Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/Yesterday

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to navigation Jump to search
Purge page cache if page isn't updating.
Guide to deletion

Purge server cache

Michael Treanor[edit]

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

Former child star who only has 2 roles both in the same franchise (not including one extra uncredited role). Either delete or what I'm leaning on-a redirect to 3 Ninjas. Wgolf (talk) 22:53, 23 April 2019 (UTC)

  • Comment-I forgot to add-yes this was AFD before-BUT it was in 2008 when Wikipedia was MUCH more lenient at the time (it wasn't more strict till around 2012-2014 on these type of rules if I was to guess when) Wgolf (talk) 22:56, 23 April 2019 (UTC)
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 23:19, 23 April 2019 (UTC)
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 23:19, 23 April 2019 (UTC)
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Martial arts-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 23:19, 23 April 2019 (UTC)
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 23:19, 23 April 2019 (UTC)

Shallow Side[edit]

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

Fails WP:BAND, I can find no independent coverage in independent sources other than schedules and track listings and what not. funplussmart (talk) 22:38, 23 April 2019 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 23:20, 23 April 2019 (UTC)
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Alabama-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 23:20, 23 April 2019 (UTC)
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 23:20, 23 April 2019 (UTC)
  • Comment: well, they have an AllMusic biography [1] and have charted on one of the specialist Billboard charts [2], for starters... Richard3120 (talk) 23:57, 23 April 2019 (UTC)

Virac Town Center[edit]

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

Does not meet WP:GNG, WP:NGEO. What little coverage exists appears to be limited to local papers of dubious reliability (Catanduanes Tribune), and the article with the most significant coverage of the subject doesn't even have a byline. signed, Rosguill talk 22:37, 23 April 2019 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Shopping malls-related deletion discussions. signed, Rosguill talk 22:37, 23 April 2019 (UTC)
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. signed, Rosguill talk 22:37, 23 April 2019 (UTC)
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Philippines-related deletion discussions. signed, Rosguill talk 22:37, 23 April 2019 (UTC)
  • Delete. Except for one news article that alleges that it was built from drug cartel money, i see nothing else here that suggests notability. Kill it :/--RioHondo (talk) 08:05, 24 April 2019 (UTC)

Non-natural death in the twentieth and twenty-first centuries[edit]

Non-natural death in the twentieth and twenty-first centuries (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · death in the twentieth and twenty-first centuries Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · newspapers · scholar · free images · WP refs· FENS · JSTOR · NYT · TWL)

This is a bucket list with a weird and incoherent mix of things which have caused human death. There's no coherence in its scope; in date ranges chosen; in geographic locales. There's no very good logic nor criteria for what should and should not be included. It's a mess and it will always be a mess. Tagishsimon (talk) 21:40, 20 April 2019 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 22:10, 20 April 2019 (UTC)

reasons the nomination itself fails - by Sederecarinae

In WP:DEL-REASON, Of the 14 listed reasons in WP:DEL-REASON, the article doesn't fulfill any of the 14.

WP:BEFORE (in WP:AFD) links to WP:DEL-REASON via the link anchor "valid grounds for deletion" ie, AFD describes deletion-reason (the list of 14 reasons) as being the "valid grounds"

Sederecarinae (talk) 17:10, 21 April 2019 (UTC)


the nomination fails also on the grounds,

Wikipedia:GDBN :

Before nominating a recently created article, please consider that many good articles started their Wikilife in pretty bad shape. Unless it is obviously a hopeless case (links to criteria for speedy deletion), consider sharing your reservations with the article creator, mentioning your concerns on the article's discussion page, and/or adding a "cleanup" template, instead of bringing the article to AfD.

Investigate the possibility of rewriting the article yourself (or at least creating a stub on the topic and requesting expansion) instead of deleting it.

First do the necessary homework and look for sources yourself, and invite discussion on the talk page by using the

template, if you are disputing the notability of an article's subject. The fact that you haven't heard of something, or don't personally consider it worthy, are not criteria for deletion. You must look for, and demonstrate that you couldn't find, any independent sources of sufficient depth.

The nominating editor didn't investigate the possibility of rewriting the article, or look for sources. You must look for, and demonstrate that you couldn't find, any independent sources of sufficient depth.

Sederecarinae (talk) 17:32, 21 April 2019 (UTC)


1) it can't be a "bucket list" https://bucketlist.org/ because such a list is a list of things to do before one dies, not a list of causes of death. The article doesn't describe "List" of anything in the title; the article isn't intended to be a list at this time since I haven't determined the amount of possible source material available, there might be scope for discussion of the different causes, in addition to a listing of datum for years showing number of deaths.

reasons why the reasons given by Tagashimon are unnacceptable, (including also reasons why the nomination is without sufficient reason) - by Sederecarinae

2) "incoherent / no coherence" - is obviously not true, as the determination of subject is causes of death and all the contents fulfills the title

3)"the date ranges chosen, in geographical locales" - you should simply wait for the article to develop, the criticism is premature, since the article hasn't existed for very much time, and I haven't been able to include full ranges due insufficient time to search for contents to include

4) "no very good logic nor criteria for what should and should not be included" the criteria is human-cause as explained in the lead - you might think this isn't any criteria at all (as the article was redirected to the article about causes of death previously) the article redirected to at that time, contains information on the biological cause of death Cardiovascular diseases, Infectious diseases et cetera that are by medical definition (i.e. are within the International Statistical Classification of Diseases and Related Health Problems (ICD) critieria, and the range is rather large, contains 79 or 80 causes of death, although some of the criteria : war, poisoning, fire, road traffic accidents are included, they make-up only a small number of the approximately 79-80 causes, obviously the fact that the data is from 2002 only is something to do with the fact of the range being too great for the article to contain all the datum.Plus the article there shows " data from 2002 and is out of date", this article contains more updated information, and as I mentioned in the previous sentence, is of a more limited criteria (excluding diseases, and natural disasters, i.e. human-made) which gives this article more space to include detail for data for years

5) "It's a mess and it will always be a mess." looks like political rhetoric, I think you just feel negatively in reaction to the subject matter and want the article to simply go away, if you were an authority on the subject, you would have asserted the truth of your statement "will always be a mess" at the initial challenge against the article, the whole concern with messiness is just a reiteration of the previous criticisms, which is the criticisms are based simply on the organisation of the article, but you fail to include any mention of the invalidity of the subject, if you doubt my abilities as an editor, why not collaborate, as it is a group effort to create the encyclopedia, as you are aware? Your addition of suggested deletion is less important than an effort to contribute to the article and create an encyclopedia, as is the purpose of wikipedia.

Sederecarinae (talk) 22:47, 20 April 2019 (UTC) opinions of deletion by interested editors, and opinions against, made by Sederecarinae

