 06:27, 3 July 2019 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 06:27, 3 July 2019 (UTC) reply
  • Please read WP:NMUSIC. One of the accepted criteria for notability is "Is an ensemble that contains two or more independently notable musicians", which is clearly satisfied here, and if you bothered to do a Google search you would find several examples of significant coverage. -- Michig ( talk) 10:05, 4 July 2019 (UTC) reply
  • @ Mburrell: you should read up on notability criteria before nominating. Also did you look at the sources I added? They clearly cover the group and not just one of the members. I don't want to be rude but this is really a no brainer. There are dozens of reliable sources to show it meets GNG and it also meets the SSC. I don't understand why you are continuing to defend this nomination. I'm not asking you to withdraw the nomination we have all nominated pages that get kept it's not a biggie but everyone has explained why this should be kept in very clear terms. Dom from Paris ( talk) 07:57, 7 July 2019 (UTC) reply
I have never defended this nomination. I objected to an argument in the defense that seemed to imply that notability was inherited, but Michig pointed out that I glossed over one of the criteria, a group is notable if more than two musicians in the ensemble are notable. Since Glen Gregory and James Stevenson are notable, that satisfied the criteria. I would argue that Tony Visconti is not notable as a musician although he is notable in the music industry as a producer, but that doesn't matter as Gregory and Stevenson are all that matter for this criteria. I have never made any comments about your reliable sources, nor dismissed them. In fact, I have bowed to consensus and kept my mouth shut, until you decided to speak to me, and I felt you were responding to the initial nomination and not anything I have said or not said since. Mburrell ( talk) 03:13, 9 July 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) 06:49, 10 July 2019 (UTC) reply

Ramana Sayahi

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

Declined a hoax speedy request because it's either not a hoax or a really good one. However, can't find sources in English to show notability. I don't read Persian so I don't have a way to evaluate the sources in the article -- hoping for more eyes on this. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 03:13, 3 July 2019 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 03:13, 3 July 2019 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Iran-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 03:13, 3 July 2019 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 06:29, 3 July 2019 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 06:29, 3 July 2019 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 06:29, 3 July 2019 (UTC) reply
  • Delete per John's comments -- the coverage is also really spotty in mostly user-generated or paparatzi-driven coverage, and the claim to notability at the beginning of the article doesn't make a lot of sense -- at the very least its self promotional, at the very worst its a hoax, and if its neither of those, the coverage in the sources appears to be minor at best. I would feel a lot more comfortable with it if there was more consistent coverage in Persian Wikipedia. Sadads ( talk) 17:11, 4 July 2019 (UTC) reply
  • Delete Seems like a promotional article, although again, I cannot read the Persian article. William2001( talk) 22:08, 9 July 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) 06:49, 10 July 2019 (UTC) reply

Mohammed Usama Khan

Mohammed Usama Khan (  | 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 does not yet meet WP:GNG. it's WP:TOOSOON. PROD removed by fellow editor referencing the three sources. (Two appear to be fan publications, the third is a decent write-up, but not from a reliable publication). Orville talk 00:55, 3 July 2019 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. Orville talk 00:55, 3 July 2019 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Orville talk 00:55, 3 July 2019 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bodybuilding-related deletion discussions. Orville talk 00:55, 3 July 2019 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Orville talk 00:55, 3 July 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. It seems like the article needs some reworking to clarify that the subject is the stage musical and the film is an adaptation of that, but given that WP:AFDISNOTCLEANUP the discussion indicates there is enough coverage to support notability for the play. RL0919 ( talk) 02:23, 10 July 2019 (UTC) reply

Saturday's Warrior

Saturday's Warrior (  | 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:NFILM. Has had COI and neutrality templates for 3.5 years. Citations needed for 3 years. The article also states, "Saturday's Warrior is not well known outside the Mormon community." PROD removed. by fellow editor. Orville talk 00:37, 3 July 2019 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. Orville talk 00:37, 3 July 2019 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Religion-related deletion discussions. Orville talk 00:37, 3 July 2019 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. Orville talk 00:37, 3 July 2019 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States-related deletion discussions. -- Nahal (T) 01:40, 03 July 2019 (UTC) reply
I created this article years ago. It definitely has COI, notability and neutrality issues. I wouldn't mind if the topic was just mentioned on Wikipedia in a short paragraph or list item in another article. I feel like I need to point out, though, that other stuff exists and is listed at the Mormon cinema article. Tea and crumpets ( talk) 03:12, 3 July 2019 (UTC) reply
  • Keep I have add multiple articles covering this wide ranging work. To be clear, this is not a film. It is a stage production, that as such managed to permeate the culture of members of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints. True, it is most often reacted to as either a very simplistic work, or a doctrinally wrong work. However it is present in doscourse, and its musical numbers are of great power. The film is not the thing, but the stage production. John Pack Lambert ( talk) 04:06, 3 July 2019 (UTC) reply
  • Comment I just keep finding more sources. Still, Saturday's Warrior is a work of the 1970s, reflecting the culture of the 1970s, so probably some of the best sources are not easy to locate on the internet. John Pack Lambert ( talk) 04:42, 3 July 2019 (UTC) reply
  • Keep as it is notable with reviews in multiple reliable sources that have been added to the article so that it passes WP:GNG regards Atlantic306 ( talk) 16:23, 6 July 2019 (UTC) reply
  • Keep per ample WP:SIGCOV. Including some I just added. E.M.Gregory ( talk) 00:32, 9 July 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 Kamala Harris. RL0919 ( talk) 02:14, 10 July 2019 (UTC) reply

Douglas Emhoff

Douglas Emhoff (  | 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 fails WP:GNG. Any news coverage of him is in the context of his famous spouse, and notability is WP:NOTINHERETED. I tried to revert this back into a redirect, which I think is appropriate, only to be reverted back, so here we are. –  Muboshgu ( talk) 00:25, 3 July 2019 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. IntoThinAir ( talk) 01:37, 3 July 2019 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Law-related deletion discussions. IntoThinAir ( talk) 01:37, 3 July 2019 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 06:34, 3 July 2019 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 06:34, 3 July 2019 (UTC) reply
  • Redirect to Kamala Harris as described by Athaenara. Notability is not inherited. -- Enos733 ( talk) 15:58, 3 July 2019 (UTC) reply
  • Delete, without prejudice against the creation of a redirect afterward (but delete first so that there's no history to revert-war over). People are not automatically entitled to have Wikipedia articles just because of who they happen to be married to, this doesn't even try to make a case that he's notable for his law career, and one article in one source is not a magic WP:GNG pass that automatically exempts a person from actually having to have a real notability claim. If Kamala Harris wins the presidential election next year, then obviously he'll qualify for an article at that time as the new First Spouse — but until that time, having a chance to maybe become the First Spouse next year is not a notability claim in and of itself. Bearcat ( talk) 16:52, 4 July 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. Elected municipal politician but unanimity amongst the commentators that she fails notability guidelines, in particular WP:NPOL, and lacks significant, in-depth coverage in reliable, independent sources. Just Chilling ( talk) 00:32, 10 July 2019 (UTC) reply

Uzma Rashid

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

BLP on a member of a city council in Gonda has one source. Per WP:NPOL, members of city councils do not have inherent notability absent WP:SIGCOV unrelated to their council service. Chetsford ( talk) 00:05, 3 July 2019 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 06:35, 3 July 2019 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 06:35, 3 July 2019 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 06:35, 3 July 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_July_3&oldid=1142224674"
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< 2 July 4 July >

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 speedy delete G5. NinjaRobotPirate ( talk) 01:21, 4 July 2019 (UTC) reply

