Home • Search • Translate
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< 30 April 2 May >

Purge server cache

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

The result was delete. Xymmax So let it be written So let it be done 23:41, 8 May 2019 (UTC) reply

Sushmita Rai

Sushmita Rai (  | 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 kickboxer. Doesn't meet any of the notability standards for kickboxers. The WAKO events were amateur ones which the notability standards specifically say don't show notability. Coverage does not meet the GNG since it consists of event information and announcements, a Facebook link, and something from a blog. Sandals1 ( talk) 22:56, 1 May 2019 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 04:23, 2 May 2019 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 04:24, 2 May 2019 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Boxing-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 04:24, 2 May 2019 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 04:24, 2 May 2019 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Martial arts-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 04:26, 2 May 2019 (UTC) reply
  • Delete or move to drafts The subject might be notable since she seems to have participated in two international championships. But the sources cited aren't very convincing. So either delete or move to drafts. Exploreandwrite ( talk) 09:31, 2 May 2019 (UTC) reply
  • Delete Her kickboxing recrod doesn't meet WP:NKICK nor does she meet WP:GNG. Except for event announcements, the only coverage seems to be that three people from Sikkim will be going to the WAKO world amateur championships (along with 37 other Indians and thousands of other competitors). There's no mention of her having success at that event, and even if she did, it wouldn't meet any WP:NKICK notability criteria. The "World Martial Arts Masterships" also doesn't convey notability and there's no evidence of what she accomplished (not that it matters). Competing in, or even winning, events that don't convey notability doesn't make someone notable. Papaursa ( talk) 23:53, 6 May 2019 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate 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. Xymmax So let it be written So let it be done 23:42, 8 May 2019 (UTC) reply

Jason Weigand

Jason Weigand (  | 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 wrestler. Best finish in NCAA Division 3 was fourth. I don't believe a Division 3 All-American (of which there are 8 in each weight class) is enough to show notability. Only references are links to his college's hall of fame and a county hall of fame. Doesn't meet the GNG, WP:NCOLLATH, or WP:NSPORTS. Sandals1 ( talk) 22:43, 1 May 2019 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 04:28, 2 May 2019 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Ohio-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 04:28, 2 May 2019 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Wrestling-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 04:29, 2 May 2019 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 04:30, 2 May 2019 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. —  JJMC89 ( T· C) 00:30, 9 May 2019 (UTC) reply

Syeda Falak

Syeda Falak (  | 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 karateka. I found no mention of her at the WKF's website or records of her competing at the Asian Games. The Hindu article says she would be competing at the 2013 world championships, but the WKF has its world championships in even numbered years. It also says she qualified for the 2014 Asian Games, but there's no record of her competing there. The U.S. Open event is literally open to all so she wouldn't be representing India--you just fill out an entry form, there's no qualifying. Even if she did win, it wouldn't show notability and given all the dubious claims in this article I have my doubts. Given the 2012 WKF championships in Paris had nearly 1500 entries, simply competing there wouldn't show notability. The references given don't show notability and the claims contained in them seem to have lots of errors. Sandals1 ( talk) 22:28, 1 May 2019 (UTC) Sandals1 ( talk) 22:28, 1 May 2019 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 04:31, 2 May 2019 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 04:32, 2 May 2019 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 04:32, 2 May 2019 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Martial arts-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 04:33, 2 May 2019 (UTC) reply
  • Delete I did a lot of searching and I can find no mention of her competing at any WKF world championship event. Nom is also correct about the U.S. Open and her not competing in the 2014 Asian Games. Given the factual errors in the article, lack of evidence for meeting any martial arts notability criteria, and lack of significant reliable independent coverage, I see nothing that supports keeping this article. Papaursa ( talk) 00:18, 7 May 2019 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate 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 Los Premios MTV Latinoamérica. Xymmax So let it be written So let it be done 01:26, 9 May 2019 (UTC) reply

Los Premios MTV Latinoamérica for La Zona Award

Los Premios MTV Latinoamérica for La Zona Award (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources:  Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Is this really the only time this award happened? If it is-this should just be a redirect to the show (if not deleted), if not, it needs to be updated. Either way I don't think this really should have it's own article. Wgolf ( talk) 19:24, 24 April 2019 (UTC) reply

  • Comment-looks like that was the last year of that particular award show as well, so it was likely started thinking it would go on when it didn't. (Unless if it was never updated) Wgolf ( talk) 19:26, 24 April 2019 (UTC) reply
BTW I have yet another AFD started for this award show with the article Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Los Premios MTV Latinoamérica for Best Urban Artist (seems like most of the awards and years are unreferenced for this show. Someone should look into these) Wgolf ( talk) 19:30, 24 April 2019 (UTC) reply
Here are more that could get a afd or rather merged into this AFD to make it easier: Los Premios MTV Latinoamérica for Best Video Game Soundtrack, Los Premios MTV Latinoamérica for Best Ringtone, Los Premios MTV Latinoamérica for Best Movie and Los Premios MTV Latinoamérica for Best Fan Club. Wgolf ( talk) 19:37, 24 April 2019 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 20:00, 24 April 2019 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Latin America-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 20:01, 24 April 2019 (UTC) reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, -- Scott Burley ( talk) 22:23, 1 May 2019 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate 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 Los Premios MTV Latinoamérica. Xymmax So let it be written So let it be done 01:26, 9 May 2019 (UTC) reply

Los Premios MTV Latinoamérica for Best Urban Artist

Los Premios MTV Latinoamérica for Best Urban Artist (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources:  Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Award that only happened twice, it should either be deleted or a redirect/merge to Los Premios MTV Latinoamérica See also: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Los Premios MTV Latinoamérica for La Zona Award Wgolf ( talk) 19:28, 24 April 2019 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 19:59, 24 April 2019 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Latin America-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 19:59, 24 April 2019 (UTC) reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, -- Scott Burley ( talk) 22:23, 1 May 2019 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate 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 MTV Europe Music Award#Defunct categories. North America 1000 10:55, 8 May 2019 (UTC) reply

MTV Europe Music Award for MTV Amour

MTV Europe Music Award for MTV Amour (  | 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 award that happened just one time-this time at another award show. Either delete or redirect/merge to MTV Europe Music Award. Wgolf ( talk) 19:39, 24 April 2019 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 19:45, 24 April 2019 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Europe-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 19:45, 24 April 2019 (UTC) reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, -- Scott Burley ( talk) 22:22, 1 May 2019 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. —  JJMC89 ( T· C) 00:29, 9 May 2019 (UTC) reply

Kyle Ostrow

Kyle Ostrow (  | 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, I believe, fails WP:NHOCKEY. Only 12 games in the AHL which definitely fails #2 while ECHL Second All-Star team, I believe, is not enough to pass #3 and WCHA All-Academic team is not enough to pass #4. Almost all of the recent AfDs I've submitted have been pretty clear cut, this I'll be honest, is one I'm a bit unsure about and if I'm wrong, I'm wrong. Tay87 ( talk) 21:48, 1 May 2019 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 22:03, 1 May 2019 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Ice hockey-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 22:03, 1 May 2019 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 22:04, 1 May 2019 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate 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 Uprising of the Five Barbarians#Historical impact. Xymmax So let it be written So let it be done 01:23, 9 May 2019 (UTC) reply

Migration of the eight clans

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

Potential hoax. I didn't find any reliable sources on the matter with Google, but I'm not that concerned about that given its non-Western nature. What's more concerning for me is the fact that the Chinese-language Wikipedia doesn't have its own article on the topic. I even checked the Chinese Wikipedia (w/ a machine translation, admittedly) in case someone had forgotten to add it to the "Languages" sidebar and still nothing came up. Even if it turns out that this isn't a hoax, I think we can/should redirect this to the Jin Dynasty article. John M Wolfson ( talk) 21:30, 1 May 2019 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of China-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 21:34, 1 May 2019 (UTC) reply
  • Comment likewise I can’t find anything to support this (in English). Perhaps an admin could look at the edit history of the closed account of the article creator to see whether they created anything else (other possible hoaxes?) that would help determine at least whether thus as a good faith creation? Mccapra ( talk) 22:04, 1 May 2019 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. Eastmain ( talk • contribs) 22:24, 1 May 2019 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. I suppose I could have gone with No Consensus, but the last two commenters presented what look like solid sources. Also, some of the arguments to delete (too short, poor title, OR/SYNTH) are things that can be fixed by editing and don't require deletion. -- RoySmith (talk) 13:13, 9 May 2019 (UTC) reply

Deep voice privilege

Deep voice privilege (  | 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 would fit under a WP:REDUNDANTFORK type of article. The article is too short to be its own article, and it is something that little have ever heard of. It would be best suited if this were deleted all together or if it would go under another article as a sub category (maybe under the Social privilege page as an example. 201020132015hawks ( talk) 21:20, 1 May 2019 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Psychology-related deletion discussions. Eastmain ( talk • contribs) 21:32, 1 May 2019 (UTC) reply
  • Delete Somebody WP:TROUT me; I need my eyes checked. The Huffpost article is decent WRT depth and RS, but it doesn't really cover "deep voice privilege" per se, and the other three are more or less rubbish. If that's all that's out there, we have no reason to presume notability. If there's anything verifiable here it can be merged with Human voice or possibly Vocal register. — Rutebega ( talk) 04:38, 2 May 2019 (UTC) reply
  • Delete This article is WP:SYNTH, prohibited by policy, with a dash of WP:MADEUP and/or WP:NEO. None of the sources contain the phrase "deep voice privilege" or even "privilege". Two of the sources discuss the same Duke study that found a correlation between voice pitch and CEO pay, in which, again, the term is not used. Another source is literally (or was literally, before it apparently became a malware site) a "How to Get a Deeper Voice" product promo site. The final source simply talks about differences in voice pitch. "Deep voice privilege" is not a term that JSTOR finds, so the fundamental claim of the article fails WP:V. And, judging by the (unreliable) sources found via Google search that discuss the term almost entirely in a sarcastic and mocking way, this article seems to be an attempt to parody and belittle other kinds of "privilege" articles. There's no reason Wikipedia should participate in this effort, and it's disappointing to see any editor !voting keep here. Bakazaka ( talk) 03:57, 2 May 2019 (UTC) reply
I'd say that's a bit speculative, and I'd AGF by default, but you're right about the quality of these sources. I've revised my !vote. — Rutebega ( talk) 04:38, 2 May 2019 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate 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. -- RoySmith (talk) 13:16, 9 May 2019 (UTC) reply

Justin H. Min

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

This is just another WP:BLP1E because this actor's only significant role is his named role in The Umbrella Academy, which in turn fails WP:NACTOR for which Criteria 1 requires multiple notable productions. Jalen D. Folf (talk) 22:16, 16 April 2019 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. IntoThinAir ( talk) 22:29, 16 April 2019 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 05:08, 17 April 2019 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 05:09, 17 April 2019 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Photography-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 05:09, 17 April 2019 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 05:12, 17 April 2019 (UTC) reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, B dash ( talk) 05:31, 24 April 2019 (UTC) reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Disagreement here is focused over the multiple performances requirement in NACTOR
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Nosebagbear ( talk) 21:15, 1 May 2019 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. —  JJMC89 ( T· C) 00:29, 9 May 2019 (UTC) reply

Inxeption

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

Pr type sources, routine announcements. Fails WP:SIGCOV. Was soft deleted last month with the article more or less being the same as it was then THEFlint Shrubwood ( talk) 21:08, 1 May 2019 (UTC) reply


Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 21:36, 1 May 2019 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 21:36, 1 May 2019 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 21:36, 1 May 2019 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 21:36, 1 May 2019 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 21:37, 1 May 2019 (UTC) reply
  • Delete. I do not believe that this company passes WP:CORP. The sources in the article, and that I can find, all seem to be press-release-generated routine coverage in niche blockchain and tech startup publications. Phil Bridger ( talk) 11:33, 2 May 2019 (UTC) reply
  • Weak delete: (on balance) People wanting to keep (and me!) should ensure they've signed and read WP:THREE. The first three cites supported the current claims in the first sentence appear to be press releases. Demery, Paul (currently 4th) may be a candidate for notability. Various others lead to press releases and on some the cites are not suitably embellished with e.g. ad 'id' to lead me to the relevant part of the article. Might be WP:TOOSOON, not helped by oozing blockchain everywhere(though perhaps a good application of it), and I've not rigorously checked every reference - Burnson then Garrity might be the next best. The summary Added new information on didn't help me understand what was new as I have not baseline. Too hard to look further. Djm-leighpark ( talk) 12:13, 2 May 2019 (UTC) reply
  • Keep: Meets WP:THREE. "Demery, Paul" (now 1st), Burnson, Petersson, Benton, and Garrity may be candidates for notability. I'm not familiar with the other coverage Aesop4000 ( talk) 18:50, 2 May 2019 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. North America 1000 00:03, 9 May 2019 (UTC) reply

Dominic Smith (editor)

Dominic Smith (editor) (  | 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. Article an unsourced stub with no subject notability since its 2007 creation. Scant third-party content is mainly outdated press releases and promotional interviews, while any coverage about his tenure with (now defunct) Nuts magazine has centered more on the publication itself. sixtynine • whaddya want? • 20:06, 1 May 2019 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 20:33, 1 May 2019 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Journalism-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 20:33, 1 May 2019 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. North America 1000 23:58, 8 May 2019 (UTC) reply

Slaughter of the Bluegrass

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

Band with questionable notability, apparently has yet to even have an official release. Wgolf ( talk) 19:47, 1 May 2019 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 20:34, 1 May 2019 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sweden-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 20:34, 1 May 2019 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 20:34, 1 May 2019 (UTC) reply
  • Delete - IMO this is an A7 speedy candidate, in fact, in spite of its being a few years old. I find no sources in Swedish, apart from the current version of their official website (which almost doesn't qualify as Swedish - it is amazingly poorly written) and that doesn't actually have any info about the band... There are a couple of mentions of them in lineups of bands at festivals, the most recent one from 2009. I'd say "won't happen anytime ever". -- bonadea contributions talk 15:40, 2 May 2019 (UTC) reply
  • Delete Poor references given. Has issues with WP:GNG Benleg4000 ( talk) 18:45, 3 May 2019 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. —  JJMC89 ( T· C) 00:28, 9 May 2019 (UTC) reply

Twig the Fairy

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

Definitely WP:PROMO issues, only one possibly reliable source out of the three listed. Tagged for WP:ADV and WP:NPOV since 2013. Lacks notability outside Renaissance fair scene in the midwest (if that). Bkissin ( talk) 18:27, 1 May 2019 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. QueerEcofeminist "cite! even if you fight"!!! [they/them/their] 18:40, 1 May 2019 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. QueerEcofeminist "cite! even if you fight"!!! [they/them/their] 18:40, 1 May 2019 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. North America 1000 23:53, 8 May 2019 (UTC) reply

Tudor Tarts

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

Orphan page of renaissance fair performers that would not be considered notable outside of niche local setting. Used as WP:OSE excuse in ongoing AfC debates. Bkissin ( talk) 18:24, 1 May 2019 (UTC) reply

  • Delete - Of the references present in the article, only the one from the The Austin Chronicle could be argued to be reliable, and the coverage there is too brief to establish notability on its own. Searching for other sources has turned up nothing of.note. Rorshacma ( talk) 18:47, 1 May 2019 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Texas-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 19:00, 1 May 2019 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete and redirect to Adventist Health. Even after work was done, the concerns about the source quality (and thus notability, as notability hinges in large part on source quality per WP:SIGCOV) are unaddressed. Closing as "Delete and redirect" as both options have been floated here. Jo-Jo Eumerus ( talk, contributions) 06:59, 10 May 2019 (UTC) reply

Adventist Health Hanford

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

Apparently non-notable health centre; sourcing consists of a press-release and a brief listing on the website of the California Hospital Association. There's no in-depth coverage in independent reliable sources that I'm able to see. I tried redirecting it, then proposed a merge, both have been reverted.

This is part of what appears to be an extensive programme of promotion of various non-notable units of Adventist Health carried out by a number of WP:COI editors. This may not be the only one of those that doesn't merit an article here. Justlettersandnumbers ( talk) 18:15, 1 May 2019 (UTC) reply

- see WP:MERCY - Epinoia ( talk) 20:13, 8 May 2019 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Health and fitness-related deletion discussions. QueerEcofeminist "cite! even if you fight"!!! [they/them/their] 18:44, 1 May 2019 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. QueerEcofeminist "cite! even if you fight"!!! [they/them/their] 18:44, 1 May 2019 (UTC) reply
  • Delete - references are not significant, "Adventist Yearbook," "Becker's Hospital Review," "Adventist World" and some minor newspapers - Adventist Health Hanford is covered in the Adventist Health article - not notable enough for a stand-alone article under WP:ORG - (in fact probably most or all of the separate articles for hospitals listed in Adventist Health should be deleted) - Epinoia ( talk) 03:26, 7 May 2019 (UTC) reply
- or Redirect to Adventist Health where it is already listed - Epinoia ( talk) 03:28, 7 May 2019 (UTC) reply

@ Epinoia: I added new references to Adventist Health Hanford. Like U. S. News & World Report; USA Today; Angie's List; The Business Journal; Blue Shield of California Foundation & ABC30. Catfurball ( talk) 20:19, 8 May 2019 (UTC) reply

- still pretty sketchy - not enough to satisgy WP:ORGSIG, "any significant or demonstrable effects on culture, society, entertainment, athletics, economies, history, literature, science, or education." - Epinoia ( talk) 20:25, 8 May 2019 (UTC) reply
  • Delete. This looks like a run-of-the-mill hospital with nothing special about it. The sources are numerous, but of low-quality. I looked at two of the newly added sources in particular. US N&WR is just a directory listing. USA Today is just a database listing with the sorts of generic hospital-related stats you'd expect in a database. Fails WP:NCORP. I'm OK with a redirect, per WP:CHEAP. -- RoySmith (talk) 13:23, 9 May 2019 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. North America 1000 23:50, 8 May 2019 (UTC) reply

Sideshow Bennie

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

A largely promotional article on a non-notable performer. The sources being used in the article are pretty useless for establishing notability. One is not even about the individual, and the other is a defunct link to a "Fly by Night" entertainment, which appears to have just been a booking agency. Searching for more sources turns up nothing that would allow the article to meet the requirements of a biographical article. His name is mentioned in the acknowledgements of a few texts, and a few hits come up that are merely schedules of performances at a couple of events, and that's about it. Rorshacma ( talk) 17:45, 1 May 2019 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Dance-related deletion discussions. CASSIOPEIA( talk) 17:50, 1 May 2019 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Magic-related deletion discussions. CASSIOPEIA( talk) 17:50, 1 May 2019 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Tennessee-related deletion discussions. CASSIOPEIA( talk) 17:50, 1 May 2019 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. North America 1000 23:47, 8 May 2019 (UTC) reply

ScreenRacer

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

A screen saver program that does not appear to have any notability. The references used currently in the article are either primary sources, or unreliable sources such as forum posts. Doing searches for additional sources have turned up nothing. Rorshacma ( talk) 17:06, 1 May 2019 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. CASSIOPEIA( talk) 17:21, 1 May 2019 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. CASSIOPEIA( talk) 17:21, 1 May 2019 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. —  JJMC89 ( T· C) 00:27, 9 May 2019 (UTC) reply

Something in the Water (music festival)

Something in the Water (music 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)

In agreement with the issue templates of notability and self-published sources, files this one under WP:TOOSOON. Maybe next year if it becomes an annual event. (And please, don't think lineup appearances equal notability because it does not.) I do think it could stand to be merged with Pharrell Williams though. Trillfendi ( talk) 16:08, 1 May 2019 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. CASSIOPEIA( talk) 17:04, 1 May 2019 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. CASSIOPEIA( talk) 17:04, 1 May 2019 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. CASSIOPEIA( talk) 17:04, 1 May 2019 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Virginia-related deletion discussions. CASSIOPEIA( talk) 17:04, 1 May 2019 (UTC) reply
  • Soft delete - WP:TOOSOON - only one season - three of the references are to the festival's website and one was a press release, so no significant coverage - does not meet WP:EVENT at this point, but may gain notability in the future and be eligible for refund - Epinoia ( talk) 02:43, 7 May 2019 (UTC) reply
  • Delete. Agree with the above. "Hard" deletion should be preferred as most of the text in the article was either sourced from PR material or copyright-infringing (see article history), so we're not actually losing anything by deleting it (eg. editors' time and effort), while providing a future editor a clean slate to write on that's free of copy-vio and PR cruft. François Robere ( talk) 20:25, 8 May 2019 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate 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. T. Canens ( talk) 06:35, 9 May 2019 (UTC) reply