DOA you state the reason is DOA because of agglomeration of stats for random years, ranging from war to one "meat-blender accident" which is a rather weak support for the implication DOA (dead on arrival) indicates the article has no value. The only actual reason in criticisms you've made (that the article shouldn't be given any life at all), is random. (DOA doesn't strictly state anything about the article other than, you don't like the article, it has no life ... but why the article is dead?, DOA simply expresses your preference, but who are you that your opinion is any more valid than thousands or millions of other people who would find the article something they would prefer to look at, that the article should be deleted at this early stage of development)
random years the years aren't random, as I've indicated in 3)
the other accidental deaths (i.e. "meat-blender accident") are included to indicate the existence of a range of low statistical occurrence types of death, with the intention of finding occurences for a more geographically larger area, and a more complete statistic for the types, in the future of the article for each type of death.
The reason why I didn't title the article unnatural causes of death (or something similar) is because the identification of non-natural with humanity implies humans are non-natural - i.e the cause of death was road traffic accident, but a human was driving, nuclear device, but a human released the bomb from an aircraft. Unnatural death is true of Aircraft disasters as the cause of the passengers deaths is mechanical fault, or electric fault, or some other fault, I don't know exactly; a failure of the integrity of the craft as a result of human error, or material error, resulting in a flaw in the aircrafts integrity, plus the interaction of the flaw with the physical environment, during flight, causing the failure of the craft to remain airborne. Sederecarinae (talk) 13:37, 21 April 2019 (UTC)
  • Delete Not a useful list and too much synthesis. Dheerajmpai23 (talk) 14:14, 21 April 2019 (UTC)
  • Delete- The content is a strange sampling of bits and pieces, and does not seem to serve any encyclopedic purpose. There is no obvious place to merge any of this content, and the title is not a useful redirect because of the grammatical error. Unclear rationale for deprod. Reyk YO! 15:20, 21 April 2019 (UTC)
looking at Wikipedia:Introduction to deletion process:
"When to use the deletion process? Articles that the community feels cannot improve, or are unlikely to improve, are often deleted.
"When to not use deletion process? Articles that are in bad shape – these can be tagged for cleanup or attention, or improved through editing. Articles we are not interested in – some topics are of interest only to some people, but since Wikipedia is not a paper encyclopedia, articles that interest some people should be kept. Articles on topics you wish didn't exist for personal belief reasons – Wikipedia contains information on all topics, not just those which any person or group agrees with.
deletion is a last resort. Deletion nominations rarely improve articles, and deletion should not be used as a way to improve an article, or a reaction to a bad article. It is appropriate for articles which cannot be improved.
& WP:DEL-REASON: Reasons for deletion include, but are not limited to, the following (subject to the condition that improvement or deletion of an offending section, if practical, is preferable to deletion of an entire page)
Of the 14 listed reasons in WP:DEL-REASON, the article doesn't fulfill any of the 14.
I can't see how editors preferring deletion have adhered to the criteria for deletion as described in the the two page Sederecarinae (talk) 16:46, 21 April 2019 (UTC)
WP:AFD If you want to nominate an article, the Wikipedia deletion policy explains the criteria for deletion, and may help you understand when an article should be nominated for deletion. The guide to deletion explains the deletion process. If an article meets the criteria for deletion and you understand the process, consult the instructions below. If you are unsure whether a page should be nominated for deletion, or if you need more help, try this talk page or Wikipedia's help desk. Sederecarinae (talk) 16:48, 21 April 2019 (UTC)
  • Delete per nom and others; does not have clear and reasonable selection criteria MB 17:38, 21 April 2019 (UTC)
is an inadmissible, unacceptable reason because selection criteria is a sub-heading of "Appropriate topics for lists" of the article Wikipedia:Stand-alone lists, not a reason for deletion. The reason given by User:MB is an observation the article nominated doesn't fulfil the criteria for a List, that is all. This is already described in my first response at 1), I didn't title the article List anything, that is a failing of the nominating editor to have thought the article is a list in any case, because it isn't titled a list and the contents aren't intended to be a list. Even if the article were intended to be a list but is not fulfilling the criteria, is not a legitimate reason for deletion, is infact more or less an irrelevant fact. Sederecarinae (talk) 17:50, 21 April 2019 (UTC)
Please stop telling everybody that they're wrong because their argument is not enumerated in WP:DEL-REASON. That list is not comprehensive (Reasons for deletion include, but are not limited to, the following). WP:LSC is a guideline, which means you're expected to follow it aside from the occasional exception, and if that's not possible to do for a page then it's a perfectly valid rationale for deletion. The fact the page's title doesn't contain "List" doesn't mean it's not a list. Hut 8.5 18:09, 21 April 2019 (UTC)
that is not correct because as I've described WP:BEFORE (in WP:AFD) links to WP:DEL-REASON via the link anchor "valid grounds for deletion" ie, AFD describes deletion-reason (the list of 14 reasons) as being the "valid grounds" Sederecarinae (talk) 18:14, 21 April 2019 (UTC)
secondarily, as I've already indicated, the nomination itself is invalid, because the nominating editor did not follow the description policy for actions to take before nomination, as I've indicated in the response I made to your first inclusion on this page and elsewhere. Sederecarinae (talk) 18:17, 21 April 2019 (UTC) c.f. Wikipedia:GDBN Sederecarinae (talk) 18:18, 21 April 2019 (UTC)
the problems of the page, identified by yourself and others could be in a large part addressed by the cleanup or disputed templates, in addition, the fact that you have identified are not limited to, their are 14 criteria listed wouldn't you think that that fact of there being 14 listed indicates the 14 idenbtified were important enough to show on the the page, and reasons other than the 14 aren't as important a reason for deletion as one or more of the 14, the first is criteria for speedy deletion which does indicate that the 1st reason is the most important reason for deletion in the 14, and Deletion is last resort. In considering reasons other than those shown in the list of 14 reasons:
The main four guidelines and policies that inform deletion discussions: notability (WP:N), verifiability (WP:V), reliable sources (WP:RS), and what Wikipedia is not (WP:NOT)
Wikipedia:4DDd the purpose of XfD is to decide whether an article fails a policy. Even if 40 people vote to delete, if they don't have a reason to do so, the article will be kept. Sederecarinae (talk) 18:45, 21 April 2019 (UTC)
WP:DEL is a policy, it has official status and people are expected to follow it. The other page you've linked to does not have official status and is attempting to briefly summarise part of the deletion policy. The fact it doesn't mention all the bits of that section does not mean anything. Hut 8.5 18:47, 21 April 2019 (UTC)
As I've mentioned, the first listed reason is criteria for speedy deletion, which must include the most obvious and strongest reasoned arguments for the deletion of an article (being the fastest response to the need for deletion), the second, copyright violations is also comparatively a strong reason, being an actual legal obligation, and the list therefore must presumably proceed by number accordingly, going down the numbers indicates lesser important reasons. This article doesn't fulfil any of the 14 reasons shown, what is the actual reason? The only reason I could find is in the 14th Wikipedia:What_Wikipedia_is_not#Wikipedia_is_not_an_indiscriminate_collection_of_information but I've provided an explanation for the statistics. Sederecarinae (talk) 19:04, 21 April 2019 (UTC)
  • Delete a mess of a list, doesn't have a coherent topic and would not be useful if it was in an even vaguely complete state. The scope includes cases where people deliberately killed people but also where people were killed by people by accident, cases where people died as a result of engaging in risky behaviours and apparently even freak accidents arising from unremarkable behaviours. This isn't a coherent scope. If expanded it would be even messier, for example one section gives a breakdown of people killed by police forces in the US and US in the last few years, if expanded to cover every country in the world over the last 119 years it would take up an absurd amount of space. We have a number of other lists which present this information, such as List of causes of death by rate, Preventable causes of death, List of countries by suicide rate, List of countries by intentional homicide rate and List of wars and anthropogenic disasters by death toll, I suggest the creator contribute to those or start something with a clearly defined scope like that. Hut 8.5 17:45, 21 April 2019 (UTC)
Is not intended to be a list, do you see list in the title? The list you've shown links to don't " present this information ", you haven't even looked at the other lists, if you had and found this article is a repition of content in the Lists you could have given the reason as a repetition of content in other articles, which is a reason for deletion, but isn't true of this article. If you look at https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Deletion_and_deletionism#Step_One:_Verify_if_the_article_in_question_can_be_improved_rather_than_be_deleted, is messier, messiness, it is amess or anything of the description to do with messiness isn't anything at all to do with a reason for deletion, or in any of the links I've provided. Messiness is not a reason, in Deletion_and_deletionism#Step_One:_Verify_if_the_article_in_question_can_be_improved_rather_than_be_deleted shows shows See if you can find any sources easily with a 2-minute Google search. See how many Google hits the article has. If you can't easily find any sources and there are very few Google hits relating to the article, go on to step two. If you CAN find sources, though, go ahead and add references to the article Not one of you is following the description in procedure for deletion nomination, and there isn't any indication anyone has made any effort to add references to the article. The article doesn't fulfil any of the 14 criteria for deletion I've described for deletion already, what then are the actual reasons for deletion? Sederecarinae (talk) 18:08, 21 April 2019 (UTC)
I get that you're new, but you don't seem to have understood the pages you're quoting here, but you have nevertheless decided that everybody else is very very wrong. For a start Wikipedia:Deletion and deletionism is an essay and therefore ultimately just someone's opinion. It doesn't have any official standing. Secondly the concerns which are being raised here can't be addressed through editing. Take the overlap argument. The list attempts to break down the casualties of the Second World War. This is done in much greater detail at World War II casualties. What is the justification for doing it separately here, exactly? I don't see anything. In fact given the scope of the list it ought to be expanded to include breakdowns of the casualties of the other wars in the 20th and 21st centuries, and There's rather a lot of those, unfortunately. And that's just the wars, never mind the sections on murder, police deaths, etc. The result would not be useful to our readers. This problem cannot be addressed through editing because it is fundamental to any page with this title and scope.
The bit you've quoted about sources is not relevant here. The most common reason given for deletion here, by a large margin, is that the topic doesn't have adequate sourcing. People nominating pages for deletion for that reason are advised to check for the existence of suitable sources, yes. But this page hasn't been nominated for deletion for that reason. The fact that sources exist on some topic does not mean we can have an article on it. It only means we can have an article on it if it isn't disallowed for some other reason. Hut 8.5 18:47, 21 April 2019 (UTC)
So you're stating the reason for deletion would be WP:NOT#IINFO ? Sederecarinae (talk) 19:09, 21 April 2019 (UTC)
As I have already said, there is no comprehensive list of reasons why pages can be deleted here, and any logically valid argument would do. However if you insist on a policy link then it does come under WP:NOT#IINFO as it is an indiscriminate collection of statistics. Hut 8.5 19:12, 21 April 2019 (UTC)
The reasons for deletion are given in policy WP:DEL, the only of the list the article currently seems to breach is in the 14th, but as I've stated above, I've provided an explanation in the article. The list is discriminated by "human-made" as the description of the content inclusion, not by disease or natural disaster c.f. 4). Sederecarinae (talk) 19:25, 21 April 2019 (UTC)
the primary subject of the article is: cause of death, the secondary subject is: human made (artificial) or by human behaviour, the article seeks to describe this subject as a more specific subject to the generally defined subject Causes in the primary. Sederecarinae (talk) 19:30, 21 April 2019 (UTC)
The fact you can point to inclusion criteria does not make it not indiscriminate, because those criteria are extremely broad. As written the list includes everything from nuclear warfare to accidental electrocution by headphones as individual items. Presumably you could expand it to include accidental decapitation by helicopter and being crushed by a hay bale, along with a million others. Regarding your claim that WP:DEL-REASON is a comprehensive list, I suggest you have a look at WP:IDHT, as your reading is the exact opposite of what the policy clearly says. Hut 8.5 19:31, 21 April 2019 (UTC)
Is this an article? WP:DISRUPTSIGNS is with regards to editing in articles not in discussions for deletion. Is WP:IDHT a policy? You attempt to close my opinions because they don't agree with yours and a number of others. I don't agree with you and a number of other editors so my insistence on a particular opinion is thought disruptive is that it? I'm stating the list indicates, at the 1st and 2nd positions in the list the 1st most important reason and the second most important, wouldn't you agree? why the editor who created the policy listed the reasons for deletion in numerical order, instead of in a list without numbers? I haven't stated I think the list is comprehensive, where do you see the word comprehensive in my explanation prior to your comment, there isn't any mention of the word. As to your claim I'm being disruptive, perhaps you'd like to read > Wikipedia:4DDd the purpose of XfD is to decide whether an article fails a policy. Even if 40 people vote to delete, if they don't have a reason to do so, the article will be kept as your reading is simply in error compared to policy. As to the identification of two types of death "decapitation by helicopter, crushed by a hay bale" Why not include the information you have identified, is there a reason not to? you don't actually in reality know the amount of information possible to include in the article, you're just presuming to know without any proof of the information potentially being too much to include within the article, I could (yourself or any other editor) summarise the information, move the article title accordingly, create a more specific article, there are millions or articles in wikipedia. Sederecarinae (talk) 19:54, 21 April 2019 (UTC)
@Hut 8.5:perhaps you'd like to look at the definition of the word riled, because I'm sure this word applies to yourself, perhaps I'm wrong, and my deepest and sincere regret for having ever bothered you with my futile efforts to reason against the current consus seeing this is the exact moment of realization of consensus as you have so rightly identified for all our (and for the species benefit, of course) I am humbly corrected. the purpose of XfD is to decide whether an article fails a policy. Even if 40 people vote to delete, if they don't have a reason to do so, the article will be kept Sederecarinae (talk) 20:00, 21 April 2019 (UTC)
You just told everybody who commented here that their reason is invalid because it isn't listed in WP:DEL-REASON, even though that's exactly the opposite of what WP:DEL-REASON says, and you carried on after this was pointed out to you. That's disruptive. You can't claim that the people arguing this page should be deleted don't have a reason either, they clearly do. You might not agree with it or like it but it is there. I don't see any point in continuing this discussion further. Hut 8.5 20:12, 21 April 2019 (UTC)
  • Delete I can understand the concept, but the article would need to be started over completely to have clear methodology for what to include. This is just an assortment of whatever unrelated and incomparable statistics about deaths you could find, without any coherent selection criteria. The list of "other accidental deaths" that have killed one single person could get pretty out of hand. It's very random organization, varying in sections by what years and countries are included and in what formats, which basic clean-up wouldn't fix. Preventable causes of death could be expanded to include some of this, but this is not the way to do it. Reywas92Talk 20:14, 21 April 2019 (UTC)
Is not possible because WP:TNT states the reasons for are usually Copyright violations and extensive cases of advocacy and undisclosed paid sock farms are frequently blown up. As I've stated before the list isn't incoherent:
Human and artificial cause death in the twentieth and twenty-first centuries
  • Tobacco - is a natural substance, but the inclusion is because it is manufactured by humans and added to places of commerce for purchase, it is in a form which is made - cigars, cigarettes and packaged tobacco; compared to Causes of death - lung cancer, this is often caused by tobacco, but in this article the cause tobacco is given, because the article isn't about medically determined causes of death, as for example in autopsy, the coroner found the individuals death was caused by - if the coroner found lung cancer, they wouldn't state tobacco, they would state lung-cancer. In addition tobacco is included in human cause by human behaviour, as decribed in the introduction
  • Alcohol - is produced and added to flavoured beverages in manufacturing, by human behaviour, and the drinking of alcohol is a human behavior, lie smoking of tobacco.
  • Road traffic accidents - the car was invented by humans, assembled, driven at the time of death by a human
  • Illegal drugs - this is meant narcotics, classified substances particularly recreational and psychoactif drugs - which are consumed particularly for there pleasurable effects, that humans choose to take.
  • War is obvious - since it involves the intentional killing of others, or the amoral cause of death (by bombs)
et cetera
the selection criteria belong to subjects of law, or social science. Sederecarinae (talk) 20:41, 21 April 2019 (UTC)
More importantly, "Human and artificial cause death" is not a category. Tobacco causes cancer and heart disease, but so do poor diet, radiation, and certain substances, exposure to which is arguably artificial. Knock yourself out if you can find reliable sources that discuss very specific items like "By the use of force in restraint techniques", cannibalism, and spacecraft explosions in conjunction with very broad categories like war, but your attempt to WP:BLUDGEON this is a waste of everyone's time. Reywas92Talk 21:11, 21 April 2019 (UTC)
@Hut 8.5: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Human_and_artificial_cause_death_in_the_twentieth_and_twenty-first_centuries#All_wars_(1900_-_1944) is a start, and as you see, the numbers are easily made succinct, without acres of data necessary. Sederecarinae (talk) 21:32, 21 April 2019 (UTC)
  • Delete per the persuasive arguments above. Without a central tenet and with too much synthesis this will never be a valid article. Sanction the creator for bludgeoning this discussion and rendering the AFD unreadable StarM 02:15, 23 April 2019 (UTC)
Is not a actual reason > tenet : a principle, belief, or doctrine generally held to be true, https://www.etymonline.com/word/tenet, doesn't show anything that might be applied to the article, unless I'm to think you would prefer for me and others to take the 15th century sense of the word - tenet : "principle, opinion, or dogma maintained as true by a person, sect, school, etc.," properly "a thing held (to be true)," early 15c., from Latin tenet "he holds," third person singular present indicative of tenere "to hold, grasp, keep, have possession, maintain," - what isn't true about the description in the title and contents under the title. If you intend to indicate the 15th century sense, to hold, to maintain - a theme > the theme is Death > causes of death > death caused by human action or behaviour or artificial causes. I've already given the theme in this discussion elsewhere, it is:

the primary subject of the article is: cause of death, the secondary subject is: human made (artificial) or by human behaviour, the article seeks to describe this subject as a more specific subject to the generally defined subject Causes in the primary. Sederecarinae (talk) 19:30, 21 April 2019 (UTC)

indicate where the article content fails to hold to this theme, there isn't anywhere in the article it doesn't adhere to the theme, so your criticism is invalid. As for "too much synthesis", if you look at List of causes of death by rate, you see the causes I've included in this article in the article List of causes of death by rate. In any other academic article, the headings are determined by sources and the whim of contributory editors to add material to articles they themselves think is relevant, supported by sources. There isn't any synthesis beyond the inclusion of headings in addition to those causes found in the List of causes of death by rate article, this fact is no different to any other article, which is to add facts and organise them to headings, the sources provide the information and the content made from the information becomes organised as additions are made, this is a form of synthesis, yes, what is the problem with synthesis? What actually is the problem with synthesis? Sederecarinae (talk) 19:10, 23 April 2019 (UTC)
@Hut 8.5, Star Mississippi, Reyk, Tagishsimon, and CAPTAIN RAJU: Looking at the number of articles in the first page only of, there is a large number of articles on the subject of death, how the criticisms and eliminating this article are more important than allowing the article time to develop? Sederecarinae (talk) 19:50, 23 April 2019 (UTC)
"Synthesis" is referring to WP:SYNTHESIS, in other words you haven't taken the particular categories or statistics from any reliable source but instead you've picked some based on your own opinion. List of causes of death by rate uses a categorisation system from the WHO, which is much closer to how Wikipedia is supposed to work. It certainly isn't true that "the causes I've included in this article in the article List of causes of death by rate", because that page doesn't include decapitation by helicopter, cannibalism, people shot by police who possessed a gun or knife, meat blender accidents, nuclear warfare or most of the other categories you picked. Yes, there are plenty of articles on death, and death is a perfectly good topic to write about on Wikipedia, but it doesn't follow that every possible article about death is fine. Hut 8.5 21:06, 23 April 2019 (UTC)
  • Delete/merge - The content on this page generally overlaps other articles. We don't need an overview article with this scope (restricted only to deaths with artificial causes in recent centuries); I think the existing overview articles have more straightforward scopes. No single article can cover all these topics in as fine a detail as individual incidents, so I don't see a place for this article in the encyclopedia. However, some of the other articles that should have some of the content here don't. I added links to some from appropriate places like List of causes of death by rate, and these (and linked lists and subarticles that have more detail) would be better targets for improvement:
  • Delete: if it's a list (and yes, I know the creator is saying it isn't) then it's not one with a clearly-defined or useful scope; listing all causes of deaths or all statistics of deaths worldwide in the 1900s and 2000s would require 10,000 different pages, not one list. If it's an article then it's not clear under what grounds it's notable as certainly none of the sources in the article discuss the topic "Human and artificial cause death in the twentieth and twenty-first centuries", only subtopics of this. (Consider for example a hypothetical article Relationship between grapes and deontology which has lots of sources on grapes and lots of sources on deontology; nevertheless it doesn't meet notability criteria as none of the sources discuss both in combination. This is analogous as none of the article's sources discuss the lengthy title "Human and artificial cause ... centuries".) And as the final nail in the coffin, regardless of what the page is supposed to be, it doesn't currently provide any utility to readers due to its mishmash of content and by IAR we are therefore free to TNT it. Bilorv (he/him) (talk) 22:04, 23 April 2019 (UTC)
  • Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2019 April 23. —cyberbot ITalk to my owner:Online 22:36, 23 April 2019 (UTC)
@Hut 8.5, Tagishsimon, Reyk, MB, Reywas92, StarM, Beland, Bilorv, Mikael Häggström, Pascal666, EamonnPKeane, Frmorrison, Neutrality, Jeandré du Toit, EamonnPKeane, Frmorrison, Darrellx, Gaborgulya, Danny, R. S. Shaw, Senor Freebie, Teemu Ruskeepää, Pgan002, No such user, and Doc James: Non-natural death in the twentieth and twenty-first centuries It has been suggested that this article be merged with Unnatural death (the source I used to change the article title was https://www.rgare.com/docs/default-source/newsletters-articles/non-natural-deaths.pdf?sfvrsn=f04ea088_0 Sederecarinae (talk) 22:44, 23 April 2019 (UTC)
@Hmains, InedibleHulk, Omnipaedista, WhatamIdoing, Ivantalk, Smjg, and Craig Pemberton: users from Unnatural death, greetings! Sederecarinae (talk) 23:12, 23 April 2019 (UTC)
Oppose merge That article could certainly be expanded, but a haphazard collection of incomparable statistics and rare but amusing ways people died ("electrocuted by improvised apparatus for use as sexual stimulation – 2 known deaths (in North America)") should not be what that article becomes. Unnatural death could be merged instead to Cause of death, which also needs expansion; it could discuss causes of death, natural and unnatural, beyond just rates and counts or the fact that one American has died of decapitation by helicopter or other specific obscure circumstances. Reywas92Talk 23:23, 23 April 2019 (UTC)
Aloha No opinion to report this time. InedibleHulk (talk) 23:38, April 23, 2019 (UTC)
Couldn't care less Why was I pinged on this? --Pascal666 23:39, 23 April 2019 (UTC)
Unnatural death could certainly do with expansion but I don't think merging this content would do any good. Hut 8.5 06:38, 24 April 2019 (UTC)
  • Not sure were to start. Primary sources nee to be trimmed. Article needs to be rewritten as a summary. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 02:38, 24 April 2019 (UTC)

Elitaliana[edit]

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

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. signed, Rosguill talk 22:31, 23 April 2019 (UTC)
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. signed, Rosguill talk 22:31, 23 April 2019 (UTC)
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Aviation-related deletion discussions. signed, Rosguill talk 22:31, 23 April 2019 (UTC)
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Italy-related deletion discussions. signed, Rosguill talk 22:31, 23 April 2019 (UTC)

La Habra Market Place[edit]

La Habra Market Place (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · newspapers · scholar · free images · WP refs· FENS · JSTOR · NYT · TWL)

Disputed PROD. The article concerns a shopping center that is a borderline strip mall with a handful of ordinary stores but no major anchor tenants. Search results from the LA Times only show a handful of blurbs and other passing mentions. The old mall might be notable, but this one clearly is not. SounderBruce 22:02, 23 April 2019 (UTC)

Fine I'll move content to La Habra Fashion Square adapt and point LH Market Place to it Keizers (talk) 22:10, 23 April 2019 (UTC)
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Shopping malls-related deletion discussions. SounderBruce 22:32, 23 April 2019 (UTC)
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. SounderBruce 22:32, 23 April 2019 (UTC)

Aditya Pratap[edit]

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

Does not meet WP:GNG, WP:NLAWYER. The article doesn't describe any accomplishments beyond being a lawyer in various court cases, and all available coverage appears to be either trivial mentions, quotes, or articles written by the subject. signed, Rosguill talk 21:44, 23 April 2019 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. signed, Rosguill talk 21:44, 23 April 2019 (UTC)
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Law-related deletion discussions. signed, Rosguill talk 21:44, 23 April 2019 (UTC)
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. signed, Rosguill talk 21:44, 23 April 2019 (UTC)

Hello Sir, I have tried to improve the article. Please do review and consider. Thank You. — Preceding unsigned comment added by DSN18 (talkcontribs) 11:02, 24 April 2019 (UTC)

Bypass duct[edit]

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

Request deletion or merging to a larger article. No reference listed. Tagged with {{Unreferenced}} since December 2009. Tyw7 (🗣️ Talk) — If (reply) then (ping me) 21:24, 23 April 2019 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. Tyw7 (🗣️ Talk) — If (reply) then (ping me) 21:25, 23 April 2019 (UTC)
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. Tyw7 (🗣️ Talk) — If (reply) then (ping me) 21:25, 23 April 2019 (UTC)
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Aviation-related deletion discussions. Tyw7 (🗣️ Talk) — If (reply) then (ping me) 21:25, 23 April 2019 (UTC)
  • Keep Yes, it needs references - but there are plenty available via a simple Google search. It is in dire need of some TLC, but WP:DINC. Jmertel23 (talk) 21:54, 23 April 2019 (UTC)
    Jmertel23, I feel the subject can be merged with another article, possibly the turbo fan one? --Tyw7 (🗣️ Talk) — If (reply) then (ping me) 23:24, 23 April 2019 (UTC)
  • Keep - Unreferenced article on a subject that can easily be expanded. Spyder212 (talk) 22:26, 23 April 2019 (UTC)
    Spyder212, I think it should be merged since the duct itself won't pass WP:GNG. --Tyw7 (🗣️ Talk) — If (reply) then (ping me) 23:26, 23 April 2019 (UTC)
  • delete Clearly notable as a topic, but so what? We have no article. Andy Dingley (talk) 11:02, 24 April 2019 (UTC)
  • Merge into Turbofan. Are we really going to have an article for every component of a turbofan? There's one for combustion chamber, but at least that one applies to internal combustion engines in general. The bypass duct is too specific to warrant a stand-alone article. --Deeday-UK (talk) 11:47, 24 April 2019 (UTC)