Markdabeast1

Markdabeast1 (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources:  Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Northing here suggests any notability. The refs are trivial and self-serving. Nothing reliable and independent. Fails WP:GNG   Velella   Velella Talk   23:03, 3 July 2019 (UTC) reply

  • Oppose clearly passes WP:GNG and also WP:ENT even though does not override the former as it is under the "Additonal criteria" section of the Notability policy. Meeting it only makes it more likely to be notable, but it does not guarantee it and the reverse also holds true; not meeting the additional criteria does not mean the subject in question is not notable. It meets the basic criteria as multiple reliable sources have been covered in his modeling career Even if WP:ENT did override WP:GNG, the subject in the article still meets criteria n°2 and possibly n°3. Londonboy88 ( talk) —Preceding undated comment added 00:21, 4 July 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. Sources have not been shown that enable the page to meet WP:GNG and I read 'delete' as the consensus. However, the term is defined in the lead of Congress Working Committee and I see a redirect there as being useful. I acknowledge, in saying that, that the term may need to be disambiguated but that is for future editorial consideration. Nothing is sourced so there is nothing to merge. Just Chilling ( talk) 20:05, 10 July 2019 (UTC) reply

Working President

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

Quoting back same rationale that was given before: Unsourced since 11 14 years and doesn't seem much a notable post either. Nor does it seem different from President of the Indian National Congress as of now. I considered boldly redirecting. But such a generic title would be wrongly redirected there. Hence proposing deletion. §§ Dharmadhyaksha§§ { Talk / Edits} 06:15, 26 June 2019 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. §§ Dharmadhyaksha§§ { Talk / Edits} 06:15, 26 June 2019 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. §§ Dharmadhyaksha§§ { Talk / Edits} 06:15, 26 June 2019 (UTC) reply
  • Delete I'll lend this an actual !vote this time around! An unsourced dictionary definition, willing to change my !vote if sources are found. SportingFlyer T· C 06:52, 26 June 2019 (UTC) reply
  • Keep. This is (or was) a real post in the Mrs Gandhi/Rajiv Gandhi era, verified in book sources [1] [2] [3]. Admittedly, this was not a powerful post – it seems to have been created mostly to put a democratic gloss on the autocratic behaviour of the Gandhis. Sources have discussed it in that context, but not in great depth. However, there is currently a proposal to bring back the post [4]. It is also worth noting that the "Working President" seems to be a common post in other parties in Indian politics TRS, Karnataka congress, BJP. Spinning Spark 20:01, 26 June 2019 (UTC) reply
As you rightly said, the post was maybe ceremonial/titular just for the sake of keeping up with democratic idea with little power vested in it. As regards to your statement that such post exists in other Indian parties too; i would like to state that this conclusion is not completely right. " Karnataka Congress" is nothing but state unit of Indian National Congress. What we come to know from that reference of yours is perhaps the "Working president" is a state-level position too. In context with BJP's Nadda being called "working president" please note that this is the first time this very month they have come up with such position. §§ Dharmadhyaksha§§ { Talk / Edits} 09:35, 28 June 2019 (UTC) reply
Looking through the sources provided, I think WP:V is satisfied but not much else. None of the sources really go into detail about the position. SportingFlyer T· C 16:01, 28 June 2019 (UTC) reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, 78.26 ( spin me / revolutions) 21:52, 3 July 2019 (UTC) reply
  • Delete I was going to suggest a merger with Congress Working Committee, as this article says a bit more about the Working President than that article does - but the three sources which Spinning Spark found suggest that what the article says about "the Working President often being a person of great influence within the organisational structure of the party rather than of great political popularity" is not actually correct (eg Nehru to the Nineties: "The so-called "Working President" of the party .. was never consulted.") While there may be other sources, those 3 are passing mentions, not discussions of the role, so I don't think they meet WP:GNG. The Congress Working Committee article could use some more references, so perhaps these sources could be added to that article. RebeccaGreen ( talk) 15:18, 9 July 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. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 09:59, 10 July 2019 (UTC) reply

David Firman

David Firman (  | 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 to meet WP:BIO or WP:CREATIVE. I'm unable to find independent sourcing for any of the content. SmartSE ( talk) 14:31, 17 June 2019 (UTC) reply

This source is now in the article and does provide the kind of coverage we need, but we still need more than just this to demonstrate notability and I am not able to find anything. SmartSE ( talk) 22:04, 17 June 2019 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. SmartSE ( talk) 14:31, 17 June 2019 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. SmartSE ( talk) 14:31, 17 June 2019 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 19:33, 17 June 2019 (UTC) reply
  • Keep the article needs to be reworked. The subject is notable. Some non-trivial coverage here, and score work in Hollywood productions. An article should be developed. Tonereport ( ☎)( My Work) 19:05, 22 June 2019 (UTC) reply
    • @ Tonereport: On what basis have you concluded The subject is notable? The coverage you link to is already mentioned in the nomination, but we require multiple sources like that, not just one. IMDB is a user-generated source so not suitable for determining notability. I have searched for more sources containing The Dark Crystal (1982), The Green Butchers (2003) and Allegro (2005) which are mentioned at IMDB but have not found anything suitable. SmartSE ( talk) 12:03, 24 June 2019 (UTC) reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America 1000 10:49, 24 June 2019 (UTC) reply
  • Draft move to draft as it does have potential with one good source but more are needed for mainspace. Having completed a long search I couldn't find any similarly good coverage, only passing mentions in reviews in reliable sources such as The Guardian and The Independent, thanks Atlantic306 ( talk) 21:15, 30 June 2019 (UTC) reply
  • Delete Draft for now - worthy individual who looks likely to become notable at some future point. However, the coverage is not there yet to meet WP:BIO nor achievements to meet WP:NCREATIVE. Whilst I am sympathetic to a Draftify, for that to be worthwhile we need a willing volunteer to develop the page. The article is not inspiring, being little more than a laundry list of the sort of routine jobs that we would expect of someone in his business. I would be prepared to userfy if someone, who is prepared to take the job on, has found more sources. Just Chilling ( talk) 20:07, 2 July 2019 (UTC) reply
  • Keep a notable conductor with reviews of a series of West End musicals where he conducted the orchestra when the musical opened in the West End visible in news archive search going back to the 90s. He has led a great many orchestras in special performances, and I can see so many articles about his conduction the Royal Philharmonic Orchestra that I presume he has some sort of ongoing contract with that orchestra. I do see the argument for moving it to draft, But I see no valid argument for deletion - there are just too many reviews of his work in the British and German and Canadian press. E.M.Gregory ( talk) 23:28, 2 July 2019 (UTC) reply
@ E.M.Gregory: there are just too many reviews of his work in the British and German and Canadian press This and this are presumably what you are referring to, but those are extremely brief mentions and to me, do not demonstrate either BIO or CREATIVE are met. Many mentions do not add up to notability. SmartSE ( talk) 00:03, 3 July 2019 (UTC) reply
Here are a few of the reviews visible in a news archive search:
  • Review: Theatre: Good Thing Going Cadogan Hall, London 4/5

Billington, Michael. The Guardian; London (UK) [London (UK)]08 Aug 2007: 34. " In this concert celebration of the composer-lyricist (Sondheim), devised by David Firman...