Baid

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

I'm bringing this to AfD for the following reason: Yesterday this was an unsourced stub that made no sense. I PRODed it and another editor deprodded it and added back in a lot of material from an earlier version that substantially increased its length and provided refs. My concern is that in previous months there have been a number of articles at AfD about Indian castes, which if I recall correctly were all deleted as the sources were regarded as unreliable. This article looks like another one in a long run of similar articles using the same sources. Perhaps editors who have taken part in previous AfD discussions in the field or have expert knowledge could indicate whether this should be kept or not. Mccapra ( talk) 11:12, 17 April 2019 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Ethnic groups-related deletion discussions. Icewhiz ( talk) 11:38, 17 April 2019 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Icewhiz ( talk) 11:38, 17 April 2019 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. Icewhiz ( talk) 11:38, 17 April 2019 (UTC) reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 15:26, 24 April 2019 (UTC) reply
  • Delete or possibly Redirect to Paddy field - of the five sources currently listed, citations 1 and 2 come from the British Raj era and are known to be unreliable, 4 and 5 relate to an alternative meaning concerning paddy fields, and 3 (see here) doesn't seem to mention them on the cited page nor via the GBooks in-text search. Even if they do appear somewhere in citation 3, I strongly suspect from our own text that it would be a passing mention. We have been going round in circles on this article for years now. - Sitush ( talk) 05:10, 29 April 2019 (UTC) reply
  • Just struck out my !vote above as there is a possible third option. If we remove the opening, unsourced statement that it is a gotra (roughly, a clan) and adjust the categories accordingly then the article may be valid as a description of medical practitioners but somewhat WP:DICDEF. - Sitush ( talk) 05:15, 29 April 2019 (UTC) reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Kpg jhp jm 15:53, 1 May 2019 (UTC) reply
  • Delete - WP:GOOGLEHITS says, "a lack of search engine hits may only indicate that the topic is highly specialized or not generally sourceable via the internet" - in the case of Baid, the group is so obscure that I could find no references to Baid as a caste, only to baid as agricultural highland - there is a caste called Baidya, but they are in a different area - therefore, does not meet WP:GNG and therefore, Delete - while it seems sad that a group of people should be consigned to obscurity simply because no one has written about them, Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information WP:IINFO - perhaps someone needs to create a List of Hindu castes so that there is a place for groups like this - it feels like some kind of informational genocide to eradicate a group of people - Epinoia ( talk) 02:35, 7 May 2019 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate 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 RuPaul's Drag Race (season 6). Numerically, a close call, but considering the previous AfD, the amount of socking, and the fact that arguments for keeping failed to explain how this meets WP:N, I'm going to revert this back to the redirect from the last AfD. -- RoySmith (talk) 14:29, 9 May 2019 (UTC) reply

April Carrión

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

And yet another non-notable performer outside the series. Zero in-depth coverage outside their involvement with the show. Onel5969 TT me 15:31, 1 May 2019 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. Ceethekreator ( talk) 15:41, 1 May 2019 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Puerto Rico-related deletion discussions. Ceethekreator ( talk) 15:41, 1 May 2019 (UTC) reply
  • Keep That consensus was too small to make a clear decision on - literally only 3 people voted. The amount of sources, the amount of media appearances and the amount of fans and following is THE EXACT SAME of most if not all of the other RPDR queens with pages. The truly pointless thing is to have this afd at all because there is no reason this queen shouldn't have a page. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2600:6c5d:5880:38:493d:61a8:1ff0:e605 ( talk) IP editor has zero edits outside the article and this AfD. Onel 5969 TT me 16:10, 1 May 2019 (UTC) reply
That little comment from Onel is a complete false fact. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2600:6c5d:5880:38:493d:61a8:1ff0:e605 ( talk)
  • Keep per GNG. There's already content about projects other than RPDR. Article should be expanded and improved -- would make a nice Collaboration of the Month for WikiProject RuPaul's Drag Race. --- Another Believer ( Talk) 16:02, 1 May 2019 (UTC) reply
  • Keep, per above and because subject is notable. There are numerous secondary sources and the article is well referenced. Ikjbagl ( talk) 17:24, 1 May 2019 (UTC) reply
  • Redirect - I'm not putting in bold because I haven't done another BEFORE but it appears there's no new element to suggest notability since we were here about 6 months ago (when I did do a full BEFORE). At that time there wasn't coverage about Carrion there was coverage about Ru Paul's Drag Race where Carrion was mentioned. As such I'm not seeing any new evidence to suggest that it shouldn't have the same outcome as with the first nomination. Best, Barkeep49 ( talk) 22:45, 1 May 2019 (UTC) reply
And I should make clear I'm not seeing notability from the song that they sung which appears to be the only substantive change. Best, Barkeep49 ( talk) 22:46, 1 May 2019 (UTC) reply
I've now done enough looking to suggest that notability hasn't been established since the last AfD and so it should continue to be a redirect. Best, Barkeep49 ( talk) 23:09, 8 May 2019 (UTC) reply
  • Delete. Non-notable individual. I'm a little concerned about the coverage for RPDR in general - it seems we have a few very passionate fans of the show who are very hard at work covering every aspect of the show here on Wikipedia. A lot of it is WP:FANCRUFT, which is all well and good at rupaulsdragrace.fandom.com, but it doesn't belong here. As well as the contestants, there have recently been some articles for individual episodes created which I'm pretty sure don't meet the notability guidelines. I'm also a little concerned about the wikiproject. I know this isn't quite WP:CANVASSING, but it could certainly skew the discussion and lead to WP:VOTESTACKING. -- wooden superman 12:14, 2 May 2019 (UTC) reply
    Woodensuperman, I understand your concerns about canvassing, but simply posting links to AfD pages at a relevant WikiProject should not be problematic, especially when WikiProject RuPaul's Drag Race members have been perfectly willing to vote merge/redirect in past discussions (see example1 and example2). I think you should actually assume good faith and welcome editors most familiar with the subjects to participate in the ongoing discussions, thanks. --- Another Believer ( Talk) 13:49, 2 May 2019 (UTC) reply
    I'll also add that this is not someone who was just on the show and didn't have a career afterwards. The person was on at least three TV shows, in a movie, and has been in music videos. I'll admit that I do think there is too much information on her time on Drag Race; we don't need to record that she won a sewing challenge. But it's flat out wrong to say that she isn't notable. Ikjbagl ( talk) 23:49, 2 May 2019 (UTC) reply
  • Delete per nom and WP:NACTOR. Then recreate and redirect to RuPaul's Drag Race (season 6) per the last deletion discussion, so the consensus can't be immediately and unilaterally undone like it was after the last discussion. - GretLomborg ( talk) 21:55, 8 May 2019 (UTC) reply
    The person passes 2/3 of the points in NACTOR, so she is notable. - 2600:6c5d:5880:38:493d:61a8:1ff0:e605
We'll have to disagree, then. Also are you User:Ratherbe2000, 2600:6c5d:5880:38:493d:61a8:1ff0:e605? - GretLomborg ( talk) 23:04, 8 May 2019 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate 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. T. Canens ( talk) 06:31, 9 May 2019 (UTC) reply

T. J. Allard

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

Only claim to notability was winning a contest for a role on a local daytime talk show. Only one RS article, regarding that contest. Emmys cited were regional (not national) Emmys, and he was an Editor on a large team ( and not in a major/lead role) for those. Article appears to have been originally created by a WP:UPE firm. BubbaJoe123456 ( talk) 13:59, 1 May 2019 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. CASSIOPEIA( talk) 14:44, 1 May 2019 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. CASSIOPEIA( talk) 14:44, 1 May 2019 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. CASSIOPEIA( talk) 14:44, 1 May 2019 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. CASSIOPEIA( talk) 14:44, 1 May 2019 (UTC) reply

As per WP:NPOV You stated he was an “Editor on a large team (not major/lead role)” He was never listed as an editor and what constitutes a “large team”? That term is subjective and thus not neutral.

As per WP:RSP He was the correspondent for a NATIONAL TV show called "Good Day Live" not a local show as you state, so that is a false statement. You have stated that he was an editor which is completely wrong. He was a producer and a supervising producer nominated for two other Emmy awards. As sourced in the links below.

As per WP:CITEIMDB IMDB *CAN* be also be used as a secondary and tertiary source of other verified sources. IMDB awards require 3rd party site verification such as links to the NATIONAL ACADEMY OF TELEVISION ARTS & SCIENCES website with the nominations and wins for Emmy awards can also be checked.

As per WP:NPOV He was also the supervising producer for over 100 hours of TV show which has been verified on IMDB as Emmy award nominations and wins are verified before published. https://help.imdb.com/article/contribution/other-submission-guides/awards/G5KGRJURZFQGHJQH?ref_=helpms_helpart_inline#

As Per WP:ANYBIO - He is the Hall of Fame for the Mohawk Valley, in New York State.

2 colleges list him as notable alumni.

Hartwick College https://alumnius.net/hartwick_college-10105-5#id7721880

Suny IT (NYS University Publication) (full article on page 4)

https://dspace.sunyconnect.suny.edu/bitstream/handle/1951/66520/BridgeSpring2014.pdf?sequence=1&isAllowed=y

He is a spokesman and journalist for the Entertainment Consumer Association. (The ECA - A Gamer’s Advocacy Group) http://www.theeca.com/videos

Other Sources as per WP:RSP

https://nypost.com/2004/12/02/starr-report-854/

http://www.uticaod.net/site_html/SPECIAL_CONTENT/halloffame/entertainment/allard_tj.htm

https://www.engadget.com/2010/06/30/nbc-working-on-video-game-show-pilot-for-primetime/

Nomination as the SUPERVISING PRODUCER for NBC’s “Open House NYC” September 30, 2012

https://www.nyemmys.org/media/files/files/4e69a49d/2014_NY_Emmy_Nominees_Press_Release_November_4_2016_2_._docx.pdf

Emmy Nomination as SUPERVISING PRODUCER for “Foundations: The Frick Collection”. February 1, 2013. (COZI-TV). TJ Allard, Supervising Producer

https://www.nyemmys.org/media/files/files/4e69a49d/2014_NY_Emmy_Nominees_Press_Release_November_4_2016_2_._docx.pdf

Here is the 1st article where he became the on-camera host for a NATIONAL SHOW not Local as previously stated.

https://www.broadcastingcable.com/news/good-day-live-taps-allard-74873

IMDB link with verified credits and awards.

https://www.imdb.com/name/nm1271121/

( Ramniram ( talk) 05:23, 4 May 2019 (UTC)) reply

  • Comment For his two regional (not national) Emmys, he was a Field Producer/Videographer for the first (misread it, not editor, but still not a showrunner/leadership role) on a team with at least 14 people, and a Segment Producer (misread it, not editor, but still not a showrunner/leadership role) on a team of at least 11 for the second. Again, these are regional awards, not national, so their contribution to notability is dubious at best. BubbaJoe123456 ( talk) 12:39, 8 May 2019 (UTC) reply
  • Comment Ramniram has been blocked as a sock puppet. Something to consider when assessing their vote here. BubbaJoe123456 ( talk) 21:54, 8 May 2019 (UTC) reply
  • Comment I'm not going to !vote here because (being in Europe) I can't view all of the sources. The article's current sourcing is a real mess - BubbaJoe123456 is right, the only source that might come close to WP:RS is the NYPost article, which I can't read. Stuff like IMDB is UGC, it's not considered when assessing notability. University newspapers and the like are also generally excluded (since they have an obvious interest in puffing their alumni). What was should be looking for is significant coverage in independent reliable sources that would get him over WP:GNG - I'm not seeing that in the links provided by Ramniram above, and I'm not finding any using Google, but it's possible that a careful search with different search terms might throw something up (his apparent preference for intials rather than a first name makes searching a bit more complicated.) GirthSummit (blether) 09:32, 4 May 2019 (UTC) reply
  • Comment There was a discussion elsewhere about Wiki and this conversation was referenced as an example of the editing process. I'm finding it curious that this page is flagged, as so many other Wikipedia pages are about people with far fewer notable accomplishments. Joe Brown was a minor league ball player ( /info/en/?search=Joe_Brown_(third_baseman)). Clicking on 'random article' from the Wiki page told me that "Canadian New Zealanders" are people from New Zealand who came from Canada - and lists a few. Given that Wikipedia is a mix of interesting of both little known and extremely relevant facts, it seems odd that someone would suggest that this page is less deserving than others. I don't live in the NY area so I wouldn't have seen any local NY TV. But yet, I was familar with "Good Day Live" from national syndication. It's easy to find proof that it was national ( https://www.radiodiscussions.com/showthread.php?705229-Retro-Lexington-NC-Tuesday-May-18-2004) so it's odd that anyone would dismiss it as a "role on a local daytime talk show". I don't remember the show being very good, but it was certainly more than a local NY daytime show. The page appears to have verifiable information. Why should it bother anyone that it's here? Baldy672 ( talk) 07:10, 5 May 2019 (UTC) reply
@ Baldy672: This isn't the place for a generalised discussion of our Deletion policy. Very briefly, pages are supposed to be verifiable by being supported by reliable sources, and the subject needs to be demonstrable notable. This page, in its current state, is very poorly sourced - if possible, it should be improved; if it can't be improved because there aren't any better sources, then our policy is to delete it. As for other articles being in a worse state, that's a bit of a non-argument - see WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS. There are a limited number of editors, and we're all volunteers - the existence of other problematic pages isn't a reason for us to ignore the problems with this one. GirthSummit (blether) 14:09, 5 May 2019 (UTC) reply
  • Improve or delete per Girth Summit. There's nothing in the article in its current form to show notability. Better sources may exist, but I couldn't find anything beyond what's been posted in this mess of a discussion. @ Girth Summit: The NY Post article has a single sentence about him, in a "last but not least" section of footnotes of other stories. —⁠ 烏⁠Γ ( kaw) │ 19:50, 05 May 2019 (UTC) reply
Thanks KarasuGamma. A single sentence does not amount to substantial coverage - this article needs better sources, or it needs to go. This is no kind of judgment on the subject or his career - it's purely a judgment on the extent to which he's been written about in reliable, independent secondary sources. GirthSummit (blether) 21:00, 5 May 2019 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Draftify. Clear consensus that this doesn't belong in mainspace, especially considering that the keep arguments are not based on policy. Opinions differ on exactly how to get it out of mainspace, but draft seems like a reasonable compromise. -- RoySmith (talk) 14:38, 9 May 2019 (UTC) reply

Rupaali Biswas

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

unellected candidates are not normally notable. Only notable for one election. Slatersteven ( talk) 13:57, 1 May 2019 (UTC) reply

First of all thank you for inviting the discussion. I like to inform you that this person may pass the notability criterion because of she is the youngest candidate of Member of Parliament in West Bengal and one of the youngest in India for 2019 General Election. At the time of filing nomination she was 25 yrs 8 days whereas the eligibility of candidature comes at 25! This was covered by number of national newslinks. I am requesting you to reconsider the article. thanking you. Pinakpani ( talk) 14:07, 1 May 2019 (UTC) reply
The problem is I am not sure that does pass our notability requirements. If she gets elected that would be different, but (in effect) anyone can stand if they meet the requirements (and as far as I can tell she did not choose to stand, she was told she was standing). Slatersteven ( talk) 14:26, 1 May 2019 (UTC) reply
You are right Sir, Actually the MP election is the highest level polling system of India and this person is contesting as one of the youngest candidate among the ‎545 seats. Anyway I can only request for just 21 days (23rd May) for the result of such election. If the candidate will loose, the article may be deleted. Thank you. Pinakpani ( talk) 14:37, 1 May 2019 (UTC) reply
That is not how it works, it can be recreated if she is elected, we do not keep articles on the off chance someone might become notable.
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. Ceethekreator ( talk) 15:43, 1 May 2019 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bangladesh-related deletion discussions. Ceethekreator ( talk) 15:43, 1 May 2019 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Worldbruce ( talk) 00:52, 2 May 2019 (UTC) reply
  • Keep I think being one of the youngest female candidates for Lok Sabha adds weight to her claim. Also, she is widow of an MLA who was shot dead. I feel (and I might be wrong), this article should be kept. Exploreandwrite ( talk) 09:56, 2 May 2019 (UTC) reply
  • Delete. People do not get Wikipedia articles just for being candidates in elections they have not yet won — and neither her age nor her gender automatically make her a special case over and above most other candidates, because if she loses there won't be any enduring interest in those distinctions anymore. To already be eligible for an article today, she would need to be able to show that she was already notable enough for an article for some other reason (e.g. as a writer, as an actress, as an athlete, etc.) besides running as a candidate. Obviously if she wins the seat, then an article about her can be recreated at that time as her notability claim will have changed from candidate to actual officeholder — but holding it in draftspace isn't necessary in the meantime, as we also have the ability to restore deleted articles in the future if things change. We do not keep candidate articles pending the election results just because the candidate might win — we wait until the ballots have been counted, and only then do we start articles about the people who did win. Bearcat ( talk) 23:37, 3 May 2019 (UTC) reply
  • Keep Actually Rupali Biswas had been the party candidate from Ranaghat Lok Sabha seat. The MP election is the highest level polling system of India and Biswas is contesting as one of the youngest candidate among the ‎545 seats. The article passes the Notability and should be kept. - MA Javadi ( talk) 20:16, 7 May 2019 (UTC) reply
  • Redirect to 2019 Indian general election in West Bengal as usual outcome for candidates who have not won their election. If the subject is elected, then the article can be recreated. -- Enos733 ( talk) 04:30, 8 May 2019 (UTC) reply
  • Keep The article passes WP:GNG and has reliable sources.-- SalmanZ ( talk) 23:47, 8 May 2019 (UTC) reply
  • Redirect per Enos733. I agree with Bearcat's description of the situation, although we have a logical redirection target in this case, so full deletion isn't necessary. —⁠ 烏⁠Γ ( kaw) │ 23:59, 08 May 2019 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate 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 because this is a juvenile version, with blatantly false content, of what we already have at Big Chungus. Uncle G ( talk) 15:23, 1 May 2019 (UTC) reply

Big Chungus the 1st

Big Chungus the 1st (  | 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 nominated this for CSD as a hoax, but some parts of it may be real. But some of it is very Hoaxy. Slatersteven ( talk) 13:55, 1 May 2019 (UTC) reply

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

The result was delete. —  JJMC89 ( T· C) 00:24, 9 May 2019 (UTC) reply

Saurav L. Chaudhari

Saurav L. Chaudhari (  | 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:PROF, WP:NAUTHOR, and WP:GNG. This is another entry from a promotional editing team we have yet to crack down on. Chris Troutman ( talk) 13:20, 1 May 2019 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. Chris Troutman ( talk) 13:21, 1 May 2019 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. Chris Troutman ( talk) 13:21, 1 May 2019 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Chris Troutman ( talk) 13:21, 1 May 2019 (UTC) reply
  • Delete: I concur with OP, this fails notability criteria, and given all the apparent socking surrounding it, I also concur that this involves a paid editing ring. Waggie ( talk) 14:26, 1 May 2019 (UTC) reply
  • Do not delete it == References are available — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ghost753699 ( talk • contribs) 2019-05-01T14:13:42 (UTC)
User Ghost753699 is a sockpuppet with no other edits except to this AFD. Sandals1 ( talk) 15:46, 1 May 2019 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was merge to National Wrestling Federation. There's been some weird process here. In particular, please don't move drafts to mainspace just so you can nominate them for deletion. If you think a draft should be deleted, nominate it in-place via WP:MfD. But, more to the point, if you think something is not notable, don't even make it into a draft. Drafts are for things you expect to develop into real articles.