Marko Hucko[edit]

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

Fails WP:Hockey. Played one game in Slovak Extraliga and had a brief and uneventful professional career. This one is painfully obvious and I feel almost sorry to have to go through a nomination for this one. Tay87 (talk) 21:20, 23 April 2019 (UTC) Tay87 (talk) 21:20, 23 April 2019 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Ice hockey-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 21:42, 23 April 2019 (UTC)
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 21:42, 23 April 2019 (UTC)
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Slovakia-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 21:43, 23 April 2019 (UTC)

Francis Moyap[edit]

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

Contested PROD. Concern was Article about a football manager who fails WP:GNG and who has not managed a club in a fully pro league. PROD was contested by the article's creator without providing a reason. Sir Sputnik (talk) 21:02, 23 April 2019 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. Sir Sputnik (talk) 21:03, 23 April 2019 (UTC)
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Sir Sputnik (talk) 21:03, 23 April 2019 (UTC)
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Papua New Guinea-related deletion discussions. Sir Sputnik (talk) 21:03, 23 April 2019 (UTC)
  • Delete Fails WP:NFOOTY, which states that managers are presumed notable if they "have managed in a competitive game between two teams from fully-professional leagues". I cannot find any sources that would enable him to meet the WP:GNG guidelines either (only passing mentions). Jmertel23 (talk) 21:43, 23 April 2019 (UTC)
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions.CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 21:45, 23 April 2019 (UTC)
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was deleted under CSD A7/G11 etc and contributing editor indefinitely blocked Nick (talk) 21:16, 23 April 2019 (UTC)

Rahul Kumar Yadav[edit]

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

Non-notable blogger creating a page about themselves. PROD/CSD tags were removed by an IP. Rsrikanth05 (talk) 20:55, 23 April 2019 (UTC)

  • speedy delete per my tags. There’s no reason this needs to go through AFD. Praxidicae (talk) 20:59, 23 April 2019 (UTC)
    @Praxidicae: I brought it to AfD only because the last time I reverted an IP removing CSD/PROD tags, I was told that it shouldn't be restored and it had to be brought here. --Rsrikanth05 (talk) 21:03, 23 April 2019 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

Neurofeedback Training Company[edit]

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

No indication that subject meets WP:NORG notability guidelines. Of the two independent, reliable sources, 1) the Newsweek article does not mention the company at all, and 2) the ICT journal only mentions the product that the company uses (made by a different company); there is nothing about the subject itself. My WP:BEFORE has brought up no additional sources that can be used to establish notability. Jmertel23 (talk) 19:49, 23 April 2019 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 20:13, 23 April 2019 (UTC)
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 20:14, 23 April 2019 (UTC)
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 20:14, 23 April 2019 (UTC)
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Health and fitness-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 20:14, 23 April 2019 (UTC)
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 20:15, 23 April 2019 (UTC)
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Colorado-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 20:15, 23 April 2019 (UTC)
  • Delete Nom is correct - the only secondary sources in the article do not mention the company - they mention a product (NeurOptimal) that is used by the subject, but not made by the subject. I can't find any significant coverage of the subject itself in reliable, secondary sources, so fails WP:NCORP. GirthSummit (blether) 10:02, 24 April 2019 (UTC)

Carl Kline (White House official)[edit]

Carl Kline (White House official) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · newspapers · scholar · free images · WP refs· FENS · JSTOR · NYT · TWL)

Per WP:BLP1E and WP:PAGEDECIDE. Kline appears only to be notable for his involvement in the Trump administration's security clearance imbroglio of early 2019. Even if his job in the White House means he's not a "low profile" individual under our BLP policy, as a matter of pragmatism his involvement in that controversy is better explained in a comprehensive article about the controversy itself rather than in a biography. That article could be called, for instance, Security clearances during the presidency of Donald Trump. Please note, I've started a related AfD for Tricia Newbold. R2 (bleep) 18:28, 23 April 2019 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 18:35, 23 April 2019 (UTC)

Oppose: While it may have been premature to start an article on Kline, details of his actions continue to emerge so it is too soon to say that his page should be deleted or merged. It could do with some fleshing-out, though, since it is short on biographic information. Websurfer2 (talk) 04:19, 24 April 2019 (UTC)

  • Keep: Kline appears to have taken two dozen unusual, important, and decisive actions over a period of two years in granting security clearances to persons who did not quality under regular rules. News coverage of those actions is piled up in the shorter period of time that he has been identified in public, but even that covers two months from many reliable sources. It's a historic situation, a natural subject for national security documentation where his name is likely to appear for decades to come, possibly in parallel to Aldrich Ames or Robert Hanssen. An argument for WP:BLP1E seems to depend on it being a brief blip of news about a one-time event, the "imbroglio" -- but the events Kline caused went for a longer time and have a long-term effect. They aren't a brief scandal. I say the BLP1E argument is not relevant and say the news coverage standard applies. -- econterms (talk) 11:52, 24 April 2019 (UTC)

Tricia Newbold[edit]

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

Per WP:BLP1E and WP:PAGEDECIDE. Newbold appears only to be notable for blowing the whistle on the Trump administration's security clearance practices in early 2019. Even if her whistleblowing results in her losing her "low profile" status under our BLP policy, as a matter of pragmatism her involvement in that controversy is better explained in a comprehensive article about the controversy itself rather than in a biography. That article could be called, for instance, Security clearances during the presidency of Donald Trump. Please note, I'm starting a related AfD for Carl Kline. R2 (bleep) 18:22, 23 April 2019 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Maine-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 18:37, 23 April 2019 (UTC)
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 18:38, 23 April 2019 (UTC)

Valerie A. Johnson[edit]

Valerie A. Johnson (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · newspapers · scholar · free images · WP refs· FENS · JSTOR · NYT · TWL)

Does not meet notability requirements. No significant media coverage. Her home was in one episode of a TV show, but nothing about her, even the appearance in the show, is significant or notable. PhobosIkaros 18:14, 23 April 2019 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 18:39, 23 April 2019 (UTC)
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Law-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 18:40, 23 April 2019 (UTC)
  • Keep Some of the WP:RS in the article looks neither self-published nor COI writing:
  1. She was named and served on the State Board of Elections. [3][4][5][6][7][8]Press Release from State Board of Elections[9]
  2. which later hit a snag: [10]
  3. her vote on commission mentioned in this article: [11]
  4. This a substantial write up on her: [12][13]
  5. In 2019, she helped resolves a dispute regarding candidates for sheriff.[14]
  6. Assuming this is good RS and not pay-to-play and WP:INDEPENDENT, it adds to notability: [15]
I don't consider the HGTV episode to contribute at all to her notability at all, because I do not see it covered in any WP:INDEPENDENT sources. That line should probably be deleted from the article. --David Tornheim (talk) 19:03, 23 April 2019 (UTC)

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

List of West Coast Conference Men's Basketball Tournament Finals broadcasters (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · newspapers · scholar · free images · WP refs· FENS · JSTOR · NYT · 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)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Basketball-related deletion discussions. —Bagumba (talk) 17:32, 23 April 2019 (UTC)
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 17:45, 23 April 2019 (UTC)
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Radio-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 17:45, 23 April 2019 (UTC)
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 17:45, 23 April 2019 (UTC)
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 17:46, 23 April 2019 (UTC)
  • Delete Too specific listcruft without significant coverage treating this as a subject as a whole. Reywas92Talk 18:04, 23 April 2019 (UTC)

Gnostic saints[edit]

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

I just closed Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Gnostic saints and moved this article, previously at Gnostic saints (Christian), to this title. But it has issues of its own that merit deletion.

Basically, it's not sourced and, as far as I can tell after a quick search, not reliably sourceable (WP:V). It may be entirely made up or based on some fringe ideas. The people listed here are sometimes described as Gnostics in their articles, but not as saints or the subject of veneration. The article Gnosticism makes no mention of saints. A Google search for "Gnostic saints" yields what looks like a bunch of self-published websites about esotericism. I don't see the basis of a verifiable article or list here.

And for what it's worth, the creator is a blocked sock of a banned editor, Ekajati (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log), and there have not been any substantial content edits by others. Sandstein 17:24, 23 April 2019 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 17:48, 23 April 2019 (UTC)
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 17:48, 23 April 2019 (UTC)
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Philosophy-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 17:49, 23 April 2019 (UTC)
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Italy-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 17:49, 23 April 2019 (UTC)
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Greece-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 17:49, 23 April 2019 (UTC)
  • Delete The respective subject articles do not even mention their supposed sainthood. Reywas92Talk 18:05, 23 April 2019 (UTC)
  • Either delete or categorize, if the latter holds up to category standards. John M Wolfson (talk) 18:55, 23 April 2019 (UTC)
  • Delete - Did not find any reliable sources to support any content on this page... Spyder212 (talk) 22:34, 23 April 2019 (UTC)

Naomi Esi Arku Amoah[edit]

Naomi Esi Arku Amoah (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · newspapers · scholar · free images · WP refs· FENS · JSTOR · NYT · 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)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Ghana-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 05:50, 9 April 2019 (UTC)
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 05:54, 9 April 2019 (UTC)
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. Icewhiz (talk) 19:50, 9 April 2019 (UTC)
  • Delete per nom. The subject has not been discussed in reliable sources. A Google search of her only turns up info about her winning Season IV of the MTN-sponsored Heroes of Change show.  Versace1608  Wanna Talk? 17:41, 13 April 2019 (UTC)
  • Keep a search prior to March 2018 shows sources reporting on the development of the orphanage. Enough discussion in RS to establish notability. MurielMary (talk) 09:25, 14 April 2019 (UTC)
@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)
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)
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)
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)

V. Sadasivan[edit]

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

Fails WP:GNG, and WP:POLITICIAN Akhiljaxxn (talk) 11:01, 16 April 2019 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 11:22, 16 April 2019 (UTC)
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 11:22, 16 April 2019 (UTC)
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 11:23, 16 April 2019 (UTC)
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)

Cobas Mira[edit]

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

Not notable, not written encyclopedically Natureium (talk) 00:59, 9 April 2019 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. MarginalCost (talk) 14:10, 9 April 2019 (UTC)
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. MarginalCost (talk) 14:10, 9 April 2019 (UTC)
  • Redirect to Automated analyser - I can't find evidence of notability for this particular model, but there's no reason not to redirect. I did find a paper in the Journal of Automatic Chemistry analyzing the machine itself, but it notes at the end that Roche Diagnostics provided materials and "technical support" in the study, which probably makes it less than independent. In any case, multiple sources would be required to keep. MarginalCost (talk) 14:17, 9 April 2019 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Randykitty (talk) 10:15, 16 April 2019 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 16:28, 23 April 2019 (UTC)