  • THEATRE: Enter the Guardsman With David Benedict. The Independent; London (UK) [London (UK)]23 Aug 1997: 20. "credit for the lush, sweeping sound, however, goes to the conductor and expert orchestrator David Firman. "
  • MUSIC REVIEWS Mahir, Ali. Weekend Australian; Canberra, A.C.T. [Canberra, A.C.T]18 Apr 2009: 22."David Firman's elegant soft jazz arrangement of this Stephen Foster classic makes it a highlight, "
  • Mickey Mouse job on a musical is no mean feat Bruce, Keith. The Herald; Glasgow (UK) [Glasgow (UK)]24 Dec 2013: 15. " Conductor David Firman has the sort of CV that brings him into contact with people that most conductors do not reach. The original West End productions of Jesus Christ Superstar, Evita, Cats and Chicago have all fallen under his baton. As a session keyboard player he has served Hollywood composers John Williams, Jerry Goldsmith, and Marvin Hamlisch. He gets calls to MD for Victoria Wood, Bryn Terfel, Micahel Ball and Lesley Garrett.

This week he is on the road with Mickey Mouse, recreating a live musical experience of Disney's Fantasia that was a triumph at London's Royal Albert Hall in modern arenas in Manchester, Brimingham and kicking off on Friday at Glasgow's new SSE Hydro. The show has been produced by Jonathan Heely, who has worked with Disney since 1981 when he helped recreate the score for the original classical animated film for a digital recording, a process he has continued through much of the classic Disney canon. The Fantasia show screens scenes from the 1940 Fantasia and its millennial revisitation, Fantasia 2000, with the music played live by the Royal Philharmonic Concert Orchestra. Its a process that demands much of Firman, but he is man who is absolutely across all the technology that keeping a big band synchronised with moving images requires. Firman points out that Walt Disney did not ask Leopold Stokowski to perform the same trick. When Fantasia was made, the music was recorded first and the animators made Mickey move to the beat. "There are times when I just look at the picture, and there is a click track from time to time, but more important are the 'punches' and 'streamers' that I can see on my screen, bursts of light and vertical lines that help me guage when a certain action or 'sync point' is going to arrive." Firman illustrates what he means vocally over the phone, with the opening bars of Beethoven's Fifth Symphony. It is perfectly clear to me at the time, but the English language lacks the vocabulary to pass that intelligence on, so you will just have to take my word for it. Firman's form in this discipline is bang up to date. He works a lot in Denmark, where he is Principal Guest Conductor with the Danish Radio Sinfonietta, and has performed the score of Pirates of the Caribbean there and in London with a screening of the film, a process he is about to repeat with the second film in the series, which has even better music, he says. "And gosh, isn't Keira Knightley gorgeous in that one?" he adds, suggesting that the images are not entirely ignored. "There's a lot more straightforward click track with that, because it is more modern music. Really with classical repertoire, it is counter-intuitive to stick so slavishly to the beat. You want to go faster or slower - tempi are so inate. But I think I enjoy it because of my history as a session player: I understand what the music is supposed to do." The Fantasia live show restores some music, like Debussy's Claire de Lune, that failed to make the final cut of the film, and combines it with an edited version of the full film, which Stokowski, the celebrity conductor of his day, saw very much as an "art" project, working closely with the stories the animators illustrated. Firman thinks that although there were already many serious composers at work in Hollywood, Fantasia helped give credibility to the music they were writing and introduced a new audience to the symphony orchestra. When the original film was released, Disney created a fancy new sound system for its screening, a sort of percursor of Dolby surround that Pirates of the Caribbean was written to make the most of, adding all those electronic effects and samples." Working on such proven hits is a very different experience than working in the West End, says Firman, who was off to see Andrew Lloyd Webber's new Profumo musical, Stephen Ward, on the day we spoke. "In musical theatre you can have no idea what will be a success or a failure. It is impossible to predict what will work. That is a story about a noble man with a great flaw and time of political revolution that threw up interesting characters. But do people still remember it?" By contrast, the successful Pirates is "very effective and tuneful, but not a work of genius". "It is a swashbuckling silly movie that leaves people time to take in the performance of the band too. Because people like seeing people doing live things." As well as looking at Keira Knightley - and Mickey Mouse. Caption: ON THE ROAD: Conductor David Firman is taking his live version of Disney's Fantasia to a wider audience."

  • This Hansel And Gretel is simply wicked!: Classical Mellor, David. Mail on Sunday; London (UK) [London (UK)]21 Dec 2008: 18. "Special appreciation must go to conductor David Firman, whose pacing is impeccable. "
  • That is usst a sampling of what exists. And There are also pre-reviews, like this"
  • WATCH: Kaiser Chiefs' Ricky Wilson scrubs up his acting skills Thistlethwaite, Felicity. Express (Online); London (UK) [London (UK)]10 June 2015. "The Royal Philharmonic Concert Orchestra will be unmissable at Sounds in the Grounds. Conducted by impeccable music sculptor and West End legend David Firman, teamed with the idyllic historical setting, there will be no better location to experience this iconic performance." E.M.Gregory ( talk) 00:47, 3 July 2019 (UTC) reply
  • Noting that passing WP:CREATIVE does not require coverage of his life, but of his work as a conductor, composer, and orchestrator with a role in creating notable films, West End musicals, and symphonic performances. We have pages on many authors and composers about whose lives little is known, even anonymous ones. Our guidelines judge CREATIVE types by the coverage garnered by the work, not the man. E.M.Gregory ( talk) 12:22, 3 July 2019 (UTC) reply
  • @ E.M.Gregory: Thanks, but again there only seems to be significant coverage in one source (The Herald) which is already included in the article and linked in the nomination. Obviously CREATIVE doesn't require biographical information to exist, but we do need substantial coverage in multiple reliable sources, which I still think is lacking. Nothing on google books seems to provide this either. SmartSE ( talk) 17:38, 3 July 2019 (UTC) reply
  • The books substantiate his role as a significant member of several teams (producer, director, writer, orchestrator, etc.) that created West End musicals, Films and other productions. As do the listings in IMDb, not itself a good source, but googling the credits found there leads to reliable sources for his creative work on notable films and TV. E.M.Gregory ( talk) 18:09, 3 July 2019 (UTC) reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, 78.26 ( spin me / revolutions) 21:46, 3 July 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. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 10:00, 10 July 2019 (UTC) reply

Gerardo Díaz y Su Gerarquía

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

Well the prod was removed, anyway band of questionable notability with no reliable sources. (On another note this is technically a orphan since all the links to Gerardo Díaz go to an athlete, something to keep in mind if that page is ever made) Wgolf ( talk) 21:22, 3 July 2019 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. MarginalCost ( talk) 21:39, 3 July 2019 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Mexico-related deletion discussions. MarginalCost ( talk) 21:39, 3 July 2019 (UTC) reply
  • Delete, and probably speedy A7, with no claim of notability in article, and no independent sources I can find with significant coverage. MarginalCost ( talk) 21:40, 3 July 2019 (UTC) reply
  • Delete Is "have made diverse presentations in cities around México" a claim of importance? Because this is pretty close to being a WP:CSD#A7 speedy deletion candidate. A Google search comes up empty: the only thing that can be verified is that the band exists and that its music is at least partially available on various streaming platforms but I found no significant coverage in reliable third-party sources. Pichpich ( talk) 21:41, 3 July 2019 (UTC) reply
Wasn't sure which one to pick (And as I said if the athlete page is ever created for the one that has links to this one-just ignore the fact that it was AFD), but yes a speedy would of been good as well. Wgolf ( talk) 21:48, 3 July 2019 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 01:48, 4 July 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. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 10:01, 10 July 2019 (UTC) reply

Jon Davis (Physio)

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

Quite simply not notable per WP:BIO or WP:GNG. Yes, there are 7 references provided in the article but none come close to qualifying as third-party significant coverage. Pichpich ( talk) 20:47, 3 July 2019 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 01:49, 4 July 2019 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Icewhiz ( talk) 11:20, 4 July 2019 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. Icewhiz ( talk) 11:20, 4 July 2019 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. Icewhiz ( talk) 11:21, 4 July 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. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 10:01, 10 July 2019 (UTC) reply