There's obviously disagreement about how this topic should be covered. There's clear consensus of the participants in this AfD that the 1986-1994 material should be covered in the main article, hence the merge. Moab12 obviously disagrees, and since K.e.coffman declined the draft, he apparently disagrees that it's notable on its own. So, after the merge, I suggest everybody get over to Talk:National Wrestling Federation and hash out their concerns. This is fundamentally a content dispute, which AfD doesn't get involved with. If you can't come to consensus on the talk page, availing yourselves of WP:3O might be a way forward. -- RoySmith (talk) 13:02, 9 May 2019 (UTC) reply

National Wrestling Federation (1986-1994)

National Wrestling Federation (1986-1994) (  | 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 professional wrestling promotion. Moab12 ( talk) 10:18, 24 April 2019 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Wrestling-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 11:42, 24 April 2019 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 11:42, 24 April 2019 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Pennsylvania-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 11:43, 24 April 2019 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 11:43, 24 April 2019 (UTC) reply
  • Simply because two entities share the same name does not mean they should share the same article, see Wikipedia:Disambiguation. I created the "new" article to disambiguate the original NWF from the completely unrelated NWF. I find this to be the simplest way to have a deletion discussion on the NWF I believe is non notable, as it would confuse everyone to have a deletion discussion that only refers to half an article. Moab12 ( talk) 13:44, 24 April 2019 (UTC) reply
  • It's been removed before, but since it's been stable in the article since August 2011 I figure it's best to have some sort of discussion rather than arbitrarily delete the content. I don't see it matters much whether we had the discussion here, the article's talk page or at WT:PW, this venue seemed more appropriate to me. Moab12 ( talk) 14:49, 24 April 2019 (UTC) reply
  • That might be the case, but have the conversation, first. AFD is not the right place to have a conversation about content located within an article, which this is a back-door way of doing. MPJ-DK you might have some comments to add to this discussion since you removed it like 10 years ago. - Galatz גאליץ שיחה Talk 15:51, 24 April 2019 (UTC) reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Kpg jhp jm 12:15, 1 May 2019 (UTC) reply
  • This is the right place to have this discussion. Either this organisation is notable enough for its own article, or it isn't and it should be deleted. We don't merge unrelated organisations into one article because they share the same name. Moab12 ( talk) 06:17, 2 May 2019 (UTC) reply
  • This seems grossly wrong. The article was split to a new article; which you should only have done if you felt it did meet GNG. In this case, it's a content dispute, which should go with a regular consensus building talk. To be honest, it's quite likely the promotion in question probably is notable; so the discussion is a bit moot. The fact that the companies aren't the same makes no difference to if it should be in the same article. This should be closed and potentially merged/redirected. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski ( talk • contribs) 08:24, 2 May 2019 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate 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. RL0919 ( talk) 12:03, 8 May 2019 (UTC) reply

Bryce Bafford

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

Article fails both WP:GNG and WP:NFOOTY. Article about subject who has not played in a professional association football league nor represented his country at senior or Olympic level. Simione001 ( talk) 11:37, 1 May 2019 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. Simione001 ( talk) 11:39, 1 May 2019 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. Simione001 ( talk) 11:40, 1 May 2019 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 13:26, 1 May 2019 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 13:27, 1 May 2019 (UTC) reply

Delete Mr. Bafford has only played on the Brisbane Roar NPL. Until he plays a game for the the Brisbane Roar FC, he is not notable enough to merit his own article, per WP:NSOCCER and WP:FPL. Balon Greyjoy ( talk) 13:47, 1 May 2019 (UTC) reply

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate 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 Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 14:35, 1 May 2019 (UTC) reply

Leslie Kolodziejski

Leslie Kolodziejski (  | 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 sources in this article are WP:INDEPENDENT of the subject... even though some claims of notability may seem to adhere to WP:PROF guide. But a guideline cannot trump a core policy like WP:Verifiability#Notability which says If no reliable independent sources can be found on a topic, Wikipedia should not have an article on it and further clarified at WP:Notability under WP:NRV: there must be verifiable, objective evidence that the subject has received significant attention from independent sources to support a claim of notability. For example, the sources used to mention being a Fellow of The Optical Society are from MIT (the subject's employer) and the OSA itself. Neither of these sources are independent of Kolodziejski, have a clear vested interest in them, are promotional in nature, and so notability is not established using them. Also, although somewhat downplayed, WP:PROF#General notes agrees with this requirement mentioning about: one or more of the notability criteria above have been verified through independent sources. -- Netoholic @ 11:59, 1 May 2019 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the Article Rescue Squadron's list of content for rescue consideration. Andrew D. ( talk) 11:51, 1 May 2019 (UTC) reply
  • What a load of croc. An award is given by the conferring organisation. This is the best source for factual truth. Who in hell thinks this is about vested interest. When you consider an organisation that confers awards not reliable, go elsewhere. Thanks, GerardM ( talk) 11:41, 1 May 2019 (UTC) reply
    The link to the OSA primary source is reliable, but alone does not establish WP:Notability because it is not WP:INDEPENDENT. Per WP:SPIP: Publication in a reliable source is not always good evidence of notability and Independent sources are also needed to guarantee a neutral article can be written. -- Netoholic @ 11:48, 1 May 2019 (UTC) reply
A non-independent source would be Leslie Kolodziejski writing about herself, or a close associate/family member writing a self-published text. The OSA is a large professional society; they do not have an "axe to grind" when it comes to Kolodziesjki, and stating which scientists the OSA conferred a fellowship upon is not self-promotion by Kolodziejski, nor by the OSA; it is a simple statement of fact. None of the reasons for having WP:IS (as spelled out quite clearly in the opening paragraphs there) apply. You appear to be really deep into WP:FORCEDINTERPRET territory here. Markus Pössel ( talk) 12:04, 1 May 2019 (UTC) reply
  • Speedy keep. Elected fellowship of this learned society is not a self-promotional activity, and the criteria are public [2]. This satisfies in itself WP:ACADEMIC but the named chairs strengthen the case to make it totally unambiguous. DWeir ( talk) 11:39, 1 May 2019 (UTC) reply
  • Keep - I made this page. Hi again Netoholic She's a Professor at MIT, which alone would warrant a page if she was a man. Where would you expect to write about someone becoming a Fellow of the OSA, other than the OSA and the MIT site? Jesswade88 ( talk) 11:42, 1 May 2019 (UTC) reply
  • Keep. I share Netoholic's WP:BLP concerns here regarding sourcing and use of sources. I don't think she passes GNG per my BEFORE. I am uncertain whether OSA Fellow is sufficient for NPROF(3) (it very well might however). Running through her publications (h-index of around 17? though not first named author on the highly-cited ones) NPROF(1) seems plausible (need to further evaluate). However, by previously holding a named-chair in MIT she passes NPROF(5). As the subject passes PROF (which does not require GNG), and since Wikipedia:Deletion is not cleanup (in relation to the BLP/sourcing issues) - this is a keep. Icewhiz ( talk) 11:50, 1 May 2019 (UTC) reply
    @ Icewhiz: There must be an independent source out there that says that she was a named-chair in MIT... right? -- Netoholic @ 12:02, 1 May 2019 (UTC) reply
Yes, there is a source independent of Leslie Kolodziejski stating that fact, namely MIT itself. And you're in blatant violation of WP:POINT, too. Markus Pössel ( talk) 12:09, 1 May 2019 (UTC) reply
MIT is not independent (employer). @ Netoholic: There might (and it might appear in all sorts of journal articles). However, WP:NPROF is different from all other bio SNGs in that it "This guideline is independent from the other subject-specific notability guidelines, such as WP:BIO, WP:MUSIC, WP:AUTH etc. and is explicitly listed as an alternative to the general notability guideline". MIT (as is the Optical Society) is a RS for named chairs by MIT. NPROF doesn't require independent sources. Your argument would have been correct on nearly every other type of bio - however specifically for NPROF - once you can reliability (even with a non-independent primary, yet reliable, source) show the subject passes one of the NPROF criteria - they pass the notability guideline. This may or may not be misguided - however the place to discuss that is in NPROF and the Village pump - not on an individual article. Icewhiz ( talk) 12:11, 1 May 2019 (UTC) reply
@ Icewhiz: WP:Verifiability#Notability is core policy and says "If no reliable independent sources can be found on a topic, Wikipedia should not have an article on it". This article has no independent sources. We should not haven an article on it. I tried repeatedly to leave cleanup tags about this issue. They were removed multiple times, so AfD became the next step. -- Netoholic @ 12:27, 1 May 2019 (UTC) reply
That's really just a placeholder to Wikipedia:Notability which includes WP:NPROF (which doesn't have the requirement). However I can trivallally satisfy independent reliable here - any citation in a journal paper (of which there are quite a few) of one of our subject's journal papers is an independent reliable source. It's a passing mention - but still satisfies that sentence. Icewhiz ( talk) 12:31, 1 May 2019 (UTC) reply
Those are sources forthe work - the author is largely irrelevant and would only be a namedrop. Trivial, indeed.... and they say I am wikilawyering. Wikipedia relies on the concept of "significant coverage" ... not names mentioned in passing. -- Netoholic @ 12:36, 1 May 2019 (UTC) reply
Generally the assertion above is correct. You are incorrect in academic bios - WP:NPROF. You are also incorrect in regards to WP:GEOLAND. Icewhiz ( talk) 12:43, 1 May 2019 (UTC) reply
@ Icewhiz: Netaholic deciding that their personal interpretation trumps specific guidelines like WP:PROF because he perceives them to be in conflict with "core" policies appears to be the main problem here. I've told them that if they find a conflict, the proper way would be to bring it up on the relevant discussion pages and strive for a consensus, but instead they chose to WP:POINT with this AfD here. FWIW, I think you are interpreting WP:IS too narrowly if you place MIT in the same category as Kolodziejski self-published texts or texts by her relatives and friends. None of the rationale laid out in the justification for why we need WP:IS applies here. The criterion is: is the source so dependent on the subject that we must expect undue influence of the subject's own view, self-promotion and other abuses. That is clearly not the case for using MIT as a source about the fact that Kolodziejski held a specific named chair. Markus Pössel ( talk) 12:46, 1 May 2019 (UTC) reply
(Non-administrator comment) @ Markus Pössel: No, they will not; the nomination is sound, a WP:BEFORE has clearly been performed, and now it is being discussed. You are welcome, however, to file at WP:ANI, but be mindful of whether you may be perceived of perhaps having cast aspersions or not assuming good faith. Happy editing! —— SerialNumber 54129 12:07, 1 May 2019 (UTC) reply
I assume administrators will decide themselves whether to look into this, but thank you for your opinion. I have tried hard to assume good faith, but given the overall pattern, and the user's replies to my pointers to WP:PROF and their explicit statement that they are deliberately setting what is written in WP:PROF, it's getting really, really difficult. Markus Pössel ( talk) 12:14, 1 May 2019 (UTC) reply
Does having a cleanup tag visible for a couple of hours on the day of the article's creation really satisfy WP:BEFORE (in particular, C) and WP:GF? DWeir ( talk) 12:50, 1 May 2019 (UTC) reply
Since before is proven by a nomination and not tags, then, clearly yes. I suggest you read it. Goodbye. —— SerialNumber 54129 12:53, 1 May 2019 (UTC) reply
No, WP:BEFORE C3 has definitely not been followed. There is a (small) discussion raising the notability issue on Talk:Leslie_Kolodziejski, and User:Netoholic has demonstrably not raised his points there, nor participated in any other discussion on that talk page. That is a clear WP:BEFORE fail. Furthermore, User:Netoholic was perfectly aware of the fact that his criteria for nominating this were controversial; I know that because I had just that discussion with him within a few minutes before he decided to make that nomination. Markus Pössel ( talk) 13:26, 1 May 2019 (UTC) reply
@ Serial Number 54129: Also, I have followed your advice that WP:ANI is the proper place to bring this up; thanks! My submission is at Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents#User:Netoholic Markus Pössel ( talk) 13:39, 1 May 2019 (UTC) reply
  • Keep Article is informative and clear, person is sufficiently notable to have been awarded a fellowship (in addition to being a Prof at MIT) therefore I think this article benefits Wikipedia and should stay put JoBrodie ( talk) 12:20, 1 May 2019 (UTC) reply
  • Keep per WP:PROF as mentioned by several individuals above. Netoholic, I'm sensing a trend that your view of notability policy/guidelines are not in line with the general consensus. Maybe take your thoughts to Village Pump rather than repeatedly nominating articles that are not likely to be deleted. Thsmi002 ( talk) 12:44, 1 May 2019 (UTC) reply
  • Keep Page is clear, brief and meets notability criteria (professor at MIT, fellowship winner, an Alfred P. Sloan Foundation award, served on editorial boards, etc.) Soulsinsync ( talk) 13:13, 1 May 2019 (UTC) reply
  • Comment - I have place a notavote template above as this AfD has been publicized outside on Twitter. Icewhiz ( talk) 13:27, 1 May 2019 (UTC) reply
  • Keep per NPROF, whose guidelines make it very difficult to write articles using acceptable sources, but them's the rules. Natureium ( talk) 13:34, 1 May 2019 (UTC) reply
As others have noted here, WP:PROF explicitly states that the sources used here (e.g. statements of a scientific society about who is a fellow) are sufficient to establish that their criteria have been met. Markus Pössel ( talk) 14:01, 1 May 2019 (UTC) reply
  • Keep This obviously meets notability criteria. If the issue is with source independence, make that argument instead. Battleofalma ( talk) 13:40, 1 May 2019 (UTC) reply
  • Keep WP:NACADEMIC states that academics meeting any one of a list of criteria are considered notable. Criterion 3 is "The person is or has been an elected member of a highly selective and prestigious scholarly society or association (e.g., a National Academy of Sciences or the Royal Society) or a fellow of a major scholarly society which reserves fellow status as a highly selective honor (e.g., Fellow of the IEEE)." A Fellow of the IEEE "cannot be applied for directly by the member – instead the candidate must be nominated by others." The Fellow of the Optical Society, is similarly highly selective, as per the wiki page, it requires one to be "nominated by a peer group of other current, OSA Fellows. Review of the nomination is then passed to the OSA Fellow Members Committee." The Optical Society is a "major scholarly society". Thus Leslie Kolodziejski meets WP:NACADEMIC, as do all other Fellows of the Optical Society. In the specific criteria notes on WP:ACADEMIC, it states that "For documenting that a person has been elected member or fellow ... publications of the electing institution are considered a reliable source." Thus the reference given in Leslie Kolodziejski's article is sufficient. Scottkeir ( talk) 13:41, 1 May 2019 (UTC) reply
  • Snow Keep: For some independent coverage of her work, there's [3] and [4], but regardless she clearly satisfies NACADEMIC. (I endorse Thsmi002's comment, though WP:VPP is a waste as there's roughly zero chance of the presumed notability at the SNG being tightened) ~ Hydronium~Hydroxide~ (Talk)~
  • Keep The subject clearly meets the notability criteria and the notice for deletion should be removed immediately. Srsval ( talk) 13:48, 1 May 2019 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was speedy keep. Withdrawing nomination per sources provided (which I was unable to locate when nominating). (non-admin closure) feminist ( talk) 15:55, 2 May 2019 (UTC) reply

Brian McNeill

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

Per concern raised here. I am unable to find WP:SIGCOV of this person. Most search results are about other people with the same name. The best I've been able to find are two NPR interviews conducted by the same person [5] [6], but do they count as independent coverage? feminist ( talk) 11:23, 1 May 2019 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. feminist ( talk) 11:24, 1 May 2019 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Scotland-related deletion discussions. feminist ( talk) 11:24, 1 May 2019 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 13:29, 1 May 2019 (UTC) reply

Weak Delete I sampled enough of the 2 NPR interviews just long enough to determine they are, in fact, the same interview. Lots of lists and performance type stuff, but the best I could find otherwise--and they are fairly weak-- are [7] [8] [9], plus the few sources that have been added since this nomination. All this adds up to something but still seems to be lacking significant RS beyond the niche corner of folk music he seems to occupy. Admittedly, Scottish folk music is not my strong suit so I can be persuaded to change to keep by a good argument from someone who really knows the stuff. At the very least, a redirect to Battlefield_Band would be appropriate. ShelbyMarion ( talk) 13:32, 1 May 2019 (UTC) reply

  • Keep I have added 4 articles about him, and I think there are more, though not all online. I also note that he meets WP:MUSICBIO #5 "Has released two or more albums on a major record label or on one of the more important indie labels (i.e., an independent label with a history of more than a few years, and with a roster of performers, many of whom are independently notable)." He has released 5 albums with Greentrax Recordings (I will add this info to the article, for the relevant albums). (Why should there be SIGCOV beyond "the niche corner of folk music he seems to occupy"? Actually there is, but there are plenty of RS music publications, which are no less relevant for establishing notability for any subject they give significant coverage to, just because they are in the field of music.) RebeccaGreen ( talk) 14:22, 1 May 2019 (UTC) reply
Thanks. You pointing out the label discography convinces me to strike my weak delete. ShelbyMarion ( talk) 14:42, 1 May 2019 (UTC) reply
Thanks, ShelbyMarion, I'm glad it was useful (must remember to add it to the article!). Just wondered if unbolding your redirect suggestion would help the closer? RebeccaGreen ( talk) 04:24, 2 May 2019 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Merge into Sustainable Development Goals and Rio Convention. Jo-Jo Eumerus ( talk, contributions) 07:29, 9 May 2019 (UTC) reply


SDG 14 and the Rio Conventions (  | 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 have read through this article and can find no viable reason for its combination of two independent topics. SDG 14 is already covered in its own section at Sustainable Development Goals, and there is also a separate article for Rio Convention. This article seems to have been created because the author noticed that SDG 14 was discussed at recent Rio Conventions, but many things are discussed at those conventions. The text in this article could be split up and used to enhance those two existing articles. But putting the two topics together in this one article raises issues under the personal essay and original research standards. --- DOOMSDAYER520 ( Talk| Contribs) 15:37, 16 April 2019 (UTC) --- DOOMSDAYER520 ( Talk| Contribs) 15:37, 16 April 2019 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Environment-related deletion discussions. --- DOOMSDAYER520 ( Talk| Contribs) 15:38, 16 April 2019 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. --- DOOMSDAYER520 ( Talk| Contribs) 15:38, 16 April 2019 (UTC) reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Jo-Jo Eumerus ( talk, contributions) 05:30, 24 April 2019 (UTC) reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, –  Joe ( talk) 11:23, 1 May 2019 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate 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. Based on the discussion, it seems like the topic is not notable/there is no evidence that it is notable under either NSCHOOL or GNG. However, with respect to Just Chilling's argument about sources that can't be easily found, this page can be restored if someone can post these sources. Jo-Jo Eumerus ( talk, contributions) 07:26, 9 May 2019 (UTC) reply

Ambedkar College of Education, Periye

Ambedkar College of Education, Periye (  | 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 WP:RS, doesn't qualify WP:NSCHOOL, my searches yield nothing enough to mark this institution notable QueerEcofeminist "cite! even if you fight"!!! [they/them/their] 18:50, 17 April 2019 (UTC) reply

This college is fully affiliated to Kannur University and you can see this college listed as a training college in the University website: http://14.139.185.42/newsite/colleges/ksd%20training%20colleges.htm Prof TPMS ( talk) 22:49, 17 April 2019 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 19:17, 17 April 2019 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 19:17, 17 April 2019 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 19:17, 17 April 2019 (UTC) reply
  • Keep - degree-awarding institution that awards accredited degrees. We keep degree-awarding institutions for the very good reason that experience shows that, with enough research, sources can invariably be found that meet WP:ORG. Google is a very poor tool for finding sources on Indian institutions because, unlike US schools for example, they don't dump everything on the Internet. We must avoid systemic bias and allow time for local sources to be researched since no evidence has been adduced that this college cannot meet notability requirements. Just Chilling ( talk) 01:16, 18 April 2019 (UTC) reply
    Just Chilling,
    I agree with you on limitations of google search engines + limitations of online resources itself, but there are two issues with such articles.
    In the last couple of decades India has seen a flood of educational institutions, especially around teachers training/ D.Ed/B.Ed/etc colleges. many of which have difficulty in surviving since they started.
    A possible way to deal with this would be a new page with Dr. Ambedkar Memorial Educational Trust, which is a parent trust of this institution and few others. this trust has few online sources too. QueerEcofeminist "cite! even if you fight"!!! [they/them/their] 05:37, 18 April 2019 (UTC) reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America 1000 04:23, 24 April 2019 (UTC) reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, –  Joe ( talk) 11:18, 1 May 2019 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate 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. RL0919 ( talk) 12:11, 8 May 2019 (UTC) reply

Missing Iranian oil rig

Missing Iranian oil rig (  | 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 don't think this article meets the notability for Events as it doesn't meet the following Inclusion criteria:

The fact that Reza Mostafavai Tabatabaei made a donation to Donald Trump's campaign doesn't fix the above criteria in my opinion. Shemtovca ( talk) 02:42, 24 April 2019 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 06:30, 24 April 2019 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Iran-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 07:11, 24 April 2019 (UTC) reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, –  Joe ( talk) 11:17, 1 May 2019 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate 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 List of Star Wars books. Xymmax So let it be written So let it be done 01:16, 9 May 2019 (UTC) reply

Riptide(Star Wars Novel)

Riptide(Star Wars Novel) (  | 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:NBOOK - no sources currently, I found a couple of reviews on what appear to be WP:UGC fan sites, but nothing in reliable sources. GirthSummit (blether) 14:24, 17 April 2019 (UTC) reply

well every other star wars book has a page why not this one — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bearbro123 ( talk • contribs) 14:27, 17 April 2019 (UTC) reply
See WP:OTHERSTUFF. Notability in books isn't inherited from the franchise (or author, publisher etc). I see that it is listed at List of Star Wars books, which is fine - but if we don't have enough reliable sources to build an article around, then we shouldn't be writing the article. GirthSummit (blether) 14:37, 17 April 2019 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Science fiction-related deletion discussions. Icewhiz ( talk) 15:04, 17 April 2019 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. Icewhiz ( talk) 15:04, 17 April 2019 (UTC) reply
  • Weak keep While there's a tendency to be more inclusive for popular franchise, sometimes fuelled by fanboy/fangirl attitude (as if Wookiepedia or Memory Alpha or such didn't have that handled well enough already), most SW novels have reviews. But the quality of them is often at blog-level. Still: TheForce.Net [12] (ironically, the website's article is tagged for notability...) - not a blog. SFCrowsnest [13] - if this is a blog, it's a rather serious one. Sci-Fi Online (website that describes itself as "The UK's leading telefantasy and cilt website"): [14]. Blog reviews: [15]. Podcast review: [16] . Probably sufficient presence in reviews to warrant pass, and that's without looking for reviews in other languages. -- Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 04:43, 18 April 2019 (UTC) reply
Comment I did see those reviews before nominating, but I didn't think they were sufficiently reliable. NBOOK explicitly excludes blogs and other unreliable sources from counting towards notability, and it goes on to say that we should be cautious about sites that are themselves reliable, but allow members of the public to post material (Criterion 1, Note 2). The 'TheForce.net' review is written by someone called Adrick, who isn't listed amongst their staff - it looks like a fan review on a (barely notable?) fan site. I can't access SFCrowsnest - Chrome and Edge are both refusing to connect, saying that the site uses unsafe TLS security settings - so I can't comment (but this doesn't fill me with confidence!). Sci-Fi Online might be the best bet, insofar as the reviewer (Chris Packer) is listed on the site's ' About Us' page - where it also notes that he's a full-time psychiatric nurse.Again, this looks like a fan review on a fan site. The other blog site and the podcast (since it is hosted on a blog site) are excluded. I'll leave it to others to judge whether the first three sites, and their reviewers, are reliable enough to establish notability. GirthSummit (blether) 11:03, 18 April 2019 (UTC) reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America 1000 04:27, 24 April 2019 (UTC) reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Kpg jhp jm 09:07, 1 May 2019 (UTC) reply
  • REDIRECT to List of Star Wars books. The lack of any real reviews or sources from reliable secondary sources means that this really should not be a stand alone article. However, its a likely search term, and as we have an obvious target for a redirect, that seems like the best option.   Rorshacma ( talk) 15:39, 1 May 2019 (UTC) reply
Good call - agree that it's a likely search term, a redirect would be appropriate. GirthSummit (blether) 19:25, 1 May 2019 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate 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. RL0919 ( talk) 12:14, 8 May 2019 (UTC) reply