Howard Pressman[edit]

Howard Pressman (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · newspapers · scholar · free images · WP refs· FENS · JSTOR · NYT · TWL)
  • Delete. The subject of this article does not meet the guidelines for notability other than stating he is the brother of an ex-footballer? UK Wiki User (talk) 09:44, 16 April 2019 (UTC)
  • Delete Not notable with no reliable third-party sources. Google turns up multiple people with this name and the article subject is barely among them. sixtynine • whaddya want? • 17:34, 16 April 2019 (UTC)
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Radio-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 10:04, 16 April 2019 (UTC)
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 10:04, 16 April 2019 (UTC)
  • Weak keep I've updated the article and added a reference although the article does need further improvement. Rillington (talk) 16:48, 17 April 2019 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 16:25, 23 April 2019 (UTC)
  • Delete - Does not meet general notability criteria, not much coverage in secondary sources (some names but never the subject and unsure whether it's really him), and WP:NOTGENEALOGY. Spyder212 (talk) 22:42, 23 April 2019 (UTC)

Phil Kennedy[edit]

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

Non-notable BBC local radio presenter, who, although has other stuff behind him, there's no evidence or reliable sources. - Funky Snack (Talk) 15:39, 23 April 2019 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Radio-related deletion discussions. ...William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 15:54, 23 April 2019 (UTC)
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. ...William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 15:54, 23 April 2019 (UTC)

Josh Zuckerman (musician)[edit]

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

Fails WP:GNG and WP:MUSICBIO. Promotional article of a non-notable musician, with no in-depth independent sources found. All his records have been independently released and not via major labels. The article was almost entirely created by two SPA editors, one of which has the username "Webmasterjoshzuckerman" – several times the article states "according to Zuckerman's website...", and indeed most of the "Early life" and "Early career" sections are straight WP:COPYVIO from the biography on the artist's own website [16]. There are a couple of interviews in gay community websites [17], [18], but these probably don't pass RS and in any case are primary sources that fail to corroborate most of the information present in the current article. Please note there is also a television and stage actor called Josh Zuckerman who frequently comes up in searches for this name. Richard3120 (talk) 15:17, 23 April 2019 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Richard3120 (talk) 15:09, 23 April 2019 (UTC)
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. Richard3120 (talk) 15:09, 23 April 2019 (UTC)
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of New Jersey-related deletion discussions. Richard3120 (talk) 15:10, 23 April 2019 (UTC)

I am also nominating the following related page for Mr. Zuckerman's debut album because it is not notable and fails WP:NALBUM:

A Totally New Sensation (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) Richard3120 (talk) 15:15, 23 April 2019 (UTC)
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. Richard3120 (talk) 15:15, 23 April 2019 (UTC)
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sexuality and gender-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 17:52, 23 April 2019 (UTC)
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Missouri-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 17:53, 23 April 2019 (UTC)

Anna Brelsford McCoy[edit]

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

GNG fail. there is some minor local coverage but it does not rise to the level of notability overall. ThatMontrealIP (talk) 13:58, 23 April 2019 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Artists-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 14:58, 23 April 2019 (UTC)
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 14:58, 23 April 2019 (UTC)
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Pennsylvania-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 14:58, 23 April 2019 (UTC)
  • Keep I added several long newspaper articles about her. And local coverage does not negate GNG as long as they are significant and independent. We have sources from The News Journal and several from the large news source the The Philadelphia Inquirer. Passes GNG. Megalibrarygirl (talk) 22:13, 23 April 2019 (UTC)
I took out one of the sources you added (this one), as it was from someone's personal web site. Your additions did improve the article, but not I notice that all the Philadephia Inquirer articles are by the same author-- Catherine Quillman. So we have:
  • three articles by Catherine Quillman (#2,3 and 7),
  • a book the subject authored (#6, Anna Brelsford McCoy (2001). John W. McCoy: American Painter.),
  • an article almost entirely about her husband (#4, Pirro, J.F. (May 2009). "Old Man River".) that says only this in about 3000 words: "For 18 years, Weymouth was married to Anna B. McCoy, Andrew Wyeth’s niece and herself an artist."
  • ref five, which is actual SIGCOV, and finally
  • the first ref, from a private art gallery that is a small biography.
So we really have only two people who have written independently an in depth about her. The coverage/recognition is very slim. I know that there is an urge in AfD to save articles on women subjects at any cost, given Wikipedia's gender disparity in coverage, but I think where notability is slim, as in this case, we are better served deleting the non-notable and instead finding and creating articles on truly notable subjects. There is no real recognition of her work as as artist here: museums, major exhibitions etc. Just two writers who wrote about her in a routine way. (For example, Catherine Quillman seems to be the actual notable person in the article.) ThatMontrealIP (talk) 22:31, 23 April 2019 (UTC)

American Delta Party[edit]

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

Political party that has no elected representatives and virtually no members. Article is thinly sourced, but more specifically this organization isn’t notable aside from being a vehicle for Rocky De La Fuente and his presidential campaign. All the information here could easily be merged into those two articles where appropriate. Toa Nidhiki05 13:54, 23 April 2019 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 14:57, 23 April 2019 (UTC)
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 14:57, 23 April 2019 (UTC)
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Pennsylvania-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 14:58, 23 April 2019 (UTC)
  • Merge to Rocky's presidential campaign page. This was not so much a party as it was the banner hung on Rocky's independent candidacy. The website is gone, so there is no reasonable expectation of a future to this (and if that should change, article can always be resurrected.) --Nat Gertler (talk) 17:47, 23 April 2019 (UTC)
  • Merge per all. John M Wolfson (talk) 19:46, 23 April 2019 (UTC)
  • Merge as above, but leaving this as a redirect to the specific section in the Rocky De La Fuente page. In anticipation of the imminent merger of this page, I have transferred most of the relevant information here to the page Rocky De La Fuente 2016 presidential campaign. The need also remains at least some relevant portions to be used in main Rocky De La Fuente page as well. werldwayd (talk) 21:22, 23 April 2019 (UTC) werldwayd (talk) 21:39, 23 April 2019 (UTC)

Julian Clegg[edit]

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

Local radio presenter with no reliable sources and minimal information. Both links provided are profile pages. - Funky Snack (Talk) 13:04, 23 April 2019 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 13:14, 23 April 2019 (UTC)
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 13:14, 23 April 2019 (UTC)

Knoema[edit]

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

Contested prod. Created by an obvious UPE, the sole sources are a seven-year-old deadlink, a reprinted press release on a blog (don't be misled by the "Guardian" url, this is just a blog hosted by their website), and a couple of links to websites they helped set up. A WP:BEFORE search gives a lot of hits, but they all appear to be either PR churnalism of the company's own press releases or routine mentions in passing.  ‑ Iridescent 12:30, 23 April 2019 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Washington, D.C.-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 12:33, 23 April 2019 (UTC)
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 12:33, 23 April 2019 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the Article Rescue Squadron's list of content for rescue consideration. 7&6=thirteen () 16:29, 23 April 2019 (UTC)
  • Keep The Guardian source seems reasonable, being written by a reporter who regular writes for that newspaper on data issues. And it's not difficult to find another independent source. Andrew D. (talk) 16:17, 23 April 2019 (UTC)
  • Comment Here's a second book source. And here's a second item from VentureBeat, based on this from Journalism.co.uk. On another note, it appears to be used as a source in scholarly publications often enough that, arguably, we should have an article on it so that people looking into that source have something other than the company's own website to go by. XOR'easter (talk) 19:16, 23 April 2019 (UTC)
  • Leaning delete. I looked at the new sources listed by the two editors above, and I am still concerned about churnalism. Our own page on Journalism.co.uk says that they are an advertorial site. The book sources are essentially the same thing, Data Science For Dummies and Getting a Big Data Job For Dummies. The popular articles seem to be typical "articles" growing out of company press releases. The scholarly sources are less about the company than about the company's technology, and it looks to me like a better approach would be to have a page about the technology rather than about the specific company. --Tryptofish (talk) 21:44, 23 April 2019 (UTC)

Atomera[edit]

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

Has not attracted enough coverage to meet WP:CORP SmartSE (talk) 12:19, 23 April 2019 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 12:34, 23 April 2019 (UTC)
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 12:34, 23 April 2019 (UTC)
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 12:34, 23 April 2019 (UTC)
  • Keep, actually. I'm usually quite allergic to company writeups that rake together splinters of notability, but here I believe we are just over the threshold. These four used sources [19][20][21][22] each are independent, reasonably in-depth, and more than passing mentions of the company, and I'd say that in the aggregate they do the trick. --Elmidae (talk · contribs) 22:44, 23 April 2019 (UTC)
  • Keep I agree with Elmidae. Mccapra (talk) 23:02, 23 April 2019 (UTC)

Regiment University of the Free State[edit]

Regiment University of the Free State (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · newspapers · scholar · free images · WP refs· FENS · JSTOR · NYT · TWL)

Lacks all notability. The name "Regiment University of the Free State" (title) or "Regiment University of the Orange Free State" (lead sentence) are never used. The actual name, "Regiment Universiteit Oranje-Vrystaat", is used in very few sources, associated with the military, or without real content[23]. Even in these sources, the info is restricted to one sentence ([24] page 27). Lacks all notability. Fram (talk) 11:39, 23 April 2019 (UTC)

1. So change it to Regiment Universiteit Oranje-Vrystaat — Preceding unsigned comment added by 196.38.209.210 (talk) 11:44, 23 April 2019 (UTC) 2. The fact that little is known about a unit doesn't make it irrelevant, it is a open invitation by wikipedians to help investigate and add to the body of knowledge of said unit.