Peter and the Penny

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

Another short film I can't find much notability for at all. It apparently won an award-not sure how notable that is though. I can't find any sources (heck the IMDB doesn't even have a page!) Wgolf ( talk) 20:19, 3 July 2019 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 01:52, 4 July 2019 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 01:52, 4 July 2019 (UTC) reply
  • Delete. NFILM does not automatically extend instant permanent notability to every winner of every film award that exists — the Festival Images en vues is a small-fry film festival, not a major one, so its awards aren't an instant notability freebie that would exempt a film from actually having to have any real reliable sources. Cannes yes, TIFF yes, Berlin yes — these are film festivals that get press coverage. Images en vues in Cap-aux-Meules, not so much. Based on the creator's username I also suspect a direct conflict of interest even if I can't prove it outright. Bearcat ( talk) 17:11, 4 July 2019 (UTC) reply
  • Delete. I can't find it on google. Notability not established. Created by a short lived editor who made a few related and possibly also non notable articles. Szzuk ( talk) 12:23, 9 July 2019 (UTC) reply
  • Delete I have added extra information about this film to the article about the filmmaker, Denys Desjardins. With no sources and the same creator of the articles, there is really nothing to merge. RebeccaGreen ( talk) 16:50, 9 July 2019 (UTC) reply
  • Delete Googling doesn't bring up that much, and an award doesn't automatically make it notable unless the award is major. William2001( talk) 21:50, 9 July 2019 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Jo-Jo Eumerus ( talk, contributions) 20:53, 10 July 2019 (UTC) reply

Boris Lehman, filmmaker

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

Short film with little to no notability at all. I can't find any sources for it either. Wgolf ( talk) 20:16, 3 July 2019 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 01:53, 4 July 2019 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 01:53, 4 July 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. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 10:01, 10 July 2019 (UTC) reply

The Blue Mauritius (upcoming film)

The Blue Mauritius (upcoming film) (  | 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:TOOSOON BOVINEBOY 2008 19:58, 3 July 2019 (UTC) reply

Delete, with no opposition to recreation when the time comes. – eggofreason( talk · contribs) 20:49, 3 July 2019 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 01:55, 4 July 2019 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Germany-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 01:55, 4 July 2019 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of South Africa-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 01:56, 4 July 2019 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of France-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 01:56, 4 July 2019 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 01:56, 4 July 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. Tone 18:18, 10 July 2019 (UTC) reply

Elf Lyons

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

Several reasons for this nom: most significantly - notability. The subject just isn't notable. Low social media following (1720 facebook page likes, 6268 twitter followers and 2714 instagram followers in total). Low level of 'significant, independent coverage in reliable sources' - a couple of articles/interviews/profiles (one guardian, one standard being the limit of what matches this criteria - two in total does not represent significance).
The article itself is sparsely detailed, because there is little info of note about the subject - something that confirms lack of notability.
The article is poorly formatted, not to basic wiki standards. This can be fixed though.
The article is poorly referenced - two in total - one of subject's own site, another being the review of an Adelaide fringe performance on a blog.
Some curious weirdness from the article's creator - as part of their efforts, they added this Original version before quickly trimming the strange content. This was immediately followed by quite transparently COI activity from an SPA IP with these edits - admittedly slightly outside of the immediate scope of AfD but significant in that if we strip out the unreferenced content added by the subject themselves, the article would be fully devoid of content, further re-inforcing the notability issue.

Rayman60 ( talk) 17:38, 3 July 2019 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Rayman60 ( talk) 17:38, 3 July 2019 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Theatre-related deletion discussions. Rayman60 ( talk) 17:38, 3 July 2019 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. Rayman60 ( talk) 17:38, 3 July 2019 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. Rayman60 ( talk) 17:38, 3 July 2019 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 19:36, 3 July 2019 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 19:37, 3 July 2019 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 19:37, 3 July 2019 (UTC) reply
  • Keep. This comedian and writer has been profiled in The Times, The Evening Standard and The Guardian. Vogue named her as one of the top 5 new comedians. She has performed numerous one-woman acts to acclaim at the Edinburgh Fringe and other festivals. She has also written for major newspapers. A simple Google search turns up much more serious coverage.. Someone needs to do the research and pull out some info from all these sources to expand the article, but there are lots of sources to choose from. -- Ssilvers ( talk) 20:28, 3 July 2019 (UTC) reply
  • Keep as has significant coverage in multiple reliable sources such as The Guardian, The Times, Evening Standard and others so passes WP:GNG. The other problems can be edited out by neutral editors, thanks Atlantic306 ( talk) 21:24, 7 July 2019 (UTC) reply
  • I would add that "social media" (sorry, but I have to put that in quotes because these sites are far from social) following is irrelevant to notability in either direction. The more common problem that we have is with people saying that someone must be notable because of a high following, but it is equally fallacious to claim that someone is not notable because of a low following. I have no followers on any of these sites, simply because I have no reason to use them (I actually talk to my friends and family), but that is not the reason why I am not notable. Phil Bridger ( talk) 21:35, 7 July 2019 (UTC) reply
  • Comment: Thanks to SSilver's efforts, notability is clearly demonstrated. Phil Bridger - whilst social media following is a rather crude metric, it does constitute part of the WP:ENT notability in assessing whether they have, or lack, a significant fan base. No-one can argue the case for someone being a global entertainment icon if they have 37 followers across 4 major platforms. Rayman60 ( talk) 16:20, 8 July 2019 (UTC) reply
  • The number of social media followers can only be relevant for people who actively pursue large numbers of social media followers. It is still quite possible for entertainers to eschew this path and for their fan bases to consist of real people choosing to actually watch and listen to their performances, rather than virtual people following or liking them. Phil Bridger ( talk) 18:11, 8 July 2019 (UTC) reply
  • Why do you say that people who use social media are not "real"? A nasty prejudice there which I fear (although I hope not, obviously) might have to do with racial resentment over (some of) the people who have been boosted by it. RobinCarmody ( talk) 20:47, 8 July 2019 (UTC) reply
  • Nasty prejudice? Racial resentment? Really? Please don't make such silly accusations. And social media accounts do not equate to real people, in that it is possible for one real person to use multiple accounts or for multiple real people to use one account. Notability on Wikipedia is defined by coverage in independent reliable sources, not such easily gamed things as social media followers. Phil Bridger ( talk) 21:11, 8 July 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. Tone 18:16, 10 July 2019 (UTC) reply

List of Indian entrepreneurs

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

Very subjective, no criterea. Delete per WP:LISTCRUFT. Störm (talk) 12:13, 24 June 2019 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 12:50, 24 June 2019 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 12:50, 24 June 2019 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists of people-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 12:51, 24 June 2019 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 12:51, 24 June 2019 (UTC) reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 16:55, 3 July 2019 (UTC) reply
  • Keep WP:LISTCRUFT is neither policy not guideline, just a crude insult, and so there's no case to answer. The current version needs work as it seems to lack a historical perspective but addressing this seems quite feasible by reference to sources such as Indian Merchants and Entrepreneurs in Historical Perspective. Andrew D. ( talk) 22:01, 3 July 2019 (UTC) reply
  • Keep - I somewhat agree with the concern about the lack of a clear inclusion criterion ("entrepeneur" is often used as a vague buzzphrase instead of an objective description). But this flaw is no reason for deletion. Maybe the list could be further limited to notable businesspeople who founded at least one notable business, or "entrepeneur" should be defined more clearly in this context. Anyway, discuss such concerns on article talk - this primarily navigational list is not unsalvageable imo. GermanJoe ( talk) 08:47, 9 July 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 based on additional sources found. RL0919 ( talk) 16:23, 10 July 2019 (UTC) reply