ToothPick (company)

ToothPick (company) (  | 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 article is a perfect example of unambiguous advertising or promotion. The page creator is a SPA. They only have 5 employees listed on their company Linkedin profile. Does not meet GNG. Sonstephen0 ( talk) 16:52, 17 April 2019 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. Ceethekreator ( talk) 18:07, 17 April 2019 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Ceethekreator ( talk) 18:07, 17 April 2019 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. Ceethekreator ( talk) 18:07, 17 April 2019 (UTC) reply
  • Comment: Sources which could be added to the page 1, 2, 3, 4 - may not be suitable, 5. Dreamy Jazz 🎷 talk to me | my contributions 20:02, 17 April 2019 (UTC) reply
  • Keep. Although the article is written in a slightly promotional tone, this is something which could be easily edited out and the article is definitely not unambiguous advertising or promotion, as it is not unambiguous: Zingarese (who is not not the page creator) reverted your addition of the speedy deletion tag on the grounds that it was not unambiguous. They only have 5 employees listed on their company Linkedin profile. isn't a valid reason for deletion: First employees are not required to link themselves to a company via Linkedin and even then Wikipedia does not use Linkedin stats to determine notability. Just because an account is an SPA, does not mean that the article should be deleted. I think that this article does meet WP:GNG, as it has significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject from some of the sources above (some are not reliable) and those already on the article. Dreamy Jazz 🎷 talk to me | my contributions 20:17, 17 April 2019 (UTC) reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America 1000 04:24, 24 April 2019 (UTC) reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Kpg jhp jm 09:07, 1 May 2019 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate 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. RL0919 ( talk) 12:17, 8 May 2019 (UTC) reply

Glagnorra Castle

Glagnorra Castle (  | 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 minor fictional location in a novel that itself seems not to be very notable. The article is also completely unsourced. I can't find anything that would justify an article on this. Reyk YO! 08:37, 1 May 2019 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 08:57, 1 May 2019 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate 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. T. Canens ( talk) 06:29, 9 May 2019 (UTC) reply

Naomi Esi Arku Amoah

Naomi Esi Arku Amoah (  | 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 prize is the prize for a season of a television show, and does not show notability . The other reference is an interview where she says whatever she might care to, and is therefore not a RS. DGG ( talk ) 04:25, 9 April 2019 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Ghana-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 05:50, 9 April 2019 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 05:54, 9 April 2019 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. Icewhiz ( talk) 19:50, 9 April 2019 (UTC) reply
@ MurielMary: The article is about the subject, not the orphanage. If the orphanage has been discussed in reliable sources, then a stand-alone article can be created about it. The subject cannot inherit notability from the orphanage.  Versace1608  Wanna Talk? 13:02, 14 April 2019 (UTC) reply
To clarify, the sources discuss the orphanage and Amoah's work building it; the sources about the orphanage are also sources about Amoah. MurielMary ( talk) 11:55, 15 April 2019 (UTC) reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Randykitty ( talk) 11:06, 16 April 2019 (UTC) reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 16:31, 23 April 2019 (UTC) reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Need some discussion on how much the sources cover the subject vs. how much they cover the orphanage
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Jo-Jo Eumerus ( talk, contributions) 07:58, 1 May 2019 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was merge to Ontario Line. T. Canens ( talk) 06:25, 9 May 2019 (UTC) reply

Ontario Place station

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

Merge into Ontario Line as this is simply a potential station of a (very recently) proposed new rapid transit line and isn't notable in and of itself. Joeyconnick ( talk) 02:51, 1 May 2019 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Ontario-related deletion discussions. Eastmain ( talk • contribs) 03:17, 1 May 2019 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 03:22, 1 May 2019 (UTC) reply
Eastmain, while the topic does receive coverage in RS, I do not believe it is independently notable of the subway line itself. I think what the references are describing is actually the western alignment of the Ontario Line, and I think that article would be a good place to put this information. BLAIXX 11:41, 1 May 2019 (UTC) reply
AFD is allowed to weigh in on merge proposals, when warranted. Bearcat ( talk) 18:39, 1 May 2019 (UTC) reply
  • Merge per discussion on talk page; subject is not independently notable. Consider WP:PAGEDECIDE, "A decision to cover a notable topic only as part of a broader page does not in any way disparage the importance of the topic." Also consider the proposed Yonge North subway extension. Clearly this topic receives coverage from RS, but at the same time there are no issues with it being described on the Line 1 page, and not as its own article. BLAIXX 11:49, 1 May 2019 (UTC) reply
  • Merge per nom and talk page discussion. This is certainly a thing that gets mentioned in coverage of either the Ontario Line proposal or the Ontario Place redevelopment scheme, but it is not yet the subject of any dedicated coverage about it independently of those contexts. If and when the line actually gets approved and construction is underway, then separate articles about each individual new station on the line will certainly become justified — but we don't already need a standalone article about the station as a separate topic in its own right as of today, especially when the natural parent article in which it can be discussed is only just barely longer than a stub anyway. Bearcat ( talk) 18:04, 1 May 2019 (UTC)v reply
  • Merge per disscused above Germcrow ( talk) 18:19, 3 May 2019 (UTC) reply
  • Keep In my opinion merge suggestions, like this one, where there are multiple related articles which could be merge targets, show the weaknesses of mergism. All the arguments made to merge to Ontario Line would apply just as well to Ontario Place. Significant topics, notable topics, are usually intimately related to multiple other topics.
Our reader rarely read whole articles, particularly our longer articles. Instead they try and figure out how to read just the information they are interested in. The wikipedia works best when our readers can click on a link and go to a small focussed article, that only talks about a single topic.
When readers can navigate to what might be the information they are interested in, by clicking on a link, the process of returning where they started, is trivial. All they hae to do is click on the "back" button. However, where the urge to merge succeeds, returning where you came requires a lot of frustrating scrolling around, or the use of the search button.
When an actual notable topic -- like this one -- is nevertheless merged into a related article this means that some information won't have a place. The article on Ontario Place should link to Ontario Place station, and the article on the Ontario Line should link to Ontario Place station. If we start an article on Proposals to build casinos at Ontario Place, it too should link to Ontario Place station.
Wouldn't it serve our readers just as well if the articles on Ontario Place and Proposals to build casinos at Ontario Place linked to a subsection of Ontario Line#Ontario Place station? Absolutely not. This is generally true in every ill-advised urge to merge attempt. There is information relevant to both Ontario Place and Ontario Place station that would not be relevant in Ontario Line. And vice versa.
Some mergists here have claimed - in violation of WP:OTHERSTUFF, that we "never" create articles about stations, until they are under construction. This is only generally true, and the obvious reason for that is that most proposed stations don't yet measure up to GNG. But Ontario Place station DOES measure up to GNG. Geo Swan ( talk) 14:08, 4 May 2019 (UTC) reply
No, it doesn't yet measure up to GNG. As of today, it is merely a thing that gets mentioned in coverage whose core subject is either Ontario Place or the Ontario Line as a whole, and is not yet the subject of even one piece of dedicated coverage as its own standalone thing independently of those contexts. GNG is not "the topic gets its name mentioned in coverage of other things", it is "the topic is the primary subject of several substantive pieces of coverage in its own right as its own standalone thing". Bearcat ( talk) 16:16, 4 May 2019 (UTC) reply
  • Merge or Delete As the Ontario Line itself is a proposal, it seems premature to have an Ontario Place station article. Also, the extensions to the Relief Line route are new and only exist as a proposal on a budget document. No design of stations, the routing is a bit vague. They have not been discussed nor preliminary concepts advanced. And specifically, there are no details to provide as a basis for a stand-alone article. Plenty of room in the Ontario Line article to include one sentence descriptions of the proposed stations. That should do until things progress. Alaney2k ( talk) 18:07, 6 May 2019 (UTC) reply
  • Merge Premature to have an article on a proposed station when the line itself was also just proposed. Reywas92 Talk 16:22, 7 May 2019 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate 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 Cody Chesnutt. RL0919 ( talk) 03:39, 8 May 2019 (UTC) reply

The Crosswalk

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

Band with no notable albums. There only album released was a EP, where there other one is unreleased (from 1999, don't think it's getting released anytime soon then) Wgolf ( talk) 02:30, 1 May 2019 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. CASSIOPEIA( talk) 03:34, 1 May 2019 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. CASSIOPEIA( talk) 03:34, 1 May 2019 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 03:59, 1 May 2019 (UTC) reply

Redirect to Cody_Chestnut, although that article is probably vulnerable to a thorough AfD nomination. Otherwise, this band's major label album was never released, plus no sources. ShelbyMarion ( talk) 13:40, 1 May 2019 (UTC) reply

Richard3120 ( talk) 14:24, 1 May 2019 (UTC) reply

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate 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 on some, redirect most. For most of these articles, consenus appears to be that WP:NLIST is not met, except for four where Mrschimpf has made uncontested claims of coverage (unless Bgredmchn's last comment was meant to be a contestation, but I have some difficulty in reading what was said there); no consensus on these four. I am a little unsure whether "2018 Metro Atlantic Athletic Conference finals announcers" refers to one of the articles in question, however. As for the others, it seems like the main question is whether any of the information is worth merging over; some people have raised the concern that WP:UNDUE and some infobox-related rules would be violated ( WP:FANCRUFT has also been cited, but that is an essay). It seems like "redirect" is probably the best solution, to reflect both the consensus that the lists ought to go and to allow for easy copying if it's determined that the material is useful anywhere. Jo-Jo Eumerus ( talk, contributions) 09:16, 9 May 2019 (UTC) reply

List of West Coast Conference Men's Basketball Tournament Finals broadcasters

List of West Coast Conference Men's Basketball Tournament Finals broadcasters (  | 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:LISTN, with lack of independent, reliable sources that discuss this grouping. A merge seems WP:UNDUE, as games are about the teams participating and not worth inundating with minutiae like this. Previous consensus at similiar AfD Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of Pacific-12 Conference Men's Basketball Tournament Finals broadcasters was to delete. — Bagumba ( talk) 17:32, 23 April 2019 (UTC) reply

Adding the following similar articles to the nom, all of which were created in the same batch and lack substantive sources for TV Guide listings:
List of American Athletic Conference Men's Basketball Tournament Finals broadcasters (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
List of ACC Men's Basketball Tournament Finals broadcasters (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
List of America East Men's Basketball Tournament Finals broadcasters (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
List of Atlantic 10 Men's Basketball Tournament Finals broadcasters (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
List of Big 12 Men's Basketball Tournament Finals broadcasters (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
List of Big East Men's Basketball Tournament Finals broadcasters (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
List of Big Eight Conference Men's Basketball Tournament Finals broadcasters (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
List of Big Sky Men's Basketball Tournament Finals broadcasters (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
List of Big South Men's Basketball Tournament broadcasters (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
List of Big Ten Conference Men's Basketball Tournament Finals broadcasters (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
List of Big West Conference Men's Basketball Tournament Finals broadcasters (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
List of CollegeInsider.com Postseason Tournament finals broadcasters (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
List of Colonial Athletic Association Men's Basketball Tournament Finals broadcasters (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
List of Conference USA Men's Basketball Tournament Finals broadcasters (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
List of MAAC Men's Basketball Tournament Finals broadcasters (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
List of Metro Conference Men's Basketball Tournament Finals broadcasters (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
List of Mid-American Conference Men's Basketball Tournament Finals broadcasters (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
List of Mid-Eastern Athletic Conference Men's Basketball Tournament Finals broadcasters (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
List of Missouri Valley Conference Men's Basketball Tournament Finals broadcasters (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
List of Mountain West Men's Basketball Tournament Finals broadcasters (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
List of Northeast Conference Men's Basketball Tournament Finals broadcasters (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
List of Ohio Valley Men's Basketball Tournament Finals broadcasters (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
List of Patriot League Men's Basketball Tournament Finals broadcasters (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
List of SEC Men's Basketball Tournament Finals broadcasters (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
List of Southern Conference Men's Basketball Tournament Finals broadcasters (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
List of Southland Conference Men's Basketball Tournament Finals broadcasters (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
List of Southwest Conference Men's Basketball Tournament Finals broadcasters (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
List of Southwestern Athletic Conference Men's Basketball Tournament Finals broadcasters (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
List of The Summit League Men's Basketball Tournament Finals broadcasters (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
List of Sun Belt Conference Men's Basketball Tournament Finals broadcasters (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
List of WAC Men's Basketball Tournament Finals broadcasters (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
List of West Coast Conference Men's Basketball Tournament Finals broadcasters (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Also noting merge decision at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of Atlantic Sun Men's Basketball Tournament Finals broadcasters. So many events of all sorts are televised, and while it may be relevant to provide the network on the main article, it becomes trivial to have such routine information in forked lists. Reywas92 Talk 07:51, 25 April 2019 (UTC) reply
Comment As original nominator, I also support the deletion of these pages.— Bagumba ( talk) 07:14, 2 May 2019 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Basketball-related deletion discussions. — Bagumba ( talk) 17:32, 23 April 2019 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 17:45, 23 April 2019 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Radio-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 17:45, 23 April 2019 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 17:45, 23 April 2019 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 17:46, 23 April 2019 (UTC) reply
Comment After seeing the above discussion, the List of Atlantic Sun Men's Basketball Tournament Finals broadcasters is probably the only one that was merged and redirected four years ago. Could that be done with these 32 articles? Brian ( talk) 00:05, 26 April 2019 (UTC) reply
@ Bgredmchn: I stated the following in the nomination: A merge seems WP:UNDUE, as games are about the teams participating and not worth inundating with minutiae like this. Regards.— Bagumba ( talk) 08:25, 26 April 2019 (UTC) reply
It wasn't WP:UNDUE four years ago with the Atlantic Sun, which with these being AFD'd, would make that conference be different from all the rest. Brian ( talk) 14:47, 27 April 2019 (UTC) reply
It looks like consensus changed since the AfD you cited. While Rikster2 and Editorofthewiki !voted merge in that Nov 2015 Atlantic Sun AfD, they later !voted to delete in the Jan 2016 Pac-12 AfD.— Bagumba ( talk) 04:40, 2 May 2019 (UTC) reply
Where are we on WP:IGNORINGATD? The fact that a topic is not notable is not, in and of itself, valid grounds for deleting a page, its content, or its history. If merger and/or redirection is feasible in a given case, either is preferable to deletion. I still feel they are feasible for a merge over deletion, to the point that I'm sure more reliable sources are out there, no one has really tried to find them. Brian ( talk) 18:57, 2 May 2019 (UTC) reply
@ Bagumba: There isn't much to say towards WP:DUE, only that most people actually watch the games on TV than attend them, it's plausible to at least have the names of the broadcasters I've been listening to for two hours. If it's just about the teams participating, we should also remove instances of networks altogether. It's not about who pays the most to air the most games, or the biggest fan interest ones, but the teams playing. Brings up this point, {{ Infobox NCAA Basketball Conference Tournament}} has no area to edit for announcers, only networks. {{ Infobox NCAA football yearly game}} has an announcers section, AND ratings. There are plenty of pages in college football for announcers, and while I agree they don't meet WP:SAL, it could be as easy as editing a template to allow broadcasters to be listed, and not have their own articles. Brian ( talk) 01:59, 28 April 2019 (UTC) reply
  • Merge all to parent articles if feasible with space, otherwise keep as valid split. The information should be somewhere. Ideally it should be in the parent article, but if that would cause it to be too long, I'm fine giving them their own. Smartyllama ( talk) 17:10, 29 April 2019 (UTC) reply
    keep as valid split: Spinouts are generally not exempt from meeting notability guidelines. Per the guideline WP:AVOIDSPLIT: "Editors are cautioned not to immediately split articles if the new article would meet neither the general notability criterion nor the specific notability criteria for their topic."— Bagumba ( talk) 07:21, 2 May 2019 (UTC) reply
  • Delete (preferably) or Merge, listcruft without the necessary notability. Fram ( talk) 18:26, 29 April 2019 (UTC) reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, -- Scott Burley ( talk) 02:15, 1 May 2019 (UTC) reply
  • Delete All Stand alone lists do need RS and IS just like any other articles - see Wikipedia:Stand-alone lists. CASSIOPEIA( talk) 06:50, 1 May 2019 (UTC) reply
  • Comment re: cruft WP:FANCRUFT should not be merged into infoboxes; this only causes bloat. Per WP:INFOBOXPURPOSE: The less information it contains, the more effectively it serves that purpose, allowing readers to identify key facts at a glance. There is no guideline to preserve cruft via a merge. Per WP:ONUS: While information must be verifiable in order to be included in an article, this does not mean that all verifiable information must be included in an article.— Bagumba ( talk) 07:49, 1 May 2019 (UTC) reply
  • Delete all but major conferences (ACC, Big Ten, Big 12, Big East, SEC) Those can at least be easily sourced and are major events for sports networks. The rest are all ESPN time-fillers who are staffed on an unknown basis (or with the sub-NIT tourneys, whoever accepts their contract), and sports broadcasting FANCRUFT. Nate • ( chatter) 22:50, 1 May 2019 (UTC) reply
@ Mrschimpf: I can just as easily find 2018 Metro Atlantic Athletic Conference finals announcers as I can the ACC via google. ( https://maacsports.com/news/2018/2/27/2018-maac-mens-basketball-championship-game-to-air-on-espn.aspx) And I'm sure Jay Bilas, Sean McDonough and Bill Raftery do not fall into that "rest" category. Brian ( talk) 23:23, 1 May 2019 (UTC) reply
@ Bagumba: All MLB postseason infoboxes have announcers listed ( 2018 National League Division Series). They even go as far as radio announcers and even list umpires. Also for baseball, I direct you to ( Category:Lists of Major League Baseball broadcasters) as well. All NCAA College Football bowl game infoboxes have announcers listed ( 2019 Rose Bowl). All NFL postseason {{ Americanfootballbox}} has announcers listed ( 2018–19_NFL_playoffs#Wild_card_playoffs). NBA (direct you to Category:Lists of National Basketball Association broadcasters). Boxing, lots of major fights have a section in the article titled Broadcasting ( Floyd Mayweather Jr. vs. Conor McGregor). NASCAR race report infoboxes have a section, and list broadcasters, networks, and even Nielsen ratings ( 2018 Daytona 500) and other articles ( Category:Lists of NASCAR broadcasters). College Baseball has a section in the article titled Broadcast assignments ( 2018_NCAA_Division_I_Baseball_Tournament#Broadcast_assignments). NHL (direct you to Category:Lists of National Hockey League broadcasters). By your definition above, ALL of these are WP:FANCRUFT and the ones with them in the infoboxes violates WP:INFOBOXPURPOSE. It just seems if we decide to delete these works, we will be setting a precedent. If college basketball can't list their announcers, why can these other sports? Per WP:NOCRUFT While the "cruft" label is often used for any or all things of perceived minor interest, it is worth considering carefully whether or not so-called "cruft" has potential. Brian ( talk) 23:23, 1 May 2019 (UTC) reply
Comment In the end, only bettors and fans of the schools care about the smaller tourneys, and those feel like the inane lists we've deleted involving 'List of Sunday Night Baseball games'. Press releases shouldn't be the final source for anything, and are unacceptable as the only sources for entire article, whereas the majors who are broadcast by ESPN, CBS and Raycom hardly have that issue. Nate • ( chatter) 02:23, 2 May 2019 (UTC) reply
Comment Those are comparisons to different sports. Still, !voters will have to decide whether WP:OTHERCRAPEXISTS is applicable or not here.— Bagumba ( talk) 04:47, 2 May 2019 (UTC) reply
@ Mrschimpf: There's actually seven power conferences (major), but most only mention power five, and the Big East isn't one of the five. And that's a pretty biased statement to make. So, perhaps we should just remove the Miami Marlins from Wikipedia since they aren't one of the "power" teams. Should be no reason to have five conferences have something the other 27 cannot have. Press releases shouldn't be the final source for anything, and are unacceptable as the only sources for entire article, whereas the majors who are broadcast by ESPN, CBS and Raycom hardly have that issue. Of those 27, the networks for the championship games, which this is the only broadcasters the articles pertain to, 25 conference championship games are covered this way: 8 by ESPN, 8 by ESPN2, 3 by CBS, 3 by CBSSN, 2 by ESPNU, and 1 by FOX (Big East). Not much different than the "majors". Brian ( talk) 05:08, 2 May 2019 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate 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. Seraphimblade Talk to me 00:59, 8 May 2019 (UTC) reply

Elitaliana

Elitaliana (  | 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:NCORP, WP:GNG, most coverage is trivial mentions of the company in articles about a tax evasion scandal that some board members of the company were implicated in. signed, Rosguill talk 22:30, 23 April 2019 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. signed, Rosguill talk 22:31, 23 April 2019 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. signed, Rosguill talk 22:31, 23 April 2019 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Aviation-related deletion discussions. signed, Rosguill talk 22:31, 23 April 2019 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Italy-related deletion discussions. signed, Rosguill talk 22:31, 23 April 2019 (UTC) reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, -- Scott Burley ( talk) 02:04, 1 May 2019 (UTC) reply
  • Keep - I see significant coverage in independent, reliable sources sufficient to meet WP:ORG. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7. As demonstrated in the sources, Elitaliana is notable for 1) operating helicopters, particularly search and rescue helicopters, and 2) a prominent ECJ case. FOARP ( talk) 12:44, 1 May 2019 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the 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_May_1&oldid=1142224809"
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< 30 April 2 May >