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of South Africa-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 12:36, 23 April 2019 (UTC)
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 12:36, 23 April 2019 (UTC)

Jason Keever[edit]

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

I don't see anything different from the first AFD aside from some new uncredited roles on iMDb as a production assistant, despite the clear attempt to WP:COATRACK here. Praxidicae (talk) 11:06, 23 April 2019 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Ceethekreator (talk) 11:30, 23 April 2019 (UTC)
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. Ceethekreator (talk) 11:30, 23 April 2019 (UTC)
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. Ceethekreator (talk) 11:30, 23 April 2019 (UTC)
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Advertising-related deletion discussions. Ceethekreator (talk) 11:30, 23 April 2019 (UTC)
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of North Carolina-related deletion discussions. ...William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 12:21, 23 April 2019 (UTC)

Wow, Praxidicae, way to jump all over something right away. I've clearly cited other sources than IMDb, although it is an accredited source within the film industry and policed very well. So, if you would like to attack verifiable newspaper and advertising agency sources then please be my guest. As this is a page still in progress it will have additional information added. Congratulations on your editor of the week, you must have amazing articles that have no room to be chipped away at or attempts at COATRACKING. Ridiculous. If all articles are viewed this way, there will never be another subject added to Wikipedia. Mrsandoval70 (talk) 20:24, 23 April 2019 (UTC)mrsandoval70

iMDb is not a reliable source nor is it "policed well" and I can give you hundreds of examples of this, however your immediate attack still doesn't address issues I brought up - almost nothing has changed since the last AFD and you wrongfully attempted to fluff up the article by claiming he had bigger roles in all of the films you mentioned than he actually did - all of which are uncredited. Also "advertising agencies"? Yeah, those aren't good sources.Praxidicae (talk) 20:40, 23 April 2019 (UTC)
  • Delete - nothing here looks anything like notability. Mentions and/or press releases only. Fails WP:GNG  Velella  Velella Talk   20:33, 23 April 2019 (UTC)
  • Delete - Does not meet general notability criteria. Spyder212 (talk) 22:24, 23 April 2019 (UTC)
  • Delete per nom and salt. Fails WP:CREATIVE by a wide margin, and I don't want to have to revisit this. Clarityfiend (talk) 23:25, 23 April 2019 (UTC)

Kat Wisniewski[edit]

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

I do not believe this individual meets WP:NAUTHOR as I can find no substantial coverage of her in reliable independent sources. I see from her biographical details that she teaches at Lillstreet Art Center and Blue Buddha Boutique, both of which feature among the citations for her article. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 10:42, 23 April 2019 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 10:47, 23 April 2019 (UTC)
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Artists-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 10:47, 23 April 2019 (UTC)
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Illinois-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 10:48, 23 April 2019 (UTC)
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 10:48, 23 April 2019 (UTC)
  • Delete no substantial, independent sources exist which can show notability. Fails WP:NBIO and WP:GNG. Jmertel23 (talk) 12:40, 23 April 2019 (UTC)

New Connections in Chain Mail Jewelry with Rubber and Glass Rings[edit]

New Connections in Chain Mail Jewelry with Rubber and Glass Rings (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · newspapers · scholar · free images · WP refs· FENS · JSTOR · NYT · TWL)

I do not believe this book meets WP:NBOOK as I can find no substantial coverage of it in reliable independent sources. The article is just a free advertisement for a non-notable book by an unknown author, Kat Wisniewski, whose Wikipedia article has just been created by the same creator. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 10:32, 23 April 2019 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 10:49, 23 April 2019 (UTC)
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 10:50, 23 April 2019 (UTC)
  • Delete Clearly fails WP:NBOOK due to lack of published sources about the book. The only review I could find is from the Blue Buddha Boutique - with which the book's author is closely involved as per the "about" section on their website. Therefore, there are no independent sources regarding this book. Jmertel23 (talk) 12:37, 23 April 2019 (UTC)
  • delete just can't see the notability, which the article BTW doesn't bother to assert anyway. Mangoe (talk) 12:57, 23 April 2019 (UTC)
  • Delete - Does not meet notability criteria as per WP:NBOOK. No relevant coverage... apart from having the book itself show up when researched. Spyder212 (talk) 23:05, 23 April 2019 (UTC)

Istvan Gaal (soccer)[edit]

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

Footballer who fails WP:NFOOTY. Only mentioned in external sources as a subject of an anecdote. BlameRuiner (talk) 10:28, 23 April 2019 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 10:51, 23 April 2019 (UTC)
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 10:51, 23 April 2019 (UTC)
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 10:51, 23 April 2019 (UTC)
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Hungary-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 10:51, 23 April 2019 (UTC)
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions.CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 10:53, 23 April 2019 (UTC)
  • Delete - fails WP:GNG and WP:NFOOTBALL. Interesting anecdote, but WP:BLP1E. GiantSnowman 10:57, 23 April 2019 (UTC)
  • Delete Everything I find is about a director, film producer of the same name, so can't see anything towards WP:GNG. Govvy (talk) 11:04, 23 April 2019 (UTC)
  • Delete - Does not meet general notability criteria. Very few sources found, none seem to discuss this person as a soccer player. Spyder212 (talk) 23:04, 23 April 2019 (UTC)

SubViewer[edit]

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

I don't see any evidence of notability here, and I don't see any in-depth coverage in Google search results. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 09:35, 23 April 2019 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. CASSIOPEIA(talk) 10:24, 23 April 2019 (UTC)
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. CASSIOPEIA(talk) 10:24, 23 April 2019 (UTC)
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. CASSIOPEIA(talk) 10:24, 23 April 2019 (UTC)
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. CASSIOPEIA(talk) 10:24, 23 April 2019 (UTC)
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. CASSIOPEIA(talk) 10:24, 23 April 2019 (UTC)
  • Delete. Fails the GNG; the only reliable sources I've been able to find for SubViewer are brief mentions of its file format being supported by other programs. --XenonNSMB (talk, contribs) 22:31, 23 April 2019 (UTC)
  • Delete - Does not meet general notability criteria. Very poor sources, none secondary or reliable in nature. Spyder212 (talk) 23:02, 23 April 2019 (UTC)

DutchCulture[edit]

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

Fails WP:GNG/WP:CORPDEPTH. A few passing mentions and social media is all I found. Kleuske (talk) 09:22, 23 April 2019 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Arts-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 09:24, 23 April 2019 (UTC)
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Netherlands-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 09:25, 23 April 2019 (UTC)
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. CASSIOPEIA(talk) 09:25, 23 April 2019 (UTC)
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. CASSIOPEIA(talk) 09:25, 23 April 2019 (UTC)
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. CASSIOPEIA(talk) 09:25, 23 April 2019 (UTC)
  • Delete per nom. Non-notable, does not pass WP:GNG. Skirts89 12:51, 23 April 2019 (UTC)
  • Delete per nom. I can’t find much either. Mccapra (talk) 17:43, 23 April 2019 (UTC)
  • Delete - Does not meet general notability criteria. Spyder212 (talk) 23:01, 23 April 2019 (UTC)

Sanjay Razdan[edit]

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

Previously Afd'd and refunded. Still unable to determine if notable. Ref 10 is advertising press release meaning promotional. Low h-index. Non notable. scope_creepTalk 08:39, 23 April 2019 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 08:41, 23 April 2019 (UTC)
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Florida-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 08:41, 23 April 2019 (UTC)
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 08:42, 23 April 2019 (UTC)
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Pennsylvania-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 08:42, 23 April 2019 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the Article Rescue Squadron's list of content for rescue consideration. 7&6=thirteen () 16:12, 23 April 2019 (UTC)
  • Delete the article as written is a CV, and the sources are directory listings. Even if sources could be found to show notability, the article would need to be entirely rewritten. Natureium (talk) 14:08, 23 April 2019 (UTC)
  • Delete Sources are all very spammy as is the article in question. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 15:56, 23 April 2019 (UTC)
  • Delete Looking for independent sources shows very little in the way of "significant coverage in multiple sources". The most used source in the article is Dr. Sanjay Razdan, which is a two sentence "profile" of Razdan containing a link "ARE YOU DR. RAZDAN? Claim/Edit Your Profile". That's not even up to the quality of self-published content. --RexxS (talk) 17:49, 23 April 2019 (UTC)
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. IntoThinAir (talk) 19:32, 23 April 2019 (UTC)
  • Delete - Does not meet general notability criteria. Poor sources- pretty much any physician involved in some research has just as many sources coming up with their name... Spyder212 (talk) 23:00, 23 April 2019 (UTC)
  • Delete Citations, from Google Scholar: 76, 72, 48, 43 .... For biomedicine, we usually expect at least one article with >100. The three highest are reviews, which alwaysget higher citations, so I judge it's a little below the boundary for WP:PROF. Promotionalism is certain present--a string of very minor "" honors" -- "Marquis Who's Who in Medicine and Healthcare" DGG ( talk ) 02:05, 24 April 2019 (UTC)

Ally Prisock[edit]

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

Footballer who fails WP:NFOOTY and WP:GNG BlameRuiner (talk) 08:21, 23 April 2019 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 08:42, 23 April 2019 (UTC)
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 08:43, 23 April 2019 (UTC)
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 08:43, 23 April 2019 (UTC)
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions.CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 09:29, 23 April 2019 (UTC)
  • DO NOT DELETE Ms. Prisock is a National Championship winning soccer player who has represented the US at several youth levels of youth and signed and played as a professional soccer player with the Houston Dash after being drafted in the 2019 NWSL College Draft, a professional sports draft. Moreover, at the collegial level she broke several school records at USC and was awarded with multiple honors during her time there which that saw her get a profile piece in the Los Angeles Times. She also has profiles on ESPN, US Soccer, the National Women's Soccer League, the Houston Dash, Yahoo Sports and Soccerway websites. Surely this makes her equivalent to other rookies within the NWSL league, the top league of professional soccer in the United States, who already have pages on Wikipedia.
  • Comment: The National Women's Soccer League (NWSL) is a fully professional football league on the list and considered the best women's league in the world. Prisock has yet to make an appearance in the league because she is a rookie and the regular season started just last week. She did appear as an unused substitute in that week's game. However, as she has a contract signed and was a highly recruited prospect it is unlikely that this will not change soon.
  • Draftify Seems like a case of WP:TOOSOON. Not sure that the LA Times article quite qualifies for WP:SIGCOV, and since the individual does not meet WP:NFOOTY at the moment, but may in the future, this seems like the best option. Also, @Cetteuqap: please start signing your posts. Jay eyem (talk) 22:55, 23 April 2019 (UTC)
  • Draftify Agreed this feels like a WP:TOOSOON.
  • Comment: here's another player from the same club with no caps, by the same editor: Devon Kerr. Is separate Afd needed? --BlameRuiner (talk) 05:21, 24 April 2019 (UTC)

Indianapolis Capitols[edit]

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

This article was deleted by PROD a while back and then re-created without any rationale. The sources are lacking and the subject does not pass WP:GNG or any other notability guideline or policy I can find. Be sure not to confuse "CFL" as in Continental Football League with Canadian Football League (I have no assertion that either league is not notable, just that this team is not notable). Paul McDonald (talk) 18:32, 9 April 2019 (UTC)

  • Note I found what I believe to be three incidental mentions here: Daily Advance.com; Windsor Star; and ESPN Radio. What do you think? Include these and save the article, or delete it? I'm still on delete but in fairness I could see others taking a different position.--Paul McDonald (talk) 18:38, 9 April 2019 (UTC)
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of American football-related deletion discussions. Paul McDonald (talk) 18:40, 9 April 2019 (UTC)
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. Icewhiz (talk) 19:37, 9 April 2019 (UTC)
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Indiana-related deletion discussions. Icewhiz (talk) 19:37, 9 April 2019 (UTC)
  • Comment. This team existed from 1968–69, so any potential sources that might be available here will very likely be offline. Do we know that a thorough WP:BEFORE search has been conducted here (including searching offline sources)? Ejgreen77 (talk) 03:58, 10 April 2019 (UTC)
    • I did not complete any offline searches, but I did review before reposting. The article was previously deleted and I completed as best a review as I could. I'd welcome being wrong if suitable sources can be found.--Paul McDonald (talk) 12:25, 10 April 2019 (UTC)
  • Keep nothing wrong with the sources currently in the article and a newspapers.com search shows [25] [26] and front page game coverage at the Indianapolis Star [27]. Clear WP:GNG pass, it's just that the articles are all historical now. SportingFlyer T·C 01:59, 14 April 2019 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 04:11, 16 April 2019 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 08:20, 23 April 2019 (UTC)