Freeway (software)

Freeway (software) (  | 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 software package. Only sources/ELs are to the software's publisher and repositories; no third-party coverage indicated, nor can I find any. TJRC ( talk) 19:16, 18 June 2019 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. Ceethekreator ( talk) 21:02, 18 June 2019 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. Ceethekreator ( talk) 21:02, 18 June 2019 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. Ceethekreator ( talk) 21:02, 18 June 2019 (UTC) reply
  • Delete. I also do not see any non-trivial coverage in independent sources. Novabrahm ( talk) 21:23, 18 June 2019 (UTC) reply
  • Keep There are reviews and product comparisons in Mac related and other magazines: eg. Macworld, April 1997, p.58 (Uniqorn full page review); MacLife, September 2008, p. 61 (Freeway 2/3 page review); InfoWorld, 27 October 1997, p. 92A, 92F (Freeway 1.0 half page review). Enough to satisfy GNG. Pavlor ( talk) 09:36, 19 June 2019 (UTC) reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America 1000 00:49, 25 June 2019 (UTC) reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Just Chilling ( talk) 15:06, 3 July 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. WP:SNOW: clearly not worth rehashing the series of conversations that have happened on all three other articles previously. Coverage, popularity of articles, and the opportunities for continuous improvement because of the continued coverage suggest that a group nominating is highly inappropriate for these. Sadads ( talk) 17:05, 4 July 2019 (UTC) reply

Carole Middleton

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

Has got no notability at all, being related to a member of the royal family doesn't make her notable. WikiSmartLife ( talk) 14:49, 3 July 2019 (UTC) I am also nominating the following related pages because of the same cause: reply

Pippa Middleton (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
James Middleton (British businessman) (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 15:23, 3 July 2019 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 15:24, 3 July 2019 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 15:24, 3 July 2019 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 15:25, 3 July 2019 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 15:26, 3 July 2019 (UTC) reply
  • Keep Lots of sources and so all three subjects easily pass WP:GNG. They have all been nominated previously and all kept. This nomination doesn't say anything new or substantial. Andrew D. ( talk) 15:34, 3 July 2019 (UTC) reply
  • Keep. While indeed being related to the royal family (or, for that matter, being a "her royal highness" by dint of marriage) is not grounds for notability, WP:SIGCOV is. All 3 subjects nominated have been covered in an in-depth fashion, over a period of several years, by the UK and international press (both tabloid and, more interesting for us, non-tabloid). All 3 subjects have also been covered in what some may see as literature - e.g. [8] [9] [10]. Pippa has also authored literature that received secondary coverage - [11]. It's July, but I feel a snowy winter is coming to this AfD... Icewhiz ( talk) 15:36, 3 July 2019 (UTC) reply
  • Keep. The mother of a future Queen Consort and the grandmother of a future King?! Of course she's notable! The other two are less inherently notable, but have been massively covered in the media and clearly meet WP:GNG. -- Necrothesp ( talk) 15:37, 3 July 2019 (UTC) reply
  • Keep and any recurrence (Pippa Middleton?) should be reason to lok at a TBAN. This is so far beyond plausible as to be firmly into disruptive. She's not WP:Notable because she's related to the royals, she's WP:Notable because such a vast number of sources, even beyond the tabloids, cover her because she's related to the royals. Andy Dingley ( talk) 15:45, 3 July 2019 (UTC) reply
  • Keep Very notable subject with plenty of solid sources. Lightburst ( talk) 20:11, 3 July 2019 (UTC) reply
  • Keep all Folding Pippa into this nom takes this into WP:BADFAITH for me. Plenty of WP:N with all three subjects. There are subjects I feel non-notable myself (streamers and Instagram influencers) that I choose not to nom because many more people actually do and I just ignore it otherwise because there's plenty of other things to do here; I'd suggest doing the same from hereon out. Nate • ( chatter) 00:29, 4 July 2019 (UTC) reply
  • Keep all This is ridiculous - all three persons have been written about in books, interviewed for feature articles by UK The Times "et al" and continue to feature in novels and newspaper articles regularly 175.32.82.245 ( talk) 09:33, 4 July 2019 (UTC) reply
  • Keep all Regardless of whether you believe that being related to other famous people should generate enough significant coverage to pass WP:GNG, in the case of James Middleton it clearly has. The other Middleton's (especially Pippa!) have had even more coverage. Caeciliusinhorto ( talk) 16:40, 4 July 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 Family Stadium for now at least. Could be restored to a full article in the future if sufficient reliable source coverage is found. RL0919 ( talk) 16:10, 10 July 2019 (UTC) reply

Family Stadium 2003

Family Stadium 2003 (  | 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 video game does not meet WP:GNG for the lack of significant coverage in multiple reliable sources. Nothing to be found in my searches except for the IGN paragraph on [12], nothing on Moby, Metacritic or archives. Was deprodded with a WP:THEREMUSTBESOURCES rationale. Jovanmilic97 ( talk) 08:58, 25 June 2019 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Video games-related deletion discussions. Jovanmilic97 ( talk) 08:58, 25 June 2019 (UTC) reply
Comment Looks like a Japan-only release to me. May have better luck finding sources under the name Famista 2003 and the Japanese title for the series which seems to be ファミスタシリーズ - X201 ( talk) 09:38, 25 June 2019 (UTC) reply
Comment -- Jovan, could you also tag the Japan related AfD list, as what is needed here is someone who can look for Japanese sources? matt91486 ( talk) 09:51, 26 June 2019 (UTC) reply
Keep -- I cannot speak Japanese, but as far as I can tell, the Famitsu page for the game is [13]. This also seems to be relevant directly [14]. There are lots of links from sites like this [15] or [16] or [17] that I lack the background to speak for their ability to count as reliable sources, but clearly are about the topic. Language expertise is needed. But at first glance with as best as I can do language wise, there seem to be sufficient cites available, as expected, even if they will require someone who can properly speak Japanese to say for sure and/or incorporate them. matt91486 ( talk) 10:01, 26 June 2019 (UTC) reply
  • @ Jovanmilic97: - I'm personally still inclined toward keep; however, I do think a merger and redirect would be a preferable resolution to an outright delete. I am still hopeful that if we get it on the list of Japanese-related deletions, we might be able to get someone who can far more effectively search than I was able to, to see what sources are out there. matt91486 ( talk) 05:46, 27 June 2019 (UTC) reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Just Chilling ( talk) 14:43, 3 July 2019 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Baseball-related deletion discussions. Icewhiz ( talk) 15:37, 3 July 2019 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Japan-related deletion discussions. Icewhiz ( talk) 15:37, 3 July 2019 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. Sandstein 14:40, 10 July 2019 (UTC) reply

Dirk Bezemer

Dirk Bezemer (  | 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 BLP prod, no evidence of notability. Acroterion (talk) 16:47, 25 June 2019 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. ___ CAPTAIN MEDUSA talk 16:56, 25 June 2019 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Germany-related deletion discussions. Owlf 17:08, 25 June 2019 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple ( talk) 11:13, 28 June 2019 (UTC) reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Just Chilling ( talk) 14:34, 3 July 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. Tone 18:17, 10 July 2019 (UTC) reply

Galilee of the Nations

AfDs for this article:
Galilee of the Nations (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources:  Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Israel-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 21:50, 25 June 2019 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 21:50, 25 June 2019 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Judaism-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 21:50, 25 June 2019 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 21:50, 25 June 2019 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Tennessee-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 21:50, 25 June 2019 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 21:51, 25 June 2019 (UTC) reply
  • Keep This appears to be refutable on its face; despite the label not meeting WP:MUSIC's sense of one of the more important indie labels, it still seems to reach the GNG without a significant roster, as it's been covered by Billboard multiple times (which are already in the article). (Perhaps, with better coverage of Israeli music, we will see that it meets both criteria.) Chubbles ( talk) 01:52, 26 June 2019 (UTC) reply