Purge server cache

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

The result was delete. Xymmax So let it be written So let it be done 23:41, 8 May 2019 (UTC) reply

Sushmita Rai

Sushmita Rai (  | 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 kickboxer. Doesn't meet any of the notability standards for kickboxers. The WAKO events were amateur ones which the notability standards specifically say don't show notability. Coverage does not meet the GNG since it consists of event information and announcements, a Facebook link, and something from a blog. Sandals1 ( talk) 22:56, 1 May 2019 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 04:23, 2 May 2019 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 04:24, 2 May 2019 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Boxing-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 04:24, 2 May 2019 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 04:24, 2 May 2019 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Martial arts-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 04:26, 2 May 2019 (UTC) reply
  • Delete or move to drafts The subject might be notable since she seems to have participated in two international championships. But the sources cited aren't very convincing. So either delete or move to drafts. Exploreandwrite ( talk) 09:31, 2 May 2019 (UTC) reply
  • Delete Her kickboxing recrod doesn't meet WP:NKICK nor does she meet WP:GNG. Except for event announcements, the only coverage seems to be that three people from Sikkim will be going to the WAKO world amateur championships (along with 37 other Indians and thousands of other competitors). There's no mention of her having success at that event, and even if she did, it wouldn't meet any WP:NKICK notability criteria. The "World Martial Arts Masterships" also doesn't convey notability and there's no evidence of what she accomplished (not that it matters). Competing in, or even winning, events that don't convey notability doesn't make someone notable. Papaursa ( talk) 23:53, 6 May 2019 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate 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. Xymmax So let it be written So let it be done 23:42, 8 May 2019 (UTC) reply

Jason Weigand

Jason Weigand (  | 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 wrestler. Best finish in NCAA Division 3 was fourth. I don't believe a Division 3 All-American (of which there are 8 in each weight class) is enough to show notability. Only references are links to his college's hall of fame and a county hall of fame. Doesn't meet the GNG, WP:NCOLLATH, or WP:NSPORTS. Sandals1 ( talk) 22:43, 1 May 2019 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 04:28, 2 May 2019 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Ohio-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 04:28, 2 May 2019 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Wrestling-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 04:29, 2 May 2019 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 04:30, 2 May 2019 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. —  JJMC89 ( T· C) 00:30, 9 May 2019 (UTC) reply

Syeda Falak

Syeda Falak (  | 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 karateka. I found no mention of her at the WKF's website or records of her competing at the Asian Games. The Hindu article says she would be competing at the 2013 world championships, but the WKF has its world championships in even numbered years. It also says she qualified for the 2014 Asian Games, but there's no record of her competing there. The U.S. Open event is literally open to all so she wouldn't be representing India--you just fill out an entry form, there's no qualifying. Even if she did win, it wouldn't show notability and given all the dubious claims in this article I have my doubts. Given the 2012 WKF championships in Paris had nearly 1500 entries, simply competing there wouldn't show notability. The references given don't show notability and the claims contained in them seem to have lots of errors. Sandals1 ( talk) 22:28, 1 May 2019 (UTC) Sandals1 ( talk) 22:28, 1 May 2019 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 04:31, 2 May 2019 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 04:32, 2 May 2019 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 04:32, 2 May 2019 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Martial arts-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 04:33, 2 May 2019 (UTC) reply
  • Delete I did a lot of searching and I can find no mention of her competing at any WKF world championship event. Nom is also correct about the U.S. Open and her not competing in the 2014 Asian Games. Given the factual errors in the article, lack of evidence for meeting any martial arts notability criteria, and lack of significant reliable independent coverage, I see nothing that supports keeping this article. Papaursa ( talk) 00:18, 7 May 2019 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate 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 Los Premios MTV Latinoamérica. Xymmax So let it be written So let it be done 01:26, 9 May 2019 (UTC) reply

Los Premios MTV Latinoamérica for La Zona Award

Los Premios MTV Latinoamérica for La Zona Award (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources:  Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Is this really the only time this award happened? If it is-this should just be a redirect to the show (if not deleted), if not, it needs to be updated. Either way I don't think this really should have it's own article. Wgolf ( talk) 19:24, 24 April 2019 (UTC) reply

  • Comment-looks like that was the last year of that particular award show as well, so it was likely started thinking it would go on when it didn't. (Unless if it was never updated) Wgolf ( talk) 19:26, 24 April 2019 (UTC) reply
BTW I have yet another AFD started for this award show with the article Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Los Premios MTV Latinoamérica for Best Urban Artist (seems like most of the awards and years are unreferenced for this show. Someone should look into these) Wgolf ( talk) 19:30, 24 April 2019 (UTC) reply
Here are more that could get a afd or rather merged into this AFD to make it easier: Los Premios MTV Latinoamérica for Best Video Game Soundtrack, Los Premios MTV Latinoamérica for Best Ringtone, Los Premios MTV Latinoamérica for Best Movie and Los Premios MTV Latinoamérica for Best Fan Club. Wgolf ( talk) 19:37, 24 April 2019 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 20:00, 24 April 2019 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Latin America-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 20:01, 24 April 2019 (UTC) reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, -- Scott Burley ( talk) 22:23, 1 May 2019 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate 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 Los Premios MTV Latinoamérica. Xymmax So let it be written So let it be done 01:26, 9 May 2019 (UTC) reply

Los Premios MTV Latinoamérica for Best Urban Artist

Los Premios MTV Latinoamérica for Best Urban Artist (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources:  Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Award that only happened twice, it should either be deleted or a redirect/merge to Los Premios MTV Latinoamérica See also: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Los Premios MTV Latinoamérica for La Zona Award Wgolf ( talk) 19:28, 24 April 2019 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 19:59, 24 April 2019 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Latin America-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 19:59, 24 April 2019 (UTC) reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, -- Scott Burley ( talk) 22:23, 1 May 2019 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate 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 MTV Europe Music Award#Defunct categories. North America 1000 10:55, 8 May 2019 (UTC) reply

MTV Europe Music Award for MTV Amour

MTV Europe Music Award for MTV Amour (  | 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 award that happened just one time-this time at another award show. Either delete or redirect/merge to MTV Europe Music Award. Wgolf ( talk) 19:39, 24 April 2019 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 19:45, 24 April 2019 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Europe-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 19:45, 24 April 2019 (UTC) reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, -- Scott Burley ( talk) 22:22, 1 May 2019 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. —  JJMC89 ( T· C) 00:29, 9 May 2019 (UTC) reply

Kyle Ostrow

Kyle Ostrow (  | 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, I believe, fails WP:NHOCKEY. Only 12 games in the AHL which definitely fails #2 while ECHL Second All-Star team, I believe, is not enough to pass #3 and WCHA All-Academic team is not enough to pass #4. Almost all of the recent AfDs I've submitted have been pretty clear cut, this I'll be honest, is one I'm a bit unsure about and if I'm wrong, I'm wrong. Tay87 ( talk) 21:48, 1 May 2019 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 22:03, 1 May 2019 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Ice hockey-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 22:03, 1 May 2019 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 22:04, 1 May 2019 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate 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 Uprising of the Five Barbarians#Historical impact. Xymmax So let it be written So let it be done 01:23, 9 May 2019 (UTC) reply

Migration of the eight clans

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

Potential hoax. I didn't find any reliable sources on the matter with Google, but I'm not that concerned about that given its non-Western nature. What's more concerning for me is the fact that the Chinese-language Wikipedia doesn't have its own article on the topic. I even checked the Chinese Wikipedia (w/ a machine translation, admittedly) in case someone had forgotten to add it to the "Languages" sidebar and still nothing came up. Even if it turns out that this isn't a hoax, I think we can/should redirect this to the Jin Dynasty article. John M Wolfson ( talk) 21:30, 1 May 2019 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of China-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 21:34, 1 May 2019 (UTC) reply
  • Comment likewise I can’t find anything to support this (in English). Perhaps an admin could look at the edit history of the closed account of the article creator to see whether they created anything else (other possible hoaxes?) that would help determine at least whether thus as a good faith creation? Mccapra ( talk) 22:04, 1 May 2019 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. Eastmain ( talk • contribs) 22:24, 1 May 2019 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. I suppose I could have gone with No Consensus, but the last two commenters presented what look like solid sources. Also, some of the arguments to delete (too short, poor title, OR/SYNTH) are things that can be fixed by editing and don't require deletion. -- RoySmith (talk) 13:13, 9 May 2019 (UTC) reply

Deep voice privilege

Deep voice privilege (  | 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 would fit under a WP:REDUNDANTFORK type of article. The article is too short to be its own article, and it is something that little have ever heard of. It would be best suited if this were deleted all together or if it would go under another article as a sub category (maybe under the Social privilege page as an example. 201020132015hawks ( talk) 21:20, 1 May 2019 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Psychology-related deletion discussions. Eastmain ( talk • contribs) 21:32, 1 May 2019 (UTC) reply
  • Delete Somebody WP:TROUT me; I need my eyes checked. The Huffpost article is decent WRT depth and RS, but it doesn't really cover "deep voice privilege" per se, and the other three are more or less rubbish. If that's all that's out there, we have no reason to presume notability. If there's anything verifiable here it can be merged with Human voice or possibly Vocal register. — Rutebega ( talk) 04:38, 2 May 2019 (UTC) reply
  • Delete This article is WP:SYNTH, prohibited by policy, with a dash of WP:MADEUP and/or WP:NEO. None of the sources contain the phrase "deep voice privilege" or even "privilege". Two of the sources discuss the same Duke study that found a correlation between voice pitch and CEO pay, in which, again, the term is not used. Another source is literally (or was literally, before it apparently became a malware site) a "How to Get a Deeper Voice" product promo site. The final source simply talks about differences in voice pitch. "Deep voice privilege" is not a term that JSTOR finds, so the fundamental claim of the article fails WP:V. And, judging by the (unreliable) sources found via Google search that discuss the term almost entirely in a sarcastic and mocking way, this article seems to be an attempt to parody and belittle other kinds of "privilege" articles. There's no reason Wikipedia should participate in this effort, and it's disappointing to see any editor !voting keep here. Bakazaka ( talk) 03:57, 2 May 2019 (UTC) reply
I'd say that's a bit speculative, and I'd AGF by default, but you're right about the quality of these sources. I've revised my !vote. — Rutebega ( talk) 04:38, 2 May 2019 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate 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. -- RoySmith (talk) 13:16, 9 May 2019 (UTC) reply

Justin H. Min

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

This is just another WP:BLP1E because this actor's only significant role is his named role in The Umbrella Academy, which in turn fails WP:NACTOR for which Criteria 1 requires multiple notable productions. Jalen D. Folf (talk) 22:16, 16 April 2019 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. IntoThinAir ( talk) 22:29, 16 April 2019 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 05:08, 17 April 2019 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 05:09, 17 April 2019 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Photography-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 05:09, 17 April 2019 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 05:12, 17 April 2019 (UTC) reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, B dash ( talk) 05:31, 24 April 2019 (UTC) reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Disagreement here is focused over the multiple performances requirement in NACTOR
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Nosebagbear ( talk) 21:15, 1 May 2019 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. —  JJMC89 ( T· C) 00:29, 9 May 2019 (UTC) reply

Inxeption

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

Pr type sources, routine announcements. Fails WP:SIGCOV. Was soft deleted last month with the article more or less being the same as it was then THEFlint Shrubwood ( talk) 21:08, 1 May 2019 (UTC) reply


Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 21:36, 1 May 2019 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 21:36, 1 May 2019 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 21:36, 1 May 2019 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 21:36, 1 May 2019 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 21:37, 1 May 2019 (UTC) reply
  • Delete. I do not believe that this company passes WP:CORP. The sources in the article, and that I can find, all seem to be press-release-generated routine coverage in niche blockchain and tech startup publications. Phil Bridger ( talk) 11:33, 2 May 2019 (UTC) reply
  • Weak delete: (on balance) People wanting to keep (and me!) should ensure they've signed and read WP:THREE. The first three cites supported the current claims in the first sentence appear to be press releases. Demery, Paul (currently 4th) may be a candidate for notability. Various others lead to press releases and on some the cites are not suitably embellished with e.g. ad 'id' to lead me to the relevant part of the article. Might be WP:TOOSOON, not helped by oozing blockchain everywhere(though perhaps a good application of it), and I've not rigorously checked every reference - Burnson then Garrity might be the next best. The summary Added new information on didn't help me understand what was new as I have not baseline. Too hard to look further. Djm-leighpark ( talk) 12:13, 2 May 2019 (UTC) reply
  • Keep: Meets WP:THREE. "Demery, Paul" (now 1st), Burnson, Petersson, Benton, and Garrity may be candidates for notability. I'm not familiar with the other coverage Aesop4000 ( talk) 18:50, 2 May 2019 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. North America 1000 00:03, 9 May 2019 (UTC) reply

Dominic Smith (editor)

Dominic Smith (editor) (  | 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. Article an unsourced stub with no subject notability since its 2007 creation. Scant third-party content is mainly outdated press releases and promotional interviews, while any coverage about his tenure with (now defunct) Nuts magazine has centered more on the publication itself. sixtynine • whaddya want? • 20:06, 1 May 2019 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 20:33, 1 May 2019 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Journalism-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 20:33, 1 May 2019 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. North America 1000 23:58, 8 May 2019 (UTC) reply

Slaughter of the Bluegrass

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

Band with questionable notability, apparently has yet to even have an official release. Wgolf ( talk) 19:47, 1 May 2019 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 20:34, 1 May 2019 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sweden-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 20:34, 1 May 2019 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 20:34, 1 May 2019 (UTC) reply
  • Delete - IMO this is an A7 speedy candidate, in fact, in spite of its being a few years old. I find no sources in Swedish, apart from the current version of their official website (which almost doesn't qualify as Swedish - it is amazingly poorly written) and that doesn't actually have any info about the band... There are a couple of mentions of them in lineups of bands at festivals, the most recent one from 2009. I'd say "won't happen anytime ever". -- bonadea contributions talk 15:40, 2 May 2019 (UTC) reply
  • Delete Poor references given. Has issues with WP:GNG Benleg4000 ( talk) 18:45, 3 May 2019 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. —  JJMC89 ( T· C) 00:28, 9 May 2019 (UTC) reply

Twig the Fairy

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

Definitely WP:PROMO issues, only one possibly reliable source out of the three listed. Tagged for WP:ADV and WP:NPOV since 2013. Lacks notability outside Renaissance fair scene in the midwest (if that). Bkissin ( talk) 18:27, 1 May 2019 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. QueerEcofeminist "cite! even if you fight"!!! [they/them/their] 18:40, 1 May 2019 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. QueerEcofeminist "cite! even if you fight"!!! [they/them/their] 18:40, 1 May 2019 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. North America 1000 23:53, 8 May 2019 (UTC) reply

Tudor Tarts

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

Orphan page of renaissance fair performers that would not be considered notable outside of niche local setting. Used as WP:OSE excuse in ongoing AfC debates. Bkissin ( talk) 18:24, 1 May 2019 (UTC) reply

  • Delete - Of the references present in the article, only the one from the The Austin Chronicle could be argued to be reliable, and the coverage there is too brief to establish notability on its own. Searching for other sources has turned up nothing of.note. Rorshacma ( talk) 18:47, 1 May 2019 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Texas-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 19:00, 1 May 2019 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete and redirect to Adventist Health. Even after work was done, the concerns about the source quality (and thus notability, as notability hinges in large part on source quality per WP:SIGCOV) are unaddressed. Closing as "Delete and redirect" as both options have been floated here. Jo-Jo Eumerus ( talk, contributions) 06:59, 10 May 2019 (UTC) reply

Adventist Health Hanford

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

Apparently non-notable health centre; sourcing consists of a press-release and a brief listing on the website of the California Hospital Association. There's no in-depth coverage in independent reliable sources that I'm able to see. I tried redirecting it, then proposed a merge, both have been reverted.

This is part of what appears to be an extensive programme of promotion of various non-notable units of Adventist Health carried out by a number of WP:COI editors. This may not be the only one of those that doesn't merit an article here. Justlettersandnumbers ( talk) 18:15, 1 May 2019 (UTC) reply

- see WP:MERCY - Epinoia ( talk) 20:13, 8 May 2019 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Health and fitness-related deletion discussions. QueerEcofeminist "cite! even if you fight"!!! [they/them/their] 18:44, 1 May 2019 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. QueerEcofeminist "cite! even if you fight"!!! [they/them/their] 18:44, 1 May 2019 (UTC) reply
  • Delete - references are not significant, "Adventist Yearbook," "Becker's Hospital Review," "Adventist World" and some minor newspapers - Adventist Health Hanford is covered in the Adventist Health article - not notable enough for a stand-alone article under WP:ORG - (in fact probably most or all of the separate articles for hospitals listed in Adventist Health should be deleted) - Epinoia ( talk) 03:26, 7 May 2019 (UTC) reply
- or Redirect to Adventist Health where it is already listed - Epinoia ( talk) 03:28, 7 May 2019 (UTC) reply

@ Epinoia: I added new references to Adventist Health Hanford. Like U. S. News & World Report; USA Today; Angie's List; The Business Journal; Blue Shield of California Foundation & ABC30. Catfurball ( talk) 20:19, 8 May 2019 (UTC) reply

- still pretty sketchy - not enough to satisgy WP:ORGSIG, "any significant or demonstrable effects on culture, society, entertainment, athletics, economies, history, literature, science, or education." - Epinoia ( talk) 20:25, 8 May 2019 (UTC) reply
  • Delete. This looks like a run-of-the-mill hospital with nothing special about it. The sources are numerous, but of low-quality. I looked at two of the newly added sources in particular. US N&WR is just a directory listing. USA Today is just a database listing with the sorts of generic hospital-related stats you'd expect in a database. Fails WP:NCORP. I'm OK with a redirect, per WP:CHEAP. -- RoySmith (talk) 13:23, 9 May 2019 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. North America 1000 23:50, 8 May 2019 (UTC) reply

Sideshow Bennie

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

A largely promotional article on a non-notable performer. The sources being used in the article are pretty useless for establishing notability. One is not even about the individual, and the other is a defunct link to a "Fly by Night" entertainment, which appears to have just been a booking agency. Searching for more sources turns up nothing that would allow the article to meet the requirements of a biographical article. His name is mentioned in the acknowledgements of a few texts, and a few hits come up that are merely schedules of performances at a couple of events, and that's about it. Rorshacma ( talk) 17:45, 1 May 2019 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Dance-related deletion discussions. CASSIOPEIA( talk) 17:50, 1 May 2019 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Magic-related deletion discussions. CASSIOPEIA( talk) 17:50, 1 May 2019 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Tennessee-related deletion discussions. CASSIOPEIA( talk) 17:50, 1 May 2019 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. North America 1000 23:47, 8 May 2019 (UTC) reply

ScreenRacer

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

A screen saver program that does not appear to have any notability. The references used currently in the article are either primary sources, or unreliable sources such as forum posts. Doing searches for additional sources have turned up nothing. Rorshacma ( talk) 17:06, 1 May 2019 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. CASSIOPEIA( talk) 17:21, 1 May 2019 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. CASSIOPEIA( talk) 17:21, 1 May 2019 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. —  JJMC89 ( T· C) 00:27, 9 May 2019 (UTC) reply

Something in the Water (music festival)

Something in the Water (music 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)

In agreement with the issue templates of notability and self-published sources, files this one under WP:TOOSOON. Maybe next year if it becomes an annual event. (And please, don't think lineup appearances equal notability because it does not.) I do think it could stand to be merged with Pharrell Williams though. Trillfendi ( talk) 16:08, 1 May 2019 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. CASSIOPEIA( talk) 17:04, 1 May 2019 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. CASSIOPEIA( talk) 17:04, 1 May 2019 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. CASSIOPEIA( talk) 17:04, 1 May 2019 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Virginia-related deletion discussions. CASSIOPEIA( talk) 17:04, 1 May 2019 (UTC) reply
  • Soft delete - WP:TOOSOON - only one season - three of the references are to the festival's website and one was a press release, so no significant coverage - does not meet WP:EVENT at this point, but may gain notability in the future and be eligible for refund - Epinoia ( talk) 02:43, 7 May 2019 (UTC) reply
  • Delete. Agree with the above. "Hard" deletion should be preferred as most of the text in the article was either sourced from PR material or copyright-infringing (see article history), so we're not actually losing anything by deleting it (eg. editors' time and effort), while providing a future editor a clean slate to write on that's free of copy-vio and PR cruft. François Robere ( talk) 20:25, 8 May 2019 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate 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. T. Canens ( talk) 06:35, 9 May 2019 (UTC) reply