Orange County Ramblers[edit]

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

Page was deleted after merge to List of Continental Football League teams which avoided a PROD deletion. Subsequently restored later with no changes to content. Dubious sources include potential WP:COI issues. WP:POV issues also with the unsourced references to the film "Skidoo" as a "notorious flop". As some of the players may still be alive, we have potential WP:BLP issues with the movie reference. Otherwise, simply fails WP:GNG. Paul McDonald (talk) 18:53, 9 April 2019 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of American football-related deletion discussions. Paul McDonald (talk) 18:54, 9 April 2019 (UTC)
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. Icewhiz (talk) 19:36, 9 April 2019 (UTC)
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. Icewhiz (talk) 19:36, 9 April 2019 (UTC)

Are other Continental Football League pages up for deletion, too? DetroitWheels74 (talk) 01:15, 10 April 2019 (UTC)

Two others semi-pro teams at this time, one was CFL: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Lehigh Valley Storm and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Indianapolis Capitols. Similar articles, but I believe they should be handled separately. I'm not a big fan of "bulk deletions" and there's no harm in taking time to address the articles and subjects individually. I'll be happy to withdrawal the nominations should proper sourcing or evidence be introduced that meets WP:GNG..--Paul McDonald (talk) 01:58, 10 April 2019 (UTC)
Also, I have no issues with the article Continental Football League--well done and nicely sourced.--Paul McDonald (talk) 02:00, 10 April 2019 (UTC)
  • Comment. This team existed from 1967–69, so any potential sources that might be available here will very likely be offline. Do we know that a thorough WP:BEFORE search has been conducted here (including searching offline sources)? Ejgreen77 (talk) 03:59, 10 April 2019 (UTC)
    • My online search produced only passing mentions in a few articles and the article was previously deleted.--Paul McDonald (talk) 12:28, 10 April 2019 (UTC)
  • Keep several hits on newspapers.com, including [28] this which suggests the Ramblers were covered significantly in local press at the time. The OCR isn't great though so there are probably more mentions. I'll source the Skidoo flop bit, it came right up in the New Yorker in an online search. SportingFlyer T·C 01:53, 14 April 2019 (UTC)
    • I can't get past the firewall for that reference... can you find a way to add it to the article? If you've read it I'm willing to WP:AGF and call it good.--Paul McDonald (talk) 22:41, 16 April 2019 (UTC)
      • If you click on the (OCR) link and search for "Ramblers," you'll see there's a mention get covered in a pull-out we don't have access to on newspapers.com. A newspapers.com web search brings up several other mentions from a variety of different local papers. Nothing super, but I'm almost certain there's something out there to satisfy WP:NEXIST. SportingFlyer T·C 00:22, 17 April 2019 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 04:08, 16 April 2019 (UTC)
  • Keep subject is WP:GNG. in addition I add WP:NOTCLEANUP Lubbad85 () 19:51, 16 April 2019 (UTC)
    • Please provide details to your position for better understanding. How is it cleanup? What sources meet GNG?--Paul McDonald (talk) 22:41, 16 April 2019 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 08:20, 23 April 2019 (UTC)

Raoul Bellanova[edit]

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

Youth footballer with no senior appearances, fails WP:NFOOTY. Media coverage is routine, passing GNG is doubtful. At the very least should be draftified. BlameRuiner (talk) 08:02, 23 April 2019 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. GiantSnowman 08:26, 23 April 2019 (UTC)
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 08:45, 23 April 2019 (UTC)
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 08:45, 23 April 2019 (UTC)
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Italy-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 08:45, 23 April 2019 (UTC)
  • Draft I say move this too draft space, I maybe going WP:CRYSTAL on this, but normally youth players who play that much international youth football normally get a pro game around this age. Govvy (talk) 10:12, 23 April 2019 (UTC)

Jordan–Syria football rivalry[edit]

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

Are there any references to the disagreements between these two countries applying specifically to football? it wouldn't surprise me, but there do not seem to be any in the article. I can't really do a adequate BEFORE on this, but I bring it herem for discussion, because perhaps someone else can. DGG ( talk ) 07:47, 23 April 2019 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Jordan-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 07:54, 23 April 2019 (UTC)
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Syria-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 07:54, 23 April 2019 (UTC)
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 07:55, 23 April 2019 (UTC)
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 07:55, 23 April 2019 (UTC)
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions.CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 07:56, 23 April 2019 (UTC)
  • Delete -Read the reports of matches - none mention a specific, long-lasting rivalry. The closest they get is discussing the match as having a "derby feel". Couldn't find any sources discussing this in my WP:BEFORE. FOARP (talk) 08:06, 23 April 2019 (UTC)
  • Delete - no evidence of a notable rivalry. GiantSnowman 08:15, 23 April 2019 (UTC)

20,150,122 (number)[edit]

20,150,122 (number) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · newspapers · scholar · free images · WP refs· FENS · JSTOR · NYT · TWL)

Non-notable number Ymblanter (talk) 07:10, 23 April 2019 (UTC)

  • Delete. No indication of notability. (Being the index of a non-notable date doesn't help.) No speedy condition applies. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 09:41, 23 April 2019 (UTC)
  • Delete not notable. Looking at the orignal version of this shows it was not created in good faith. Thincat (talk) 10:16, 23 April 2019 (UTC)
    Thanks, I did not notice this before. I now revision-deleted this edit.--Ymblanter (talk) 10:34, 23 April 2019 (UTC)
  • Delete. Definitely doesn't meet WP:NUMBER. Probably the best AfD discussion yet. - Funky Snack (Talk) 12:40, 23 April 2019 (UTC)
  • Delete. Oversight is never a good sign, and there's nothing notable about the number. John M Wolfson (talk) 19:45, 23 April 2019 (UTC)
  • Delete - No obvious notability of this particular number... Spyder212 (talk) 22:58, 23 April 2019 (UTC)
  • If this was created as a personal attack then surely it can be speedily deleted under WP:G10? The content that remains obviously serves no purpose. Phil Bridger (talk) 09:04, 24 April 2019 (UTC)

Chandio[edit]

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

Subject does not appear to meet relevant notability guidelines and lacks non-trivial coverage from reliable publications. Steps were taken to locate said sources WP:BEFORE this nomination, but were not successful. Pertinent maintenance templates have been ignored for going on 6 years now. Please do not hesitate to contact me should appropriate sources be located during the course of this discussion. Regards, Yamaguchi先生 (talk) 20:39, 15 April 2019 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 21:25, 15 April 2019 (UTC)
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Iran-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 21:25, 15 April 2019 (UTC)
  • Keep I just added 2 new newspaper references to the unreferenced article from Dawn (newspaper) of Pakistan. Was that all that was needed? I am asking a simple and sincere question because I am somewhat confused as to what is expected here. By clicking on the other tribal names in the already installed Baloch tribes template at the subject article, one can see that many of them are somewhat neglected articles. Ngrewal1 (talk) 01:08, 22 April 2019 (UTC)
  • Delete. We need resources that provide significant and trustworthy coverage of the tribe itself. Newspapers primarily exist to sell themselves by telling people things regarding what they want to hear about (while avoiding errors of the sort that will lead to legal difficulties), so they hire journalists who learn to write quickly on topics of public interest. They don't generally hire specialists in certain disciplines, either to write or to review others' writing. Consequently, we really need a different kind of source, ideally an anthropological or ethnographic book from a university press. Nyttend (talk) 03:11, 23 April 2019 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, B dash (talk) 06:36, 23 April 2019 (UTC)
  • Keep Nyttend that seems an unusually harsh verdict on the “Dawn” which is a long established newspaper of record in Pakistan. Yes, ideally we would have a scholarly source but I don’t think that’s a minimum standard we apply to all such articles. There’s another press ref here and here. There’s also a scholarly ref here, here and here. Mccapra (talk) 21:52, 23 April 2019 (UTC)
No, newspapers are not generally reliable sources. They virtually never cite their sources, they self-publish, and they're almost never written or reviewed by trustworthy authors. Moreover, none of these sources are useful either. Who are Isha Books or Om Gupta? Anyone with money can produce an encyclopedia: we need sources with reputations for reliability. Taylor and Francis, conversely, is reliable, but we also need sources that cover the topic significantly, rather than making passing references in a couple of places as these books do. Nyttend (talk) 05:08, 24 April 2019 (UTC)
  • Comment well one of the sources I suggested is based on a PhD thesis, or do you not consider that reliable either? Given the nature of the topic and the number of tribes in Pakistan, I wouldn’t expect much in-depth coverage unless we happened to come across an anthropologist who has selected them for particular study. Mccapra (talk) 05:21, 24 April 2019 (UTC)
  • I couldn't find any anthropological studies but I did find studies concerned with genetics and health. Phil Bridger (talk) 09:24, 24 April 2019 (UTC)

Pressman Advertising Limited[edit]

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

No indication of significant coverage in independent, reliable sources. Relies almost entirely of self-published and affiliated sources with no evidence of passing CORPDEPTH. SITH (talk) 22:01, 15 April 2019 (UTC)

  • So, you did not notice the refs 5 to 10 that look possible independent reliable sources that I've just restored a few minutes ago but they need fixing. Im not voting until I've checked them out but this is a public company so it may be notable Atlantic306 (talk) 22:12, 15 April 2019 (UTC)
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 23:53, 15 April 2019 (UTC)
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 23:54, 15 April 2019 (UTC)
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 23:54, 15 April 2019 (UTC)
  • Comment: Atlantic306, yes, I did. See below a source analysis.
Created with templates {{source assess table}} and {{source assess}}
Source Independent? Reliable? Significant coverage? Overall value toward GNG
1 Blue question mark (italic).svg Archived version of what appears to be a company magazine, hosted on company's website. – For basic info, potentially. Yes By virtue of being self-published. Blue question mark (italic).svg
2 Blue question mark (italic).svg Hosted on company's website, source material doesn't appear affiliated. Blue question mark (italic).svg Unfamiliar with publication. No WP:NOTSTATS Dark Red x.svg
3 Blue question mark (italic).svg Ditto. Blue question mark (italic).svg Ditto. No Ditto. Dark Red x.svg
4 Blue question mark (italic).svg Ditto. Blue question mark (italic).svg Ditto. No Ditto. Dark Red x.svg
5 No Google Searches reveal that the exact same piece was published in other publications, suggesting this is a press release. – For basic info, potentially. Yes By virtue of being a press release. Dark Red x.svg
6 Blue question mark (italic).svg 404 Blue question mark (italic).svg 404 Blue question mark (italic).svg 404 Blue question mark (italic).svg
7 Blue question mark (italic).svg 404 Blue question mark (italic).svg 404 Blue question mark (italic).svg 404 Blue question mark (italic).svg
8 Blue question mark (italic).svg 404 Blue question mark (italic).svg 404 Blue question mark (italic).svg 404 Blue question mark (italic).svg
9 Blue question mark (italic).svg 404 Blue question mark (italic).svg 404 Blue question mark (italic).svg 404 Blue question mark (italic).svg
10 No Press release. – For basic info, potentially. Yes By virtue of being a press release. Dark Red x.svg
Note that the URLs of the sources which either redirect to their homepage or display a 404 error all contain key words from existing sources like number 10 which suggest they were also press releases.
Many thanks, SITH (talk) 11:45, 16 April 2019 (UTC)
  • Agree with your assessment of references 1-5 and 10, will try to fix refs 6-9 later today for assessment, thanks Atlantic306 (talk) 14:58, 16 April 2019 (UTC)
  • Refs 6 and 7 work now, but couldn't fix 8 and 9. No 6 is probably the best one but there doesn't seem to be enough coverage in rs unless someone finds more, thanks Atlantic306 (talk) 19:21, 16 April 2019 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, B dash (talk) 06:36, 23 April 2019 (UTC)