*Delete fails WP:CORP, fails WP:GNG. I searched google, books and proquest newspapers, and all that I found were the sort of mentions User:Chubbles describes, where a recording is describes as issues by Galilee, and a news article about the hiring of of a new pastor by a local church which mentions that he had worked for this church. Most hits on this phrase are about other stuff entirely (a proposed Christian theme part; a theological concept...) There is no doubt that this Christian record label exists, but no evidence that it is a notable label. E.M.Gregory ( talk) 14:58, 26 June 2019 (UTC) reply

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Just Chilling ( talk) 14:33, 3 July 2019 (UTC) reply
Not with three pieces in Billboard - the top American publication for record label info - and a further article from a major Christian magazine, as is currently in the article? Chubbles ( talk) 04:30, 4 July 2019 (UTC) reply
  • Keep the Billboard coverage is independent of the label, demonstrating notability.-- Epiphyllumlover ( talk) 21:33, 5 July 2019 (UTC) reply
  • Keep as has independent reliable sources coverage such as multiple articles in Billboard and Cross Rythms (a Christian music reliable source) so passes WP:GNG thanks Atlantic306 ( talk) 16:15, 6 July 2019 (UTC) reply
  • tepid keep. My searches find only mentions in the context of albums released, and an album reviewed. I have added some to the page. No in depth coverage, but I suppose that an argument can be made that a small record label is like a small publisher, notable because it is useful to know who produced a work of musical merit. And the fact that albums produced are reviewed in WP:RS publications supports notability of publisher. E.M.Gregory ( talk) 18:18, 7 July 2019 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Jo-Jo Eumerus ( talk, contributions) 14:06, 10 July 2019 (UTC) reply

Islamabad Orchards

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

Permastub about a housing project created by an WP:SPA fails WP:GEOLAND and WP:GNG. Nothing in a WP:BEFORE search shows this meets notability criteria. Dom from Paris ( talk) 13:55, 3 July 2019 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Architecture-related deletion discussions. Dom from Paris ( talk) 13:55, 3 July 2019 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. Dom from Paris ( talk) 13:55, 3 July 2019 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. 78.26 ( spin me / revolutions) 14:34, 10 July 2019 (UTC) reply

River Gardens, Islamabad

River Gardens, Islamabad (  | 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:GEOLAND nothing found in a WP:BEFORE search to show this meets WP:GNG. It is a housing development project and the page was created by an WP:SPA Dom from Paris ( talk) 13:32, 3 July 2019 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Architecture-related deletion discussions. Dom from Paris ( talk) 13:32, 3 July 2019 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. Dom from Paris ( talk) 13:32, 3 July 2019 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. 78.26 ( spin me / revolutions) 14:34, 10 July 2019 (UTC) reply

Potohari Arts & Crafts Village, Islamabad

Potohari Arts & Crafts Village, Islamabad (  | 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 and WP:GEOLAND article one of many created by an WP:SPA probably connected to the project creator. Dom from Paris ( talk) 13:29, 3 July 2019 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Architecture-related deletion discussions. Dom from Paris ( talk) 13:29, 3 July 2019 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. Dom from Paris ( talk) 13:29, 3 July 2019 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. 78.26 ( spin me / revolutions) 14:34, 10 July 2019 (UTC) reply

Gulberg, Islamabad

Gulberg, Islamabad (  | 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:GEOLAND and GNG. Looks like a promotional piece by a WP:COI account. Dom from Paris ( talk) 13:16, 3 July 2019 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. Dom from Paris ( talk) 13:16, 3 July 2019 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Architecture-related deletion discussions. North America 1000 13:32, 3 July 2019 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. North America 1000 13:32, 3 July 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 delete as hoax vandalism. I couldn't find a trace of such a festival, either. Normally I would simply add that to the discussion. Then I looked at other edits by the creator's account, including old versions of some pages. That convinced me that deletion on sight is quite safe in this instance. I did not spot anything else in article space that has not long since been dealt with. Uncle G ( talk) 17:43, 3 July 2019 (UTC) reply

GIMP Festival

GIMP Festival (  | 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 find absolutely no evidence that this music festival has ever existed. Lord Belbury ( talk) 12:47, 3 July 2019 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. Icewhiz ( talk) 12:56, 3 July 2019 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. Icewhiz ( talk) 12:56, 3 July 2019 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. Icewhiz ( talk) 12:56, 3 July 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. Tone 07:09, 10 July 2019 (UTC) reply

Biker metal

Biker metal (  | 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:NOTABILITY. The term "Biker metal" does not appear to refer to a specific genre of music and instead seems to refer to multiple styles of rock, punk, and metal music TankieMrBanky ( talk) 16:23, 19 June 2019 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. Thanks, L3X1 ◊distænt write◊ 17:02, 19 June 2019 (UTC) reply
These references don't really say what "biker metal" is. Is it just heavy metal music that bikers like? Is it metal influenced by punk music? If so, what differentiates this from crust punk, speed metal, or NWOBHM? These references to the term don't really seem to differentiate it as a genre. TankieMrBanky ( talk) 16:27, 26 June 2019 (UTC) reply
loudwire.com/motorhead-overkill-album-anniversary/ describes it as "bluesy" and "bombastic"; www.loudersound.com/features/flash-metal-suicide-steve-jones says its "glam metal gone Mad Max"; in Teenage Wasteland: Suburbia's Dead End Kids by Donna Gaines it's described as a fusion of metal, punk and rock and roll. Most of the sources culminate in basically just saying it's the whole sound that Motorhead spawned. Issan Sumisu ( talk) 18:05, 26 June 2019 (UTC) reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America 1000 09:02, 26 June 2019 (UTC) reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America 1000 12:35, 3 July 2019 (UTC) reply
  • Keep. Added a paragraph on the musical characteristics of biker metal, with references. The term is definitely used in several reliable publications when referring to music, and there exists significant coverage of the nature of biker metal as a distinct genre (and not just 'metal that bikers like'). Gilded Snail ( talk) 20:11, 3 July 2019 (UTC) reply
  • Keep — whether a musical genre is well-defined or not isn't an argument for or against deletion. Featured articles on genres where there is no universal consensus on the definition include Grunge, Heavy metal music, Punk Rock, New wave of British heavy metal and Viking metal. If reliable sources use the term, then the basis for an article exists. Sourcing is sufficient to meet WP:GNG. Perhaps the reliable sources who recognize this genre are wrong; we have articles about things that are wrong, like Phlogiston theory. Perhaps the content could be upmerged into some broader topic for organizational and structural reasons (rather than failing notability) but that falls to local consensus, not AfD. To me it doesn't look like a good merge candidate. -- Dennis Bratland ( talk) 21:29, 6 July 2019 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Sandstein 14:39, 10 July 2019 (UTC) reply

American Innovation $1 Coin Program Design - Obverse

American Innovation $1 Coin Program Design - Obverse (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View AfD · [23])
(Find sources:  Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

I don't believe that the rejected obverse designs of the American Innovation $1 Coin Program are notable enough for their own article. ZLEA T\ C 11:57, 3 July 2019 (UTC) reply