Baid

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

I'm bringing this to AfD for the following reason: Yesterday this was an unsourced stub that made no sense. I PRODed it and another editor deprodded it and added back in a lot of material from an earlier version that substantially increased its length and provided refs. My concern is that in previous months there have been a number of articles at AfD about Indian castes, which if I recall correctly were all deleted as the sources were regarded as unreliable. This article looks like another one in a long run of similar articles using the same sources. Perhaps editors who have taken part in previous AfD discussions in the field or have expert knowledge could indicate whether this should be kept or not. Mccapra ( talk) 11:12, 17 April 2019 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Ethnic groups-related deletion discussions. Icewhiz ( talk) 11:38, 17 April 2019 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Icewhiz ( talk) 11:38, 17 April 2019 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. Icewhiz ( talk) 11:38, 17 April 2019 (UTC) reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 15:26, 24 April 2019 (UTC) reply
  • Delete or possibly Redirect to Paddy field - of the five sources currently listed, citations 1 and 2 come from the British Raj era and are known to be unreliable, 4 and 5 relate to an alternative meaning concerning paddy fields, and 3 (see here) doesn't seem to mention them on the cited page nor via the GBooks in-text search. Even if they do appear somewhere in citation 3, I strongly suspect from our own text that it would be a passing mention. We have been going round in circles on this article for years now. - Sitush ( talk) 05:10, 29 April 2019 (UTC) reply
  • Just struck out my !vote above as there is a possible third option. If we remove the opening, unsourced statement that it is a gotra (roughly, a clan) and adjust the categories accordingly then the article may be valid as a description of medical practitioners but somewhat WP:DICDEF. - Sitush ( talk) 05:15, 29 April 2019 (UTC) reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Kpg jhp jm 15:53, 1 May 2019 (UTC) reply
  • Delete - WP:GOOGLEHITS says, "a lack of search engine hits may only indicate that the topic is highly specialized or not generally sourceable via the internet" - in the case of Baid, the group is so obscure that I could find no references to Baid as a caste, only to baid as agricultural highland - there is a caste called Baidya, but they are in a different area - therefore, does not meet WP:GNG and therefore, Delete - while it seems sad that a group of people should be consigned to obscurity simply because no one has written about them, Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information WP:IINFO - perhaps someone needs to create a List of Hindu castes so that there is a place for groups like this - it feels like some kind of informational genocide to eradicate a group of people - Epinoia ( talk) 02:35, 7 May 2019 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate 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 RuPaul's Drag Race (season 6). Numerically, a close call, but considering the previous AfD, the amount of socking, and the fact that arguments for keeping failed to explain how this meets WP:N, I'm going to revert this back to the redirect from the last AfD. -- RoySmith (talk) 14:29, 9 May 2019 (UTC) reply

April Carrión

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

And yet another non-notable performer outside the series. Zero in-depth coverage outside their involvement with the show. Onel5969 TT me 15:31, 1 May 2019 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. Ceethekreator ( talk) 15:41, 1 May 2019 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Puerto Rico-related deletion discussions. Ceethekreator ( talk) 15:41, 1 May 2019 (UTC) reply
  • Keep That consensus was too small to make a clear decision on - literally only 3 people voted. The amount of sources, the amount of media appearances and the amount of fans and following is THE EXACT SAME of most if not all of the other RPDR queens with pages. The truly pointless thing is to have this afd at all because there is no reason this queen shouldn't have a page. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2600:6c5d:5880:38:493d:61a8:1ff0:e605 ( talk) IP editor has zero edits outside the article and this AfD. Onel 5969 TT me 16:10, 1 May 2019 (UTC) reply
That little comment from Onel is a complete false fact. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2600:6c5d:5880:38:493d:61a8:1ff0:e605 ( talk)
  • Keep per GNG. There's already content about projects other than RPDR. Article should be expanded and improved -- would make a nice Collaboration of the Month for WikiProject RuPaul's Drag Race. --- Another Believer ( Talk) 16:02, 1 May 2019 (UTC) reply
  • Keep, per above and because subject is notable. There are numerous secondary sources and the article is well referenced. Ikjbagl ( talk) 17:24, 1 May 2019 (UTC) reply
  • Redirect - I'm not putting in bold because I haven't done another BEFORE but it appears there's no new element to suggest notability since we were here about 6 months ago (when I did do a full BEFORE). At that time there wasn't coverage about Carrion there was coverage about Ru Paul's Drag Race where Carrion was mentioned. As such I'm not seeing any new evidence to suggest that it shouldn't have the same outcome as with the first nomination. Best, Barkeep49 ( talk) 22:45, 1 May 2019 (UTC) reply
And I should make clear I'm not seeing notability from the song that they sung which appears to be the only substantive change. Best, Barkeep49 ( talk) 22:46, 1 May 2019 (UTC) reply
I've now done enough looking to suggest that notability hasn't been established since the last AfD and so it should continue to be a redirect. Best, Barkeep49 ( talk) 23:09, 8 May 2019 (UTC) reply
  • Delete. Non-notable individual. I'm a little concerned about the coverage for RPDR in general - it seems we have a few very passionate fans of the show who are very hard at work covering every aspect of the show here on Wikipedia. A lot of it is WP:FANCRUFT, which is all well and good at rupaulsdragrace.fandom.com, but it doesn't belong here. As well as the contestants, there have recently been some articles for individual episodes created which I'm pretty sure don't meet the notability guidelines. I'm also a little concerned about the wikiproject. I know this isn't quite WP:CANVASSING, but it could certainly skew the discussion and lead to WP:VOTESTACKING. -- wooden superman 12:14, 2 May 2019 (UTC) reply
    Woodensuperman, I understand your concerns about canvassing, but simply posting links to AfD pages at a relevant WikiProject should not be problematic, especially when WikiProject RuPaul's Drag Race members have been perfectly willing to vote merge/redirect in past discussions (see example1 and example2). I think you should actually assume good faith and welcome editors most familiar with the subjects to participate in the ongoing discussions, thanks. --- Another Believer ( Talk) 13:49, 2 May 2019 (UTC) reply
    I'll also add that this is not someone who was just on the show and didn't have a career afterwards. The person was on at least three TV shows, in a movie, and has been in music videos. I'll admit that I do think there is too much information on her time on Drag Race; we don't need to record that she won a sewing challenge. But it's flat out wrong to say that she isn't notable. Ikjbagl ( talk) 23:49, 2 May 2019 (UTC) reply
  • Delete per nom and WP:NACTOR. Then recreate and redirect to RuPaul's Drag Race (season 6) per the last deletion discussion, so the consensus can't be immediately and unilaterally undone like it was after the last discussion. - GretLomborg ( talk) 21:55, 8 May 2019 (UTC) reply
    The person passes 2/3 of the points in NACTOR, so she is notable. - 2600:6c5d:5880:38:493d:61a8:1ff0:e605
We'll have to disagree, then. Also are you User:Ratherbe2000, 2600:6c5d:5880:38:493d:61a8:1ff0:e605? - GretLomborg ( talk) 23:04, 8 May 2019 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate 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. T. Canens ( talk) 06:31, 9 May 2019 (UTC) reply

T. J. Allard

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

Only claim to notability was winning a contest for a role on a local daytime talk show. Only one RS article, regarding that contest. Emmys cited were regional (not national) Emmys, and he was an Editor on a large team ( and not in a major/lead role) for those. Article appears to have been originally created by a WP:UPE firm. BubbaJoe123456 ( talk) 13:59, 1 May 2019 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. CASSIOPEIA( talk) 14:44, 1 May 2019 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. CASSIOPEIA( talk) 14:44, 1 May 2019 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. CASSIOPEIA( talk) 14:44, 1 May 2019 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. CASSIOPEIA( talk) 14:44, 1 May 2019 (UTC) reply

As per WP:NPOV You stated he was an “Editor on a large team (not major/lead role)” He was never listed as an editor and what constitutes a “large team”? That term is subjective and thus not neutral.

As per WP:RSP He was the correspondent for a NATIONAL TV show called "Good Day Live" not a local show as you state, so that is a false statement. You have stated that he was an editor which is completely wrong. He was a producer and a supervising producer nominated for two other Emmy awards. As sourced in the links below.

As per WP:CITEIMDB IMDB *CAN* be also be used as a secondary and tertiary source of other verified sources. IMDB awards require 3rd party site verification such as links to the NATIONAL ACADEMY OF TELEVISION ARTS & SCIENCES website with the nominations and wins for Emmy awards can also be checked.

As per WP:NPOV He was also the supervising producer for over 100 hours of TV show which has been verified on IMDB as Emmy award nominations and wins are verified before published. https://help.imdb.com/article/contribution/other-submission-guides/awards/G5KGRJURZFQGHJQH?ref_=helpms_helpart_inline#

As Per WP:ANYBIO - He is the Hall of Fame for the Mohawk Valley, in New York State.

2 colleges list him as notable alumni.

Hartwick College https://alumnius.net/hartwick_college-10105-5#id7721880

Suny IT (NYS University Publication) (full article on page 4)

https://dspace.sunyconnect.suny.edu/bitstream/handle/1951/66520/BridgeSpring2014.pdf?sequence=1&isAllowed=y

He is a spokesman and journalist for the Entertainment Consumer Association. (The ECA - A Gamer’s Advocacy Group) http://www.theeca.com/videos

Other Sources as per WP:RSP

https://nypost.com/2004/12/02/starr-report-854/

http://www.uticaod.net/site_html/SPECIAL_CONTENT/halloffame/entertainment/allard_tj.htm

https://www.engadget.com/2010/06/30/nbc-working-on-video-game-show-pilot-for-primetime/

Nomination as the SUPERVISING PRODUCER for NBC’s “Open House NYC” September 30, 2012

https://www.nyemmys.org/media/files/files/4e69a49d/2014_NY_Emmy_Nominees_Press_Release_November_4_2016_2_._docx.pdf

Emmy Nomination as SUPERVISING PRODUCER for “Foundations: The Frick Collection”. February 1, 2013. (COZI-TV). TJ Allard, Supervising Producer

https://www.nyemmys.org/media/files/files/4e69a49d/2014_NY_Emmy_Nominees_Press_Release_November_4_2016_2_._docx.pdf

Here is the 1st article where he became the on-camera host for a NATIONAL SHOW not Local as previously stated.

https://www.broadcastingcable.com/news/good-day-live-taps-allard-74873

IMDB link with verified credits and awards.

https://www.imdb.com/name/nm1271121/

( Ramniram ( talk) 05:23, 4 May 2019 (UTC)) reply

  • Comment For his two regional (not national) Emmys, he was a Field Producer/Videographer for the first (misread it, not editor, but still not a showrunner/leadership role) on a team with at least 14 people, and a Segment Producer (misread it, not editor, but still not a showrunner/leadership role) on a team of at least 11 for the second. Again, these are regional awards, not national, so their contribution to notability is dubious at best. BubbaJoe123456 ( talk) 12:39, 8 May 2019 (UTC) reply
  • Comment Ramniram has been blocked as a sock puppet. Something to consider when assessing their vote here. BubbaJoe123456 ( talk) 21:54, 8 May 2019 (UTC) reply
  • Comment I'm not going to !vote here because (being in Europe) I can't view all of the sources. The article's current sourcing is a real mess - BubbaJoe123456 is right, the only source that might come close to WP:RS is the NYPost article, which I can't read. Stuff like IMDB is UGC, it's not considered when assessing notability. University newspapers and the like are also generally excluded (since they have an obvious interest in puffing their alumni). What was should be looking for is significant coverage in independent reliable sources that would get him over WP:GNG - I'm not seeing that in the links provided by Ramniram above, and I'm not finding any using Google, but it's possible that a careful search with different search terms might throw something up (his apparent preference for intials rather than a first name makes searching a bit more complicated.) GirthSummit (blether) 09:32, 4 May 2019 (UTC) reply
  • Comment There was a discussion elsewhere about Wiki and this conversation was referenced as an example of the editing process. I'm finding it curious that this page is flagged, as so many other Wikipedia pages are about people with far fewer notable accomplishments. Joe Brown was a minor league ball player ( /info/en/?search=Joe_Brown_(third_baseman)). Clicking on 'random article' from the Wiki page told me that "Canadian New Zealanders" are people from New Zealand who came from Canada - and lists a few. Given that Wikipedia is a mix of interesting of both little known and extremely relevant facts, it seems odd that someone would suggest that this page is less deserving than others. I don't live in the NY area so I wouldn't have seen any local NY TV. But yet, I was familar with "Good Day Live" from national syndication. It's easy to find proof that it was national ( https://www.radiodiscussions.com/showthread.php?705229-Retro-Lexington-NC-Tuesday-May-18-2004) so it's odd that anyone would dismiss it as a "role on a local daytime talk show". I don't remember the show being very good, but it was certainly more than a local NY daytime show. The page appears to have verifiable information. Why should it bother anyone that it's here? Baldy672 ( talk) 07:10, 5 May 2019 (UTC) reply
@ Baldy672: This isn't the place for a generalised discussion of our Deletion policy. Very briefly, pages are supposed to be verifiable by being supported by reliable sources, and the subject needs to be demonstrable notable. This page, in its current state, is very poorly sourced - if possible, it should be improved; if it can't be improved because there aren't any better sources, then our policy is to delete it. As for other articles being in a worse state, that's a bit of a non-argument - see WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS. There are a limited number of editors, and we're all volunteers - the existence of other problematic pages isn't a reason for us to ignore the problems with this one. GirthSummit (blether) 14:09, 5 May 2019 (UTC) reply
  • Improve or delete per Girth Summit. There's nothing in the article in its current form to show notability. Better sources may exist, but I couldn't find anything beyond what's been posted in this mess of a discussion. @ Girth Summit: The NY Post article has a single sentence about him, in a "last but not least" section of footnotes of other stories. —⁠ 烏⁠Γ ( kaw) │ 19:50, 05 May 2019 (UTC) reply
Thanks KarasuGamma. A single sentence does not amount to substantial coverage - this article needs better sources, or it needs to go. This is no kind of judgment on the subject or his career - it's purely a judgment on the extent to which he's been written about in reliable, independent secondary sources. GirthSummit (blether) 21:00, 5 May 2019 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Draftify. Clear consensus that this doesn't belong in mainspace, especially considering that the keep arguments are not based on policy. Opinions differ on exactly how to get it out of mainspace, but draft seems like a reasonable compromise. -- RoySmith (talk) 14:38, 9 May 2019 (UTC) reply

Rupaali Biswas

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

unellected candidates are not normally notable. Only notable for one election. Slatersteven ( talk) 13:57, 1 May 2019 (UTC) reply

First of all thank you for inviting the discussion. I like to inform you that this person may pass the notability criterion because of she is the youngest candidate of Member of Parliament in West Bengal and one of the youngest in India for 2019 General Election. At the time of filing nomination she was 25 yrs 8 days whereas the eligibility of candidature comes at 25! This was covered by number of national newslinks. I am requesting you to reconsider the article. thanking you. Pinakpani ( talk) 14:07, 1 May 2019 (UTC) reply
The problem is I am not sure that does pass our notability requirements. If she gets elected that would be different, but (in effect) anyone can stand if they meet the requirements (and as far as I can tell she did not choose to stand, she was told she was standing). Slatersteven ( talk) 14:26, 1 May 2019 (UTC) reply
You are right Sir, Actually the MP election is the highest level polling system of India and this person is contesting as one of the youngest candidate among the ‎545 seats. Anyway I can only request for just 21 days (23rd May) for the result of such election. If the candidate will loose, the article may be deleted. Thank you. Pinakpani ( talk) 14:37, 1 May 2019 (UTC) reply
That is not how it works, it can be recreated if she is elected, we do not keep articles on the off chance someone might become notable.
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. Ceethekreator ( talk) 15:43, 1 May 2019 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bangladesh-related deletion discussions. Ceethekreator ( talk) 15:43, 1 May 2019 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Worldbruce ( talk) 00:52, 2 May 2019 (UTC) reply
  • Keep I think being one of the youngest female candidates for Lok Sabha adds weight to her claim. Also, she is widow of an MLA who was shot dead. I feel (and I might be wrong), this article should be kept. Exploreandwrite ( talk) 09:56, 2 May 2019 (UTC) reply
  • Delete. People do not get Wikipedia articles just for being candidates in elections they have not yet won — and neither her age nor her gender automatically make her a special case over and above most other candidates, because if she loses there won't be any enduring interest in those distinctions anymore. To already be eligible for an article today, she would need to be able to show that she was already notable enough for an article for some other reason (e.g. as a writer, as an actress, as an athlete, etc.) besides running as a candidate. Obviously if she wins the seat, then an article about her can be recreated at that time as her notability claim will have changed from candidate to actual officeholder — but holding it in draftspace isn't necessary in the meantime, as we also have the ability to restore deleted articles in the future if things change. We do not keep candidate articles pending the election results just because the candidate might win — we wait until the ballots have been counted, and only then do we start articles about the people who did win. Bearcat ( talk) 23:37, 3 May 2019 (UTC) reply
  • Keep Actually Rupali Biswas had been the party candidate from Ranaghat Lok Sabha seat. The MP election is the highest level polling system of India and Biswas is contesting as one of the youngest candidate among the ‎545 seats. The article passes the Notability and should be kept. - MA Javadi ( talk) 20:16, 7 May 2019 (UTC) reply
  • Redirect to 2019 Indian general election in West Bengal as usual outcome for candidates who have not won their election. If the subject is elected, then the article can be recreated. -- Enos733 ( talk) 04:30, 8 May 2019 (UTC) reply
  • Keep The article passes WP:GNG and has reliable sources.-- SalmanZ ( talk) 23:47, 8 May 2019 (UTC) reply
  • Redirect per Enos733. I agree with Bearcat's description of the situation, although we have a logical redirection target in this case, so full deletion isn't necessary. —⁠ 烏⁠Γ ( kaw) │ 23:59, 08 May 2019 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate 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 because this is a juvenile version, with blatantly false content, of what we already have at Big Chungus. Uncle G ( talk) 15:23, 1 May 2019 (UTC) reply

Big Chungus the 1st

Big Chungus the 1st (  | 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 nominated this for CSD as a hoax, but some parts of it may be real. But some of it is very Hoaxy. Slatersteven ( talk) 13:55, 1 May 2019 (UTC) reply

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

The result was delete. —  JJMC89 ( T· C) 00:24, 9 May 2019 (UTC) reply

Saurav L. Chaudhari

Saurav L. Chaudhari (  | 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:PROF, WP:NAUTHOR, and WP:GNG. This is another entry from a promotional editing team we have yet to crack down on. Chris Troutman ( talk) 13:20, 1 May 2019 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. Chris Troutman ( talk) 13:21, 1 May 2019 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. Chris Troutman ( talk) 13:21, 1 May 2019 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Chris Troutman ( talk) 13:21, 1 May 2019 (UTC) reply
  • Delete: I concur with OP, this fails notability criteria, and given all the apparent socking surrounding it, I also concur that this involves a paid editing ring. Waggie ( talk) 14:26, 1 May 2019 (UTC) reply
  • Do not delete it == References are available — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ghost753699 ( talk • contribs) 2019-05-01T14:13:42 (UTC)
User Ghost753699 is a sockpuppet with no other edits except to this AFD. Sandals1 ( talk) 15:46, 1 May 2019 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was merge to National Wrestling Federation. There's been some weird process here. In particular, please don't move drafts to mainspace just so you can nominate them for deletion. If you think a draft should be deleted, nominate it in-place via WP:MfD. But, more to the point, if you think something is not notable, don't even make it into a draft. Drafts are for things you expect to develop into real articles.