I would be fine with combining the pages so we have a record of the options the government considered, and what changes were made from the final design to the finished product. That being said, I don't think the sub-page meets any of the criteria for deletion. Iceman0426 ( talk) 15:25, 3 July 2019 (UTC) reply
I too am fine with merging, but a table of the proposed designs might be a little too much. I think we should mention that twelve design proposals were made, and compare the chosen design drawing to the eventual coin design. Having a table of proposed designs might lead to people questioning why there isn't a similar table for each reverse design. - ZLEA T\ C 18:12, 3 July 2019 (UTC) reply
The committee's mandate is to do this process for all of the coins. So we will be able to do the same thing for all 57 coins in the program. I think adding the winning design to the main page is a good idea. I realize that the design pages will be smaller than the main pages, but I don't see a problem with having them. Iceman0426 ( talk) 19:55, 3 July 2019 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Finance-related deletion discussions. Icewhiz ( talk) 13:00, 3 July 2019 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Icewhiz ( talk) 13:00, 3 July 2019 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletion discussions. Icewhiz ( talk) 13:02, 3 July 2019 (UTC) reply
  • Delete I would encourage a link the in the main article to the Mint's website with rejected designs, but we should not have a separate article just to memorialize failed alternatives in a gallery - these are simply not notable and do not receive substantive tertiary coverage. This doesn't even belong in the main article but should be limited to a brief mention per ZLEA. Do NOT do this for every coin reverse design – not even the individual coins in the series are notable, much less what didn't actually get minted. Reywas92 Talk 07:43, 4 July 2019 (UTC) reply
  • Keep I disagree that the designs are not notable. In addition to being on the usmint.gov and the ccac.gov, here are some places where the designs also receive attention: mintnewsblog.com, new.coinupdate.com, thepatrioticmint.com, numismaticnews.net, coinworld.com, usstatequarters.com. This demonstrates that there is interest in the designs and the process. I mentioned to ZLEA a few different options to make everybody happy. I redid the table and put a sample at the bottom of the obverse page as an example that could be used for any of the ideas so that it would take up much less room. First, with the smaller format we could put it on the main page. Second, the page could be renamed (something like "American Innovation $1 Coin Program Proposed Designs), and all designs put on a single page. Finally, they could be put on under the CCAC's page. Iceman0426 ( talk) 01:54, 6 July 2019 (UTC) reply
Just because the designs are on a government website and recieve attention from websites that track progress of CCAC design eliminations, that does not mean they are notable. If you think the rejected designs are notable enough to be included in a separate article or even in the main article despite the lack of secondary sources, then you should be able to tell us why they are significant. - ZLEA T\ C 12:13, 6 July 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 14:32, 10 July 2019 (UTC) reply

Bioinvent

Bioinvent (  | 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 PRODded this, saying "Article lacks proper secondary sourcing; nothing in here makes it somehow automatically notable." Creator removed the tag, saying "does have secondary sources"--yeah, but not proper ones, except for one short article in a local Swedish paper, and one (about the founder, mostly) in a publication from the University of Lund. Given that the company was founded in 1983, that's not a lot, to put it mildly. Drmies ( talk) 18:16, 19 June 2019 (UTC) reply

It does have proper ones, Sydsvenskan, Dagens industri, and Lund University are proper sources. Ljuvlig ( talk) 18:23, 19 June 2019 (UTC) reply
Sydsvenskan is the dominating newspaper in southern Sweden. I wouldn't lump it together with "local papers" in general. / Julle ( talk) 23:37, 19 June 2019 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 19:12, 19 June 2019 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sweden-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 19:12, 19 June 2019 (UTC) reply
Dagens Nyheter, which is Swedens biggest newspaper, has now been added to the list. Ljuvlig ( talk) 08:01, 20 June 2019 (UTC) reply
  • Weak keep, but better yet create Carl Borrebaeck and merge into that. I can't see the Dagens Nyheter article beyond the opening, which suggests it offers little more than corroboration of one of the listed collaborations with other companies. The Dagens industri search link yielded nothing I saw as useful beyond referencing the company's research focus (2 of the 3 articles there are focused on their financials). I agree Sydsvenskan is not to be sneezed at, but I'd like to see at least one similar article all about the company rather than what we have, which is that plus a couple of short articles and the Lund University mag on Borrebaeck. Borrebaeck, in contrast, appears to meet our notability standard handily: first professor of immunology in Scandinavia, member of a learned society, has received what appears to be a major award, and much coverage mentions more than one of the companies he's founded (one source says this was the first). Yngvadottir ( talk) 16:23, 20 June 2019 (UTC) reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America 1000 08:59, 26 June 2019 (UTC) reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America 1000 11:34, 3 July 2019 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Sandstein 14:30, 10 July 2019 (UTC) reply

Shadow Gunner: The Robot Wars

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

No sign of meeting WP:GNG or WP:NVG. I recognise that this is an old game and coverage may be offline, but since I can find not one RS to indicate any kind of lasting influence, I'm working on the assumption this didn't attract "significant commentary or analysis" even at the time. Considered a merge, but the developer has no page, and there is nothing worth merging to the publisher Ubi Soft. Hugsyrup ( talk) 10:31, 3 July 2019 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Video games-related deletion discussions. Hugsyrup ( talk) 10:31, 3 July 2019 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of France-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 11:08, 3 July 2019 (UTC) reply
  • Delete. Upon a search, absolutely no actual coverage of this game is findable. The only things out there are listings on old game databases and pricelists. (Changing search results to French, searching "shadow gunner jeu video", and looking for other apocryphal mentions of the game on Reddit also yield nothing.) Gilded Snail ( talk) 19:36, 3 July 2019 (UTC) reply
  • Found four sources - three magazine sources that I found on Mobygames and one source mentioning it in passing. However, the number of sources is rather too low, so delete. - Bryn (talk) (contributions) 21:03, 3 July 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. Tone 07:08, 10 July 2019 (UTC) reply

Open-Realty

Open-Realty (  | 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 refs provided are all to the organisation’s own site and I am not able to find any reliable independent sources to support it. Mccapra ( talk) 05:33, 3 July 2019 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Advertising-related deletion discussions. Mccapra ( talk) 05:33, 3 July 2019 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Mccapra ( talk) 05:33, 3 July 2019 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. Mccapra ( talk) 05:33, 3 July 2019 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. Mccapra ( talk) 05:33, 3 July 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. Tone 07:08, 10 July 2019 (UTC) reply

Geoffrey Steele

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

Actor with questionable notability. Despite being in over 25 roles, most of them appear uncredited. So he isn't really even a character actor. Not a single role stands out. If not delete-a redirect to his wife. Wgolf ( talk) 05:11, 3 July 2019 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of South Africa-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 06:17, 3 July 2019 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 06:17, 3 July 2019 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 06:18, 3 July 2019 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 06:18, 3 July 2019 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 06:19, 3 July 2019 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 06:19, 3 July 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) 06:49, 10 July 2019 (UTC) reply

The Adventures of Super Pickle

The Adventures of Super Pickle (  | 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 book per WP:BK. SL93 ( talk) 04:08, 3 July 2019 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 06:21, 3 July 2019 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 06:21, 3 July 2019 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) Spirit of Eagle ( talk) 03:32, 10 July 2019 (UTC) reply

Holy Holy (band)