There's obviously disagreement about how this topic should be covered. There's clear consensus of the participants in this AfD that the 1986-1994 material should be covered in the main article, hence the merge. Moab12 obviously disagrees, and since K.e.coffman declined the draft, he apparently disagrees that it's notable on its own. So, after the merge, I suggest everybody get over to Talk:National Wrestling Federation and hash out their concerns. This is fundamentally a content dispute, which AfD doesn't get involved with. If you can't come to consensus on the talk page, availing yourselves of WP:3O might be a way forward. -- RoySmith (talk) 13:02, 9 May 2019 (UTC) reply

National Wrestling Federation (1986-1994)

National Wrestling Federation (1986-1994) (  | 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 professional wrestling promotion. Moab12 ( talk) 10:18, 24 April 2019 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Wrestling-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 11:42, 24 April 2019 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 11:42, 24 April 2019 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Pennsylvania-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 11:43, 24 April 2019 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 11:43, 24 April 2019 (UTC) reply
  • Simply because two entities share the same name does not mean they should share the same article, see Wikipedia:Disambiguation. I created the "new" article to disambiguate the original NWF from the completely unrelated NWF. I find this to be the simplest way to have a deletion discussion on the NWF I believe is non notable, as it would confuse everyone to have a deletion discussion that only refers to half an article. Moab12 ( talk) 13:44, 24 April 2019 (UTC) reply
  • It's been removed before, but since it's been stable in the article since August 2011 I figure it's best to have some sort of discussion rather than arbitrarily delete the content. I don't see it matters much whether we had the discussion here, the article's talk page or at WT:PW, this venue seemed more appropriate to me. Moab12 ( talk) 14:49, 24 April 2019 (UTC) reply
  • That might be the case, but have the conversation, first. AFD is not the right place to have a conversation about content located within an article, which this is a back-door way of doing. MPJ-DK you might have some comments to add to this discussion since you removed it like 10 years ago. - Galatz גאליץ שיחה Talk 15:51, 24 April 2019 (UTC) reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Kpg jhp jm 12:15, 1 May 2019 (UTC) reply
  • This is the right place to have this discussion. Either this organisation is notable enough for its own article, or it isn't and it should be deleted. We don't merge unrelated organisations into one article because they share the same name. Moab12 ( talk) 06:17, 2 May 2019 (UTC) reply
  • This seems grossly wrong. The article was split to a new article; which you should only have done if you felt it did meet GNG. In this case, it's a content dispute, which should go with a regular consensus building talk. To be honest, it's quite likely the promotion in question probably is notable; so the discussion is a bit moot. The fact that the companies aren't the same makes no difference to if it should be in the same article. This should be closed and potentially merged/redirected. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski ( talk • contribs) 08:24, 2 May 2019 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate 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. RL0919 ( talk) 12:03, 8 May 2019 (UTC) reply

Bryce Bafford

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

Article fails both WP:GNG and WP:NFOOTY. Article about subject who has not played in a professional association football league nor represented his country at senior or Olympic level. Simione001 ( talk) 11:37, 1 May 2019 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. Simione001 ( talk) 11:39, 1 May 2019 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. Simione001 ( talk) 11:40, 1 May 2019 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 13:26, 1 May 2019 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 13:27, 1 May 2019 (UTC) reply

Delete Mr. Bafford has only played on the Brisbane Roar NPL. Until he plays a game for the the Brisbane Roar FC, he is not notable enough to merit his own article, per WP:NSOCCER and WP:FPL. Balon Greyjoy ( talk) 13:47, 1 May 2019 (UTC) reply

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate 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 Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 14:35, 1 May 2019 (UTC) reply

Leslie Kolodziejski

Leslie Kolodziejski (  | 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 sources in this article are WP:INDEPENDENT of the subject... even though some claims of notability may seem to adhere to WP:PROF guide. But a guideline cannot trump a core policy like WP:Verifiability#Notability which says If no reliable independent sources can be found on a topic, Wikipedia should not have an article on it and further clarified at WP:Notability under WP:NRV: there must be verifiable, objective evidence that the subject has received significant attention from independent sources to support a claim of notability. For example, the sources used to mention being a Fellow of The Optical Society are from MIT (the subject's employer) and the OSA itself. Neither of these sources are independent of Kolodziejski, have a clear vested interest in them, are promotional in nature, and so notability is not established using them. Also, although somewhat downplayed, WP:PROF#General notes agrees with this requirement mentioning about: one or more of the notability criteria above have been verified through independent sources. -- Netoholic @ 11:59, 1 May 2019 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the Article Rescue Squadron's list of content for rescue consideration. Andrew D. ( talk) 11:51, 1 May 2019 (UTC) reply
  • What a load of croc. An award is given by the conferring organisation. This is the best source for factual truth. Who in hell thinks this is about vested interest. When you consider an organisation that confers awards not reliable, go elsewhere. Thanks, GerardM ( talk) 11:41, 1 May 2019 (UTC) reply
    The link to the OSA primary source is reliable, but alone does not establish WP:Notability because it is not WP:INDEPENDENT. Per WP:SPIP: Publication in a reliable source is not always good evidence of notability and Independent sources are also needed to guarantee a neutral article can be written. -- Netoholic @ 11:48, 1 May 2019 (UTC) reply
A non-independent source would be Leslie Kolodziejski writing about herself, or a close associate/family member writing a self-published text. The OSA is a large professional society; they do not have an "axe to grind" when it comes to Kolodziesjki, and stating which scientists the OSA conferred a fellowship upon is not self-promotion by Kolodziejski, nor by the OSA; it is a simple statement of fact. None of the reasons for having WP:IS (as spelled out quite clearly in the opening paragraphs there) apply. You appear to be really deep into WP:FORCEDINTERPRET territory here. Markus Pössel ( talk) 12:04, 1 May 2019 (UTC) reply
  • Speedy keep. Elected fellowship of this learned society is not a self-promotional activity, and the criteria are public [2]. This satisfies in itself WP:ACADEMIC but the named chairs strengthen the case to make it totally unambiguous. DWeir ( talk) 11:39, 1 May 2019 (UTC) reply
  • Keep - I made this page. Hi again Netoholic She's a Professor at MIT, which alone would warrant a page if she was a man. Where would you expect to write about someone becoming a Fellow of the OSA, other than the OSA and the MIT site? Jesswade88 ( talk) 11:42, 1 May 2019 (UTC) reply
  • Keep. I share Netoholic's WP:BLP concerns here regarding sourcing and use of sources. I don't think she passes GNG per my BEFORE. I am uncertain whether OSA Fellow is sufficient for NPROF(3) (it very well might however). Running through her publications (h-index of around 17? though not first named author on the highly-cited ones) NPROF(1) seems plausible (need to further evaluate). However, by previously holding a named-chair in MIT she passes NPROF(5). As the subject passes PROF (which does not require GNG), and since Wikipedia:Deletion is not cleanup (in relation to the BLP/sourcing issues) - this is a keep. Icewhiz ( talk) 11:50, 1 May 2019 (UTC) reply
    @ Icewhiz: There must be an independent source out there that says that she was a named-chair in MIT... right? -- Netoholic @ 12:02, 1 May 2019 (UTC) reply
Yes, there is a source independent of Leslie Kolodziejski stating that fact, namely MIT itself. And you're in blatant violation of WP:POINT, too. Markus Pössel ( talk) 12:09, 1 May 2019 (UTC) reply
MIT is not independent (employer). @ Netoholic: There might (and it might appear in all sorts of journal articles). However, WP:NPROF is different from all other bio SNGs in that it "This guideline is independent from the other subject-specific notability guidelines, such as WP:BIO, WP:MUSIC, WP:AUTH etc. and is explicitly listed as an alternative to the general notability guideline". MIT (as is the Optical Society) is a RS for named chairs by MIT. NPROF doesn't require independent sources. Your argument would have been correct on nearly every other type of bio - however specifically for NPROF - once you can reliability (even with a non-independent primary, yet reliable, source) show the subject passes one of the NPROF criteria - they pass the notability guideline. This may or may not be misguided - however the place to discuss that is in NPROF and the Village pump - not on an individual article. Icewhiz ( talk) 12:11, 1 May 2019 (UTC) reply
@ Icewhiz: WP:Verifiability#Notability is core policy and says "If no reliable independent sources can be found on a topic, Wikipedia should not have an article on it". This article has no independent sources. We should not haven an article on it. I tried repeatedly to leave cleanup tags about this issue. They were removed multiple times, so AfD became the next step. -- Netoholic @ 12:27, 1 May 2019 (UTC) reply
That's really just a placeholder to Wikipedia:Notability which includes WP:NPROF (which doesn't have the requirement). However I can trivallally satisfy independent reliable here - any citation in a journal paper (of which there are quite a few) of one of our subject's journal papers is an independent reliable source. It's a passing mention - but still satisfies that sentence. Icewhiz ( talk) 12:31, 1 May 2019 (UTC) reply
Those are sources forthe work - the author is largely irrelevant and would only be a namedrop. Trivial, indeed.... and they say I am wikilawyering. Wikipedia relies on the concept of "significant coverage" ... not names mentioned in passing. -- Netoholic @ 12:36, 1 May 2019 (UTC) reply
Generally the assertion above is correct. You are incorrect in academic bios - WP:NPROF. You are also incorrect in regards to WP:GEOLAND. Icewhiz ( talk) 12:43, 1 May 2019 (UTC) reply
@ Icewhiz: Netaholic deciding that their personal interpretation trumps specific guidelines like WP:PROF because he perceives them to be in conflict with "core" policies appears to be the main problem here. I've told them that if they find a conflict, the proper way would be to bring it up on the relevant discussion pages and strive for a consensus, but instead they chose to WP:POINT with this AfD here. FWIW, I think you are interpreting WP:IS too narrowly if you place MIT in the same category as Kolodziejski self-published texts or texts by her relatives and friends. None of the rationale laid out in the justification for why we need WP:IS applies here. The criterion is: is the source so dependent on the subject that we must expect undue influence of the subject's own view, self-promotion and other abuses. That is clearly not the case for using MIT as a source about the fact that Kolodziejski held a specific named chair. Markus Pössel ( talk) 12:46, 1 May 2019 (UTC) reply
(Non-administrator comment) @ Markus Pössel: No, they will not; the nomination is sound, a WP:BEFORE has clearly been performed, and now it is being discussed. You are welcome, however, to file at WP:ANI, but be mindful of whether you may be perceived of perhaps having cast aspersions or not assuming good faith. Happy editing! —— SerialNumber 54129 12:07, 1 May 2019 (UTC) reply
I assume administrators will decide themselves whether to look into this, but thank you for your opinion. I have tried hard to assume good faith, but given the overall pattern, and the user's replies to my pointers to WP:PROF and their explicit statement that they are deliberately setting what is written in WP:PROF, it's getting really, really difficult. Markus Pössel ( talk) 12:14, 1 May 2019 (UTC) reply
Does having a cleanup tag visible for a couple of hours on the day of the article's creation really satisfy WP:BEFORE (in particular, C) and WP:GF? DWeir ( talk) 12:50, 1 May 2019 (UTC) reply
Since before is proven by a nomination and not tags, then, clearly yes. I suggest you read it. Goodbye. —— SerialNumber 54129 12:53, 1 May 2019 (UTC) reply
No, WP:BEFORE C3 has definitely not been followed. There is a (small) discussion raising the notability issue on Talk:Leslie_Kolodziejski, and User:Netoholic has demonstrably not raised his points there, nor participated in any other discussion on that talk page. That is a clear WP:BEFORE fail. Furthermore, User:Netoholic was perfectly aware of the fact that his criteria for nominating this were controversial; I know that because I had just that discussion with him within a few minutes before he decided to make that nomination. Markus Pössel ( talk) 13:26, 1 May 2019 (UTC) reply
@ Serial Number 54129: Also, I have followed your advice that WP:ANI is the proper place to bring this up; thanks! My submission is at Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents#User:Netoholic Markus Pössel ( talk) 13:39, 1 May 2019 (UTC) reply
  • Keep Article is informative and clear, person is sufficiently notable to have been awarded a fellowship (in addition to being a Prof at MIT) therefore I think this article benefits Wikipedia and should stay put JoBrodie ( talk) 12:20, 1 May 2019 (UTC) reply
  • Keep per WP:PROF as mentioned by several individuals above. Netoholic, I'm sensing a trend that your view of notability policy/guidelines are not in line with the general consensus. Maybe take your thoughts to Village Pump rather than repeatedly nominating articles that are not likely to be deleted. Thsmi002 ( talk) 12:44, 1 May 2019 (UTC) reply
  • Keep Page is clear, brief and meets notability criteria (professor at MIT, fellowship winner, an Alfred P. Sloan Foundation award, served on editorial boards, etc.) Soulsinsync ( talk) 13:13, 1 May 2019 (UTC) reply
  • Comment - I have place a notavote template above as this AfD has been publicized outside on Twitter. Icewhiz ( talk) 13:27, 1 May 2019 (UTC) reply
  • Keep per NPROF, whose guidelines make it very difficult to write articles using acceptable sources, but them's the rules. Natureium ( talk) 13:34, 1 May 2019 (UTC) reply
As others have noted here, WP:PROF explicitly states that the sources used here (e.g. statements of a scientific society about who is a fellow) are sufficient to establish that their criteria have been met. Markus Pössel ( talk) 14:01, 1 May 2019 (UTC) reply
  • Keep This obviously meets notability criteria. If the issue is with source independence, make that argument instead. Battleofalma ( talk) 13:40, 1 May 2019 (UTC) reply
  • Keep WP:NACADEMIC states that academics meeting any one of a list of criteria are considered notable. Criterion 3 is "The person is or has been an elected member of a highly selective and prestigious scholarly society or association (e.g., a National Academy of Sciences or the Royal Society) or a fellow of a major scholarly society which reserves fellow status as a highly selective honor (e.g., Fellow of the IEEE)." A Fellow of the IEEE "cannot be applied for directly by the member – instead the candidate must be nominated by others." The Fellow of the Optical Society, is similarly highly selective, as per the wiki page, it requires one to be "nominated by a peer group of other current, OSA Fellows. Review of the nomination is then passed to the OSA Fellow Members Committee." The Optical Society is a "major scholarly society". Thus Leslie Kolodziejski meets WP:NACADEMIC, as do all other Fellows of the Optical Society. In the specific criteria notes on WP:ACADEMIC, it states that "For documenting that a person has been elected member or fellow ... publications of the electing institution are considered a reliable source." Thus the reference given in Leslie Kolodziejski's article is sufficient. Scottkeir ( talk) 13:41, 1 May 2019 (UTC) reply
  • Snow Keep: For some independent coverage of her work, there's [3] and [4], but regardless she clearly satisfies NACADEMIC. (I endorse Thsmi002's comment, though WP:VPP is a waste as there's roughly zero chance of the presumed notability at the SNG being tightened) ~ Hydronium~Hydroxide~ (Talk)~
  • Keep The subject clearly meets the notability criteria and the notice for deletion should be removed immediately. Srsval ( talk) 13:48, 1 May 2019 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was speedy keep. Withdrawing nomination per sources provided (which I was unable to locate when nominating). (non-admin closure) feminist ( talk) 15:55, 2 May 2019 (UTC) reply

Brian McNeill

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

Per concern raised here. I am unable to find WP:SIGCOV of this person. Most search results are about other people with the same name. The best I've been able to find are two NPR interviews conducted by the same person [5] [6], but do they count as independent coverage? feminist ( talk) 11:23, 1 May 2019 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. feminist ( talk) 11:24, 1 May 2019 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Scotland-related deletion discussions. feminist ( talk) 11:24, 1 May 2019 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 13:29, 1 May 2019 (UTC) reply

Weak Delete I sampled enough of the 2 NPR interviews just long enough to determine they are, in fact, the same interview. Lots of lists and performance type stuff, but the best I could find otherwise--and they are fairly weak-- are [7] [8] [9], plus the few sources that have been added since this nomination. All this adds up to something but still seems to be lacking significant RS beyond the niche corner of folk music he seems to occupy. Admittedly, Scottish folk music is not my strong suit so I can be persuaded to change to keep by a good argument from someone who really knows the stuff. At the very least, a redirect to Battlefield_Band would be appropriate. ShelbyMarion ( talk) 13:32, 1 May 2019 (UTC) reply

  • Keep I have added 4 articles about him, and I think there are more, though not all online. I also note that he meets WP:MUSICBIO #5 "Has released two or more albums on a major record label or on one of the more important indie labels (i.e., an independent label with a history of more than a few years, and with a roster of performers, many of whom are independently notable)." He has released 5 albums with Greentrax Recordings (I will add this info to the article, for the relevant albums). (Why should there be SIGCOV beyond "the niche corner of folk music he seems to occupy"? Actually there is, but there are plenty of RS music publications, which are no less relevant for establishing notability for any subject they give significant coverage to, just because they are in the field of music.) RebeccaGreen ( talk) 14:22, 1 May 2019 (UTC) reply
Thanks. You pointing out the label discography convinces me to strike my weak delete. ShelbyMarion ( talk) 14:42, 1 May 2019 (UTC) reply
Thanks, ShelbyMarion, I'm glad it was useful (must remember to add it to the article!). Just wondered if unbolding your redirect suggestion would help the closer? RebeccaGreen ( talk) 04:24, 2 May 2019 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Merge into Sustainable Development Goals and Rio Convention. Jo-Jo Eumerus ( talk, contributions) 07:29, 9 May 2019 (UTC) reply


SDG 14 and the Rio Conventions (  | 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 have read through this article and can find no viable reason for its combination of two independent topics. SDG 14 is already covered in its own section at Sustainable Development Goals, and there is also a separate article for Rio Convention. This article seems to have been created because the author noticed that SDG 14 was discussed at recent Rio Conventions, but many things are discussed at those conventions. The text in this article could be split up and used to enhance those two existing articles. But putting the two topics together in this one article raises issues under the personal essay and original research standards. --- DOOMSDAYER520 ( Talk| Contribs) 15:37, 16 April 2019 (UTC) --- DOOMSDAYER520 ( Talk| Contribs) 15:37, 16 April 2019 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Environment-related deletion discussions. --- DOOMSDAYER520 ( Talk| Contribs) 15:38, 16 April 2019 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. --- DOOMSDAYER520 ( Talk| Contribs) 15:38, 16 April 2019 (UTC) reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Jo-Jo Eumerus ( talk, contributions) 05:30, 24 April 2019 (UTC) reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, –  Joe ( talk) 11:23, 1 May 2019 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate 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. Based on the discussion, it seems like the topic is not notable/there is no evidence that it is notable under either NSCHOOL or GNG. However, with respect to Just Chilling's argument about sources that can't be easily found, this page can be restored if someone can post these sources. Jo-Jo Eumerus ( talk, contributions) 07:26, 9 May 2019 (UTC) reply

Ambedkar College of Education, Periye

Ambedkar College of Education, Periye (  | 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 WP:RS, doesn't qualify WP:NSCHOOL, my searches yield nothing enough to mark this institution notable QueerEcofeminist "cite! even if you fight"!!! [they/them/their] 18:50, 17 April 2019 (UTC) reply

This college is fully affiliated to Kannur University and you can see this college listed as a training college in the University website: http://14.139.185.42/newsite/colleges/ksd%20training%20colleges.htm Prof TPMS ( talk) 22:49, 17 April 2019 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 19:17, 17 April 2019 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 19:17, 17 April 2019 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 19:17, 17 April 2019 (UTC) reply
  • Keep - degree-awarding institution that awards accredited degrees. We keep degree-awarding institutions for the very good reason that experience shows that, with enough research, sources can invariably be found that meet WP:ORG. Google is a very poor tool for finding sources on Indian institutions because, unlike US schools for example, they don't dump everything on the Internet. We must avoid systemic bias and allow time for local sources to be researched since no evidence has been adduced that this college cannot meet notability requirements. Just Chilling ( talk) 01:16, 18 April 2019 (UTC) reply
    Just Chilling,
    I agree with you on limitations of google search engines + limitations of online resources itself, but there are two issues with such articles.
    In the last couple of decades India has seen a flood of educational institutions, especially around teachers training/ D.Ed/B.Ed/etc colleges. many of which have difficulty in surviving since they started.
    A possible way to deal with this would be a new page with Dr. Ambedkar Memorial Educational Trust, which is a parent trust of this institution and few others. this trust has few online sources too. QueerEcofeminist "cite! even if you fight"!!! [they/them/their] 05:37, 18 April 2019 (UTC) reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America 1000 04:23, 24 April 2019 (UTC) reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, –  Joe ( talk) 11:18, 1 May 2019 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate 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. RL0919 ( talk) 12:11, 8 May 2019 (UTC) reply

Missing Iranian oil rig

Missing Iranian oil rig (  | 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 don't think this article meets the notability for Events as it doesn't meet the following Inclusion criteria:

The fact that Reza Mostafavai Tabatabaei made a donation to Donald Trump's campaign doesn't fix the above criteria in my opinion. Shemtovca ( talk) 02:42, 24 April 2019 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 06:30, 24 April 2019 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Iran-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 07:11, 24 April 2019 (UTC) reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, –  Joe ( talk) 11:17, 1 May 2019 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate 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 List of Star Wars books. Xymmax So let it be written So let it be done 01:16, 9 May 2019 (UTC) reply

Riptide(Star Wars Novel)

Riptide(Star Wars Novel) (  | 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:NBOOK - no sources currently, I found a couple of reviews on what appear to be WP:UGC fan sites, but nothing in reliable sources. GirthSummit (blether) 14:24, 17 April 2019 (UTC) reply

well every other star wars book has a page why not this one — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bearbro123 ( talk • contribs) 14:27, 17 April 2019 (UTC) reply
See WP:OTHERSTUFF. Notability in books isn't inherited from the franchise (or author, publisher etc). I see that it is listed at List of Star Wars books, which is fine - but if we don't have enough reliable sources to build an article around, then we shouldn't be writing the article. GirthSummit (blether) 14:37, 17 April 2019 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Science fiction-related deletion discussions. Icewhiz ( talk) 15:04, 17 April 2019 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. Icewhiz ( talk) 15:04, 17 April 2019 (UTC) reply
  • Weak keep While there's a tendency to be more inclusive for popular franchise, sometimes fuelled by fanboy/fangirl attitude (as if Wookiepedia or Memory Alpha or such didn't have that handled well enough already), most SW novels have reviews. But the quality of them is often at blog-level. Still: TheForce.Net [12] (ironically, the website's article is tagged for notability...) - not a blog. SFCrowsnest [13] - if this is a blog, it's a rather serious one. Sci-Fi Online (website that describes itself as "The UK's leading telefantasy and cilt website"): [14]. Blog reviews: [15]. Podcast review: [16] . Probably sufficient presence in reviews to warrant pass, and that's without looking for reviews in other languages. -- Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 04:43, 18 April 2019 (UTC) reply
Comment I did see those reviews before nominating, but I didn't think they were sufficiently reliable. NBOOK explicitly excludes blogs and other unreliable sources from counting towards notability, and it goes on to say that we should be cautious about sites that are themselves reliable, but allow members of the public to post material (Criterion 1, Note 2). The 'TheForce.net' review is written by someone called Adrick, who isn't listed amongst their staff - it looks like a fan review on a (barely notable?) fan site. I can't access SFCrowsnest - Chrome and Edge are both refusing to connect, saying that the site uses unsafe TLS security settings - so I can't comment (but this doesn't fill me with confidence!). Sci-Fi Online might be the best bet, insofar as the reviewer (Chris Packer) is listed on the site's ' About Us' page - where it also notes that he's a full-time psychiatric nurse.Again, this looks like a fan review on a fan site. The other blog site and the podcast (since it is hosted on a blog site) are excluded. I'll leave it to others to judge whether the first three sites, and their reviewers, are reliable enough to establish notability. GirthSummit (blether) 11:03, 18 April 2019 (UTC) reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America 1000 04:27, 24 April 2019 (UTC) reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Kpg jhp jm 09:07, 1 May 2019 (UTC) reply
  • REDIRECT to List of Star Wars books. The lack of any real reviews or sources from reliable secondary sources means that this really should not be a stand alone article. However, its a likely search term, and as we have an obvious target for a redirect, that seems like the best option.   Rorshacma ( talk) 15:39, 1 May 2019 (UTC) reply
Good call - agree that it's a likely search term, a redirect would be appropriate. GirthSummit (blether) 19:25, 1 May 2019 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate 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. RL0919 ( talk) 12:14, 8 May 2019 (UTC) reply

ToothPick (company)