Holy Holy (band) (  | 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 article Holy Holy (band) is one of two bands with the name of Holy Holy, neither is primary, so this should be further differentiated to separate it from the Australian band, Holy Holy (Australian band), but when searching for a defining characteristic for this band, it reveals itself as an undistinguished band with no importance or stand-alone notability and no sources supporting the article. Mburrell ( talk) 03:32, 3 July 2019 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Eastmain ( talk • contribs) 05:39, 3 July 2019 (UTC) reply
  • Keep. Probably notable because several of its members are individually notable and because of its national and international touring of the United Kingdom, Japan and the United States. Eastmain ( talk • contribs) 05:41, 3 July 2019 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 06:27, 3 July 2019 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Japan-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 06:27, 3 July 2019 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 06:27, 3 July 2019 (UTC) reply
  • Please read WP:NMUSIC. One of the accepted criteria for notability is "Is an ensemble that contains two or more independently notable musicians", which is clearly satisfied here, and if you bothered to do a Google search you would find several examples of significant coverage. -- Michig ( talk) 10:05, 4 July 2019 (UTC) reply
  • @ Mburrell: you should read up on notability criteria before nominating. Also did you look at the sources I added? They clearly cover the group and not just one of the members. I don't want to be rude but this is really a no brainer. There are dozens of reliable sources to show it meets GNG and it also meets the SSC. I don't understand why you are continuing to defend this nomination. I'm not asking you to withdraw the nomination we have all nominated pages that get kept it's not a biggie but everyone has explained why this should be kept in very clear terms. Dom from Paris ( talk) 07:57, 7 July 2019 (UTC) reply
I have never defended this nomination. I objected to an argument in the defense that seemed to imply that notability was inherited, but Michig pointed out that I glossed over one of the criteria, a group is notable if more than two musicians in the ensemble are notable. Since Glen Gregory and James Stevenson are notable, that satisfied the criteria. I would argue that Tony Visconti is not notable as a musician although he is notable in the music industry as a producer, but that doesn't matter as Gregory and Stevenson are all that matter for this criteria. I have never made any comments about your reliable sources, nor dismissed them. In fact, I have bowed to consensus and kept my mouth shut, until you decided to speak to me, and I felt you were responding to the initial nomination and not anything I have said or not said since. Mburrell ( talk) 03:13, 9 July 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) 06:49, 10 July 2019 (UTC) reply

Ramana Sayahi

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

Declined a hoax speedy request because it's either not a hoax or a really good one. However, can't find sources in English to show notability. I don't read Persian so I don't have a way to evaluate the sources in the article -- hoping for more eyes on this. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 03:13, 3 July 2019 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 03:13, 3 July 2019 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Iran-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 03:13, 3 July 2019 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 06:29, 3 July 2019 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 06:29, 3 July 2019 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 06:29, 3 July 2019 (UTC) reply
  • Delete per John's comments -- the coverage is also really spotty in mostly user-generated or paparatzi-driven coverage, and the claim to notability at the beginning of the article doesn't make a lot of sense -- at the very least its self promotional, at the very worst its a hoax, and if its neither of those, the coverage in the sources appears to be minor at best. I would feel a lot more comfortable with it if there was more consistent coverage in Persian Wikipedia. Sadads ( talk) 17:11, 4 July 2019 (UTC) reply
  • Delete Seems like a promotional article, although again, I cannot read the Persian article. William2001( talk) 22:08, 9 July 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) 06:49, 10 July 2019 (UTC) reply

Mohammed Usama Khan

Mohammed Usama Khan (  | 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 does not yet meet WP:GNG. it's WP:TOOSOON. PROD removed by fellow editor referencing the three sources. (Two appear to be fan publications, the third is a decent write-up, but not from a reliable publication). Orville talk 00:55, 3 July 2019 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. Orville talk 00:55, 3 July 2019 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Orville talk 00:55, 3 July 2019 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bodybuilding-related deletion discussions. Orville talk 00:55, 3 July 2019 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Orville talk 00:55, 3 July 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. It seems like the article needs some reworking to clarify that the subject is the stage musical and the film is an adaptation of that, but given that WP:AFDISNOTCLEANUP the discussion indicates there is enough coverage to support notability for the play. RL0919 ( talk) 02:23, 10 July 2019 (UTC) reply

Saturday's Warrior

Saturday's Warrior (  | 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:NFILM. Has had COI and neutrality templates for 3.5 years. Citations needed for 3 years. The article also states, "Saturday's Warrior is not well known outside the Mormon community." PROD removed. by fellow editor. Orville talk 00:37, 3 July 2019 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. Orville talk 00:37, 3 July 2019 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Religion-related deletion discussions. Orville talk 00:37, 3 July 2019 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. Orville talk 00:37, 3 July 2019 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States-related deletion discussions. -- Nahal (T) 01:40, 03 July 2019 (UTC) reply
I created this article years ago. It definitely has COI, notability and neutrality issues. I wouldn't mind if the topic was just mentioned on Wikipedia in a short paragraph or list item in another article. I feel like I need to point out, though, that other stuff exists and is listed at the Mormon cinema article. Tea and crumpets ( talk) 03:12, 3 July 2019 (UTC) reply
  • Keep I have add multiple articles covering this wide ranging work. To be clear, this is not a film. It is a stage production, that as such managed to permeate the culture of members of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints. True, it is most often reacted to as either a very simplistic work, or a doctrinally wrong work. However it is present in doscourse, and its musical numbers are of great power. The film is not the thing, but the stage production. John Pack Lambert ( talk) 04:06, 3 July 2019 (UTC) reply
  • Comment I just keep finding more sources. Still, Saturday's Warrior is a work of the 1970s, reflecting the culture of the 1970s, so probably some of the best sources are not easy to locate on the internet. John Pack Lambert ( talk) 04:42, 3 July 2019 (UTC) reply
  • Keep as it is notable with reviews in multiple reliable sources that have been added to the article so that it passes WP:GNG regards Atlantic306 ( talk) 16:23, 6 July 2019 (UTC) reply
  • Keep per ample WP:SIGCOV. Including some I just added. E.M.Gregory ( talk) 00:32, 9 July 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 Kamala Harris. RL0919 ( talk) 02:14, 10 July 2019 (UTC) reply

Douglas Emhoff

Douglas Emhoff (  | 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 fails WP:GNG. Any news coverage of him is in the context of his famous spouse, and notability is WP:NOTINHERETED. I tried to revert this back into a redirect, which I think is appropriate, only to be reverted back, so here we are. –  Muboshgu ( talk) 00:25, 3 July 2019 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. IntoThinAir ( talk) 01:37, 3 July 2019 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Law-related deletion discussions. IntoThinAir ( talk) 01:37, 3 July 2019 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 06:34, 3 July 2019 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 06:34, 3 July 2019 (UTC) reply
  • Redirect to Kamala Harris as described by Athaenara. Notability is not inherited. -- Enos733 ( talk) 15:58, 3 July 2019 (UTC) reply
  • Delete, without prejudice against the creation of a redirect afterward (but delete first so that there's no history to revert-war over). People are not automatically entitled to have Wikipedia articles just because of who they happen to be married to, this doesn't even try to make a case that he's notable for his law career, and one article in one source is not a magic WP:GNG pass that automatically exempts a person from actually having to have a real notability claim. If Kamala Harris wins the presidential election next year, then obviously he'll qualify for an article at that time as the new First Spouse — but until that time, having a chance to maybe become the First Spouse next year is not a notability claim in and of itself. Bearcat ( talk) 16:52, 4 July 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. Elected municipal politician but unanimity amongst the commentators that she fails notability guidelines, in particular WP:NPOL, and lacks significant, in-depth coverage in reliable, independent sources. Just Chilling ( talk) 00:32, 10 July 2019 (UTC) reply

Uzma Rashid

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

BLP on a member of a city council in Gonda has one source. Per WP:NPOL, members of city councils do not have inherent notability absent WP:SIGCOV unrelated to their council service. Chetsford ( talk) 00:05, 3 July 2019 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 06:35, 3 July 2019 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 06:35, 3 July 2019 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 06:35, 3 July 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_July_3&oldid=1142224674"

Videos

Youtube | Vimeo | Bing

Websites

Google | Yahoo | Bing

Encyclopedia

Google | Yahoo | Bing

Facebook




Top Of Page

Home • Search • Translate

© CSE