ToothPick (company) (  | 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 article is a perfect example of unambiguous advertising or promotion. The page creator is a SPA. They only have 5 employees listed on their company Linkedin profile. Does not meet GNG. Sonstephen0 ( talk) 16:52, 17 April 2019 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. Ceethekreator ( talk) 18:07, 17 April 2019 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Ceethekreator ( talk) 18:07, 17 April 2019 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. Ceethekreator ( talk) 18:07, 17 April 2019 (UTC) reply
  • Comment: Sources which could be added to the page 1, 2, 3, 4 - may not be suitable, 5. Dreamy Jazz 🎷 talk to me | my contributions 20:02, 17 April 2019 (UTC) reply
  • Keep. Although the article is written in a slightly promotional tone, this is something which could be easily edited out and the article is definitely not unambiguous advertising or promotion, as it is not unambiguous: Zingarese (who is not not the page creator) reverted your addition of the speedy deletion tag on the grounds that it was not unambiguous. They only have 5 employees listed on their company Linkedin profile. isn't a valid reason for deletion: First employees are not required to link themselves to a company via Linkedin and even then Wikipedia does not use Linkedin stats to determine notability. Just because an account is an SPA, does not mean that the article should be deleted. I think that this article does meet WP:GNG, as it has significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject from some of the sources above (some are not reliable) and those already on the article. Dreamy Jazz 🎷 talk to me | my contributions 20:17, 17 April 2019 (UTC) reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America 1000 04:24, 24 April 2019 (UTC) reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Kpg jhp jm 09:07, 1 May 2019 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate 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. RL0919 ( talk) 12:17, 8 May 2019 (UTC) reply

Glagnorra Castle

Glagnorra Castle (  | 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 minor fictional location in a novel that itself seems not to be very notable. The article is also completely unsourced. I can't find anything that would justify an article on this. Reyk YO! 08:37, 1 May 2019 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 08:57, 1 May 2019 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate 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. T. Canens ( talk) 06:29, 9 May 2019 (UTC) reply

Naomi Esi Arku Amoah

Naomi Esi Arku Amoah (  | 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 prize is the prize for a season of a television show, and does not show notability . The other reference is an interview where she says whatever she might care to, and is therefore not a RS. DGG ( talk ) 04:25, 9 April 2019 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Ghana-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 05:50, 9 April 2019 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 05:54, 9 April 2019 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. Icewhiz ( talk) 19:50, 9 April 2019 (UTC) reply
@ MurielMary: The article is about the subject, not the orphanage. If the orphanage has been discussed in reliable sources, then a stand-alone article can be created about it. The subject cannot inherit notability from the orphanage.  Versace1608  Wanna Talk? 13:02, 14 April 2019 (UTC) reply
To clarify, the sources discuss the orphanage and Amoah's work building it; the sources about the orphanage are also sources about Amoah. MurielMary ( talk) 11:55, 15 April 2019 (UTC) reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Randykitty ( talk) 11:06, 16 April 2019 (UTC) reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 16:31, 23 April 2019 (UTC) reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Need some discussion on how much the sources cover the subject vs. how much they cover the orphanage
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Jo-Jo Eumerus ( talk, contributions) 07:58, 1 May 2019 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was merge to Ontario Line. T. Canens ( talk) 06:25, 9 May 2019 (UTC) reply

Ontario Place station

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

Merge into Ontario Line as this is simply a potential station of a (very recently) proposed new rapid transit line and isn't notable in and of itself. Joeyconnick ( talk) 02:51, 1 May 2019 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Ontario-related deletion discussions. Eastmain ( talk • contribs) 03:17, 1 May 2019 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 03:22, 1 May 2019 (UTC) reply
Eastmain, while the topic does receive coverage in RS, I do not believe it is independently notable of the subway line itself. I think what the references are describing is actually the western alignment of the Ontario Line, and I think that article would be a good place to put this information. BLAIXX 11:41, 1 May 2019 (UTC) reply
AFD is allowed to weigh in on merge proposals, when warranted. Bearcat ( talk) 18:39, 1 May 2019 (UTC) reply
  • Merge per discussion on talk page; subject is not independently notable. Consider WP:PAGEDECIDE, "A decision to cover a notable topic only as part of a broader page does not in any way disparage the importance of the topic." Also consider the proposed Yonge North subway extension. Clearly this topic receives coverage from RS, but at the same time there are no issues with it being described on the Line 1 page, and not as its own article. BLAIXX 11:49, 1 May 2019 (UTC) reply
  • Merge per nom and talk page discussion. This is certainly a thing that gets mentioned in coverage of either the Ontario Line proposal or the Ontario Place redevelopment scheme, but it is not yet the subject of any dedicated coverage about it independently of those contexts. If and when the line actually gets approved and construction is underway, then separate articles about each individual new station on the line will certainly become justified — but we don't already need a standalone article about the station as a separate topic in its own right as of today, especially when the natural parent article in which it can be discussed is only just barely longer than a stub anyway. Bearcat ( talk) 18:04, 1 May 2019 (UTC)v reply
  • Merge per disscused above Germcrow ( talk) 18:19, 3 May 2019 (UTC) reply
  • Keep In my opinion merge suggestions, like this one, where there are multiple related articles which could be merge targets, show the weaknesses of mergism. All the arguments made to merge to Ontario Line would apply just as well to Ontario Place. Significant topics, notable topics, are usually intimately related to multiple other topics.
Our reader rarely read whole articles, particularly our longer articles. Instead they try and figure out how to read just the information they are interested in. The wikipedia works best when our readers can click on a link and go to a small focussed article, that only talks about a single topic.
When readers can navigate to what might be the information they are interested in, by clicking on a link, the process of returning where they started, is trivial. All they hae to do is click on the "back" button. However, where the urge to merge succeeds, returning where you came requires a lot of frustrating scrolling around, or the use of the search button.
When an actual notable topic -- like this one -- is nevertheless merged into a related article this means that some information won't have a place. The article on Ontario Place should link to Ontario Place station, and the article on the Ontario Line should link to Ontario Place station. If we start an article on Proposals to build casinos at Ontario Place, it too should link to Ontario Place station.
Wouldn't it serve our readers just as well if the articles on Ontario Place and Proposals to build casinos at Ontario Place linked to a subsection of Ontario Line#Ontario Place station? Absolutely not. This is generally true in every ill-advised urge to merge attempt. There is information relevant to both Ontario Place and Ontario Place station that would not be relevant in Ontario Line. And vice versa.
Some mergists here have claimed - in violation of WP:OTHERSTUFF, that we "never" create articles about stations, until they are under construction. This is only generally true, and the obvious reason for that is that most proposed stations don't yet measure up to GNG. But Ontario Place station DOES measure up to GNG. Geo Swan ( talk) 14:08, 4 May 2019 (UTC) reply
No, it doesn't yet measure up to GNG. As of today, it is merely a thing that gets mentioned in coverage whose core subject is either Ontario Place or the Ontario Line as a whole, and is not yet the subject of even one piece of dedicated coverage as its own standalone thing independently of those contexts. GNG is not "the topic gets its name mentioned in coverage of other things", it is "the topic is the primary subject of several substantive pieces of coverage in its own right as its own standalone thing". Bearcat ( talk) 16:16, 4 May 2019 (UTC) reply
  • Merge or Delete As the Ontario Line itself is a proposal, it seems premature to have an Ontario Place station article. Also, the extensions to the Relief Line route are new and only exist as a proposal on a budget document. No design of stations, the routing is a bit vague. They have not been discussed nor preliminary concepts advanced. And specifically, there are no details to provide as a basis for a stand-alone article. Plenty of room in the Ontario Line article to include one sentence descriptions of the proposed stations. That should do until things progress. Alaney2k ( talk) 18:07, 6 May 2019 (UTC) reply
  • Merge Premature to have an article on a proposed station when the line itself was also just proposed. Reywas92 Talk 16:22, 7 May 2019 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate 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 Cody Chesnutt. RL0919 ( talk) 03:39, 8 May 2019 (UTC) reply

The Crosswalk

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

Band with no notable albums. There only album released was a EP, where there other one is unreleased (from 1999, don't think it's getting released anytime soon then) Wgolf ( talk) 02:30, 1 May 2019 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. CASSIOPEIA( talk) 03:34, 1 May 2019 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. CASSIOPEIA( talk) 03:34, 1 May 2019 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 03:59, 1 May 2019 (UTC) reply

Redirect to Cody_Chestnut, although that article is probably vulnerable to a thorough AfD nomination. Otherwise, this band's major label album was never released, plus no sources. ShelbyMarion ( talk) 13:40, 1 May 2019 (UTC) reply

Richard3120 ( talk) 14:24, 1 May 2019 (UTC) reply

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate 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 on some, redirect most. For most of these articles, consenus appears to be that WP:NLIST is not met, except for four where Mrschimpf has made uncontested claims of coverage (unless Bgredmchn's last comment was meant to be a contestation, but I have some difficulty in reading what was said there); no consensus on these four. I am a little unsure whether "2018 Metro Atlantic Athletic Conference finals announcers" refers to one of the articles in question, however. As for the others, it seems like the main question is whether any of the information is worth merging over; some people have raised the concern that WP:UNDUE and some infobox-related rules would be violated ( WP:FANCRUFT has also been cited, but that is an essay). It seems like "redirect" is probably the best solution, to reflect both the consensus that the lists ought to go and to allow for easy copying if it's determined that the material is useful anywhere. Jo-Jo Eumerus ( talk, contributions) 09:16, 9 May 2019 (UTC) reply

List of West Coast Conference Men's Basketball Tournament Finals broadcasters

List of West Coast Conference Men's Basketball Tournament Finals broadcasters (  | 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:LISTN, with lack of independent, reliable sources that discuss this grouping. A merge seems WP:UNDUE, as games are about the teams participating and not worth inundating with minutiae like this. Previous consensus at similiar AfD Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of Pacific-12 Conference Men's Basketball Tournament Finals broadcasters was to delete. — Bagumba ( talk) 17:32, 23 April 2019 (UTC) reply

Adding the following similar articles to the nom, all of which were created in the same batch and lack substantive sources for TV Guide listings:
List of American Athletic Conference Men's Basketball Tournament Finals broadcasters (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
List of ACC Men's Basketball Tournament Finals broadcasters (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
List of America East Men's Basketball Tournament Finals broadcasters (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
List of Atlantic 10 Men's Basketball Tournament Finals broadcasters (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
List of Big 12 Men's Basketball Tournament Finals broadcasters (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
List of Big East Men's Basketball Tournament Finals broadcasters (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
List of Big Eight Conference Men's Basketball Tournament Finals broadcasters (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
List of Big Sky Men's Basketball Tournament Finals broadcasters (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
List of Big South Men's Basketball Tournament broadcasters (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
List of Big Ten Conference Men's Basketball Tournament Finals broadcasters (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
List of Big West Conference Men's Basketball Tournament Finals broadcasters (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
List of CollegeInsider.com Postseason Tournament finals broadcasters (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
List of Colonial Athletic Association Men's Basketball Tournament Finals broadcasters (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
List of Conference USA Men's Basketball Tournament Finals broadcasters (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
List of MAAC Men's Basketball Tournament Finals broadcasters (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
List of Metro Conference Men's Basketball Tournament Finals broadcasters (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
List of Mid-American Conference Men's Basketball Tournament Finals broadcasters (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
List of Mid-Eastern Athletic Conference Men's Basketball Tournament Finals broadcasters (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
List of Missouri Valley Conference Men's Basketball Tournament Finals broadcasters (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
List of Mountain West Men's Basketball Tournament Finals broadcasters (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
List of Northeast Conference Men's Basketball Tournament Finals broadcasters (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
List of Ohio Valley Men's Basketball Tournament Finals broadcasters (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
List of Patriot League Men's Basketball Tournament Finals broadcasters (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
List of SEC Men's Basketball Tournament Finals broadcasters (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
List of Southern Conference Men's Basketball Tournament Finals broadcasters (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
List of Southland Conference Men's Basketball Tournament Finals broadcasters (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
List of Southwest Conference Men's Basketball Tournament Finals broadcasters (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
List of Southwestern Athletic Conference Men's Basketball Tournament Finals broadcasters (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
List of The Summit League Men's Basketball Tournament Finals broadcasters (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
List of Sun Belt Conference Men's Basketball Tournament Finals broadcasters (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
List of WAC Men's Basketball Tournament Finals broadcasters (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
List of West Coast Conference Men's Basketball Tournament Finals broadcasters (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Also noting merge decision at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of Atlantic Sun Men's Basketball Tournament Finals broadcasters. So many events of all sorts are televised, and while it may be relevant to provide the network on the main article, it becomes trivial to have such routine information in forked lists. Reywas92 Talk 07:51, 25 April 2019 (UTC) reply
Comment As original nominator, I also support the deletion of these pages.— Bagumba ( talk) 07:14, 2 May 2019 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Basketball-related deletion discussions. — Bagumba ( talk) 17:32, 23 April 2019 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 17:45, 23 April 2019 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Radio-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 17:45, 23 April 2019 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 17:45, 23 April 2019 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 17:46, 23 April 2019 (UTC) reply
Comment After seeing the above discussion, the List of Atlantic Sun Men's Basketball Tournament Finals broadcasters is probably the only one that was merged and redirected four years ago. Could that be done with these 32 articles? Brian ( talk) 00:05, 26 April 2019 (UTC) reply
@ Bgredmchn: I stated the following in the nomination: A merge seems WP:UNDUE, as games are about the teams participating and not worth inundating with minutiae like this. Regards.— Bagumba ( talk) 08:25, 26 April 2019 (UTC) reply
It wasn't WP:UNDUE four years ago with the Atlantic Sun, which with these being AFD'd, would make that conference be different from all the rest. Brian ( talk) 14:47, 27 April 2019 (UTC) reply
It looks like consensus changed since the AfD you cited. While Rikster2 and Editorofthewiki !voted merge in that Nov 2015 Atlantic Sun AfD, they later !voted to delete in the Jan 2016 Pac-12 AfD.— Bagumba ( talk) 04:40, 2 May 2019 (UTC) reply
Where are we on WP:IGNORINGATD? The fact that a topic is not notable is not, in and of itself, valid grounds for deleting a page, its content, or its history. If merger and/or redirection is feasible in a given case, either is preferable to deletion. I still feel they are feasible for a merge over deletion, to the point that I'm sure more reliable sources are out there, no one has really tried to find them. Brian ( talk) 18:57, 2 May 2019 (UTC) reply
@ Bagumba: There isn't much to say towards WP:DUE, only that most people actually watch the games on TV than attend them, it's plausible to at least have the names of the broadcasters I've been listening to for two hours. If it's just about the teams participating, we should also remove instances of networks altogether. It's not about who pays the most to air the most games, or the biggest fan interest ones, but the teams playing. Brings up this point, {{ Infobox NCAA Basketball Conference Tournament}} has no area to edit for announcers, only networks. {{ Infobox NCAA football yearly game}} has an announcers section, AND ratings. There are plenty of pages in college football for announcers, and while I agree they don't meet WP:SAL, it could be as easy as editing a template to allow broadcasters to be listed, and not have their own articles. Brian ( talk) 01:59, 28 April 2019 (UTC) reply
  • Merge all to parent articles if feasible with space, otherwise keep as valid split. The information should be somewhere. Ideally it should be in the parent article, but if that would cause it to be too long, I'm fine giving them their own. Smartyllama ( talk) 17:10, 29 April 2019 (UTC) reply
    keep as valid split: Spinouts are generally not exempt from meeting notability guidelines. Per the guideline WP:AVOIDSPLIT: "Editors are cautioned not to immediately split articles if the new article would meet neither the general notability criterion nor the specific notability criteria for their topic."— Bagumba ( talk) 07:21, 2 May 2019 (UTC) reply
  • Delete (preferably) or Merge, listcruft without the necessary notability. Fram ( talk) 18:26, 29 April 2019 (UTC) reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, -- Scott Burley ( talk) 02:15, 1 May 2019 (UTC) reply
  • Delete All Stand alone lists do need RS and IS just like any other articles - see Wikipedia:Stand-alone lists. CASSIOPEIA( talk) 06:50, 1 May 2019 (UTC) reply
  • Comment re: cruft WP:FANCRUFT should not be merged into infoboxes; this only causes bloat. Per WP:INFOBOXPURPOSE: The less information it contains, the more effectively it serves that purpose, allowing readers to identify key facts at a glance. There is no guideline to preserve cruft via a merge. Per WP:ONUS: While information must be verifiable in order to be included in an article, this does not mean that all verifiable information must be included in an article.— Bagumba ( talk) 07:49, 1 May 2019 (UTC) reply
  • Delete all but major conferences (ACC, Big Ten, Big 12, Big East, SEC) Those can at least be easily sourced and are major events for sports networks. The rest are all ESPN time-fillers who are staffed on an unknown basis (or with the sub-NIT tourneys, whoever accepts their contract), and sports broadcasting FANCRUFT. Nate • ( chatter) 22:50, 1 May 2019 (UTC) reply
@ Mrschimpf: I can just as easily find 2018 Metro Atlantic Athletic Conference finals announcers as I can the ACC via google. ( https://maacsports.com/news/2018/2/27/2018-maac-mens-basketball-championship-game-to-air-on-espn.aspx) And I'm sure Jay Bilas, Sean McDonough and Bill Raftery do not fall into that "rest" category. Brian ( talk) 23:23, 1 May 2019 (UTC) reply
@ Bagumba: All MLB postseason infoboxes have announcers listed ( 2018 National League Division Series). They even go as far as radio announcers and even list umpires. Also for baseball, I direct you to ( Category:Lists of Major League Baseball broadcasters) as well. All NCAA College Football bowl game infoboxes have announcers listed ( 2019 Rose Bowl). All NFL postseason {{ Americanfootballbox}} has announcers listed ( 2018–19_NFL_playoffs#Wild_card_playoffs). NBA (direct you to Category:Lists of National Basketball Association broadcasters). Boxing, lots of major fights have a section in the article titled Broadcasting ( Floyd Mayweather Jr. vs. Conor McGregor). NASCAR race report infoboxes have a section, and list broadcasters, networks, and even Nielsen ratings ( 2018 Daytona 500) and other articles ( Category:Lists of NASCAR broadcasters). College Baseball has a section in the article titled Broadcast assignments ( 2018_NCAA_Division_I_Baseball_Tournament#Broadcast_assignments). NHL (direct you to Category:Lists of National Hockey League broadcasters). By your definition above, ALL of these are WP:FANCRUFT and the ones with them in the infoboxes violates WP:INFOBOXPURPOSE. It just seems if we decide to delete these works, we will be setting a precedent. If college basketball can't list their announcers, why can these other sports? Per WP:NOCRUFT While the "cruft" label is often used for any or all things of perceived minor interest, it is worth considering carefully whether or not so-called "cruft" has potential. Brian ( talk) 23:23, 1 May 2019 (UTC) reply
Comment In the end, only bettors and fans of the schools care about the smaller tourneys, and those feel like the inane lists we've deleted involving 'List of Sunday Night Baseball games'. Press releases shouldn't be the final source for anything, and are unacceptable as the only sources for entire article, whereas the majors who are broadcast by ESPN, CBS and Raycom hardly have that issue. Nate • ( chatter) 02:23, 2 May 2019 (UTC) reply
Comment Those are comparisons to different sports. Still, !voters will have to decide whether WP:OTHERCRAPEXISTS is applicable or not here.— Bagumba ( talk) 04:47, 2 May 2019 (UTC) reply
@ Mrschimpf: There's actually seven power conferences (major), but most only mention power five, and the Big East isn't one of the five. And that's a pretty biased statement to make. So, perhaps we should just remove the Miami Marlins from Wikipedia since they aren't one of the "power" teams. Should be no reason to have five conferences have something the other 27 cannot have. Press releases shouldn't be the final source for anything, and are unacceptable as the only sources for entire article, whereas the majors who are broadcast by ESPN, CBS and Raycom hardly have that issue. Of those 27, the networks for the championship games, which this is the only broadcasters the articles pertain to, 25 conference championship games are covered this way: 8 by ESPN, 8 by ESPN2, 3 by CBS, 3 by CBSSN, 2 by ESPNU, and 1 by FOX (Big East). Not much different than the "majors". Brian ( talk) 05:08, 2 May 2019 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate 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. Seraphimblade Talk to me 00:59, 8 May 2019 (UTC) reply

Elitaliana

Elitaliana (  | 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:NCORP, WP:GNG, most coverage is trivial mentions of the company in articles about a tax evasion scandal that some board members of the company were implicated in. signed, Rosguill talk 22:30, 23 April 2019 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. signed, Rosguill talk 22:31, 23 April 2019 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. signed, Rosguill talk 22:31, 23 April 2019 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Aviation-related deletion discussions. signed, Rosguill talk 22:31, 23 April 2019 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Italy-related deletion discussions. signed, Rosguill talk 22:31, 23 April 2019 (UTC) reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, -- Scott Burley ( talk) 02:04, 1 May 2019 (UTC) reply
  • Keep - I see significant coverage in independent, reliable sources sufficient to meet WP:ORG. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7. As demonstrated in the sources, Elitaliana is notable for 1) operating helicopters, particularly search and rescue helicopters, and 2) a prominent ECJ case. FOARP ( talk) 12:44, 1 May 2019 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the 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_May_1&oldid=1142224809"

Videos

Youtube | Vimeo | Bing

Websites

Google | Yahoo | Bing

Encyclopedia

Google | Yahoo | Bing

Facebook




Top Of Page

Home • Search • Translate

© CSE