Brian McKechnie (producer)[edit]

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

WP:BLP of a single-market local television journalist, "referenced" as usual solely to his self-published website and his staff profile on the website of his own employer rather than any evidence of reliable source coverage about him. Nothing here is an automatic notability freebie just because he exists; he would have to clear WP:GNG on the sourceability, but there's no evidence that he does so. Bearcat (talk) 06:12, 23 April 2019 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 06:23, 23 April 2019 (UTC)
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 06:23, 23 April 2019 (UTC)
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 07:37, 23 April 2019 (UTC)

Marutheeram Thedi[edit]

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

Fails GNG & WP:NFILM. Uses only WP:SPS, and google does not yield enough sourcing of this future show. -- Amanda (aka DQ) 05:52, 23 April 2019 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 05:53, 23 April 2019 (UTC)
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 05:53, 23 April 2019 (UTC)
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 07:39, 23 April 2019 (UTC)
  • Delete - Fails WP:GNG and no notable secondary sources. Pretty obvious WP:NPROMO violation as well. Skirts89 10:17, 23 April 2019 (UTC)
  • Delete - Current sourcing doesn't demonstrate notability, and I can't find anything better. There isn't much content in the article, so if the show does become notable in future it wouldn't be a major hassle to rewrite from scratch. GirthSummit (blether) 10:20, 23 April 2019 (UTC)
  • Delete - Does not meet general notability criteria, poorly sourced at the moment. Spyder212 (talk) 22:57, 23 April 2019 (UTC)

Moinul Islam Kowshik[edit]

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

Mainul Islam Kowshik has been on the Bangladesh men's national field hockey team since 2012, and played in the South Asian Games, Hockey World League, Hockey Asia Cup, and Asian Games. He is regularly mentioned in primary source match reports such as [29], [30], and [31]. But there are hardly any mentions in secondary sources - ones that aren't first hand accounts by an observer of the event - as called for by the WP:GNG. All I could find, including when searching by মইনুল ইসলাম কৌশিক (name in Bengali script), is a mention that he was high scorer the previous season and a mention that he scored against China in their prior match. This does not rise to significant coverage in multiple secondary sources. Worldbruce (talk) 05:35, 23 April 2019 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Worldbruce (talk) 05:37, 23 April 2019 (UTC)
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bangladesh-related deletion discussions. Worldbruce (talk) 05:37, 23 April 2019 (UTC)

Cristian Gorgerino[edit]

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

Article about footballer who made 1 appearance in the fully-pro Argentine Primera. There is a well-established consensus that making a single appearance in a fully-pro league is not sufficient to pass WP:NFOOTBALL when the article comprehensively fails WP:GNG (see e.g., Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Phakamani Mngadi). Gorgerino dropped down to the regionalized Argentine semi-pro leagues and after suffering a knee injury in March 2018, has yet to play again at even the semi-pro level. Online Argentine media coverage is entirely routine - transfer announcements, a two-sentence note on his knee injury and a brief note about his debut with Belgrano a few years ago. Jogurney (talk) 05:25, 23 April 2019 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 05:43, 23 April 2019 (UTC)
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Argentina-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 05:43, 23 April 2019 (UTC)
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 05:43, 23 April 2019 (UTC)
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions.CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 05:44, 23 April 2019 (UTC)
  • Delete. Scraping by NFOOTY and failing GNG. There's a bit of coverage of his debut. There is a little bit of coverage on his subsequent transfer (or per this interview - [32] - not quite a transfer (the club denied he was on the roster though he trained with them)). Nothing since. Icewhiz (talk) 08:10, 23 April 2019 (UTC)
  • Delete per nom; there is consensus that barely meting NFOOTBALL is insufficient when GNG is not met. GiantSnowman 08:14, 23 April 2019 (UTC)
  • Delete - Does not meet general notability criteria, poorly sourced, not quite meeting notability criteria per WP:NSOCCER. Spyder212 (talk) 22:56, 23 April 2019 (UTC)

Kelly Meighen[edit]

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

Semi-advertorialized résumé of a philanthropist, not reliably sourced as meeting our notability standards. This is referenced 8/10 to primary sources that do not constitute support for notability at all, and 2/10 to glancing namechecks of her existence in coverage of other things or people -- which means it's referenced exactly 0/10 to reliable source coverage that's substantively about her. As usual, Wikipedia is WP:NOTLINKEDIN; we are not a place where people are automatically entitled to have articles that read like résumés and talk about how "avid and highly accomplished" they are just because they exist. Bearcat (talk) 05:15, 23 April 2019 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Massachusetts-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 05:47, 23 April 2019 (UTC)
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 05:47, 23 April 2019 (UTC)
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 05:47, 23 April 2019 (UTC)

Pixel Gun 3D: Battle Royale[edit]

Pixel Gun 3D: Battle Royale (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · newspapers · scholar · free images · WP refs· FENS · JSTOR · NYT · TWL)

Only one of the provided references is independent of the subject— that reference calls this app "one of the most popular apps in the Android ecosystem", which seems odd since a Google News search turns up no actual discussion of the subject (though many trivial mentions). I suspect this means the subject is not sufficiently notable to warrant a Wikipedia article. A loose necktie (talk) 01:56, 9 April 2019 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Video games-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 06:04, 9 April 2019 (UTC)
Speedy redirect: All sources from own wikia, does not prove notability. I wrote a new one though, so I guess we can redirect to mine. Please help out! Oshawott 12 ==()== Talk to me! 07:52, 9 April 2019 (UTC)
  • Comment. Huh, never realized how little coverage this game actually has. The game has over 50 million downloads from Google Play alone however, so please bear that in mind. Mosaicberry (talk) 13:13, 9 April 2019 (UTC)
Speedy redirect to Pixel Gun 3D per CoolSkittle, didn't see that. Mosaicberry (talk) 12:29, 10 April 2019 (UTC)
  • Speedy redirect to Pixel Gun 3D, which is an article of much better quality created by Oshawott 12. CoolSkittle (talk) 01:44, 10 April 2019 (UTC)
  • ...Is it...? It’s barely a paragraph, and has 6 sources that I’ve never heard of, that look like they are of dubious quality... Sergecross73 msg me 16:52, 12 April 2019 (UTC)

Could we move any of the information from the Pixel Gun 3D: Battle Royale page to the new Pixel Gun 3D page before it gets deleted? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Smith John Mr. (talkcontribs) 19:55, 10 April 2019 (UTC)

  • Comment @A loose necktie, Oshawott 12, Mosaicberry, and CoolSkittle: There's some bad procedural-ness going on here. The article has originally been deleted under the name Pixel Gun 3D 3 times as G1, G11, and G11. (I'm not counting a R2 due to a draft move). Smith John created it under a new name, which is probably innocent enough. Moving a separate draft to Pixel Gun 3D while an AFD on the topic is already underway is probably premature and a bit out of procedure. AFD should be evaluating the topics suitably for an article. Votes for speedy redirect should be clarified as Keeps so its clear you're indicating you believe the topic passes WP:GNG. -- ferret (talk) 11:44, 11 April 2019 (UTC)
I wasn’t aware that that this article was created, so the draft was moved to Pixel Gun 3D. However, my article was made to be the passing one. I’m confused as though what happens if we change to keep, though. Will my article be moved here, or will that article redirect to mine? The topic passes WP:GNG, but this article’s sources doesn’t work. I did try to nominate this for speedy delete, but this deletion discussion was already in place. Oshawott 12 ==()== Talk to me! 11:52, 11 April 2019 (UTC)
You literally voted on this AFD, then moved your Draft to mainspace....... You were fully aware. Vote "Keep, but redirect", if you want, but what needs evaluated is whether "Pixel Gun 3D" is a notable topic, not whether one article is better than the other. -- ferret (talk) 11:56, 11 April 2019 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Randykitty (talk) 10:57, 16 April 2019 (UTC)
  • Delete - I’m not seeing the third party reliable source coverage necessary to meet the WP:GNG. Actively against the redirect suggested above as well - that should be deleted as well, as that also hasn’t been established as notable. (It’s the same thing under a different name.) Sergecross73 msg me 22:00, 16 April 2019 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Oshawott 12 ==()== Talk to me! 15:15, 21 April 2019 (UTC)
  • Delete both this and Pixel Gun 3D since they are about the same subject. I just don't see how this video game meets WP:GNG in any case. My WP:BEFORE brought me this [33] but that by itself is not enough (and the source is just listed as situational per WP:VG/RS). There is a big reaching over here to make this game notable, but it is not. Speedy redirect !votes should be discounted as they do not discuss the notability of the subject, just like Ferret has said. Analyzing the references from Pixel Gun 3D:
    • 1) A information about the number of downloads, but not a secondary source.
    • 2) A rehash of a press release, and comes from an unreliable website (no staff even listed).
    • 3) A single paragraph included which is: "To get started you can customize your character with a few Minecraft skins to choose from. Next you will pick which game mode you want to play. The options include Survival, Deathmatch, and Co-op. Each mode can have up to 10 people competing against one another online. Like any good shoot-em-up game there are a variety of maps and weapons to choose from. You can even create your own “server” for a game." I don't see editorial policy for this page, but the staff is listed. Either way, not WP:SIGCOV.
    • 4) Seems like an unreliable page as well. No staff listed, and the depth of the (short) coverage is as same as 3).
    • 5) WP:PRIMARY interview with the developer of the game. Does not count towards WP:GNG.
    • 6) Translating it through Google, it has 1 paragraph that says nothing about the game except "it is a charming game"/"test it and reply down in the comments if you like it or not", while rehashing features from the press release after. Jovanmilic97 (talk) 08:48, 22 April 2019 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Oshawott 12 ==()== Talk to me! 04:40, 23 April 2019 (UTC)

Glendale United Methodist Church[edit]

Glendale United Methodist Church (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · newspapers · scholar · free images · WP refs· FENS · JSTOR · NYT · TWL)

Non-notable church that does not meet WP:GNG or WP:ORGDEPTH, as per WP:BEFORE source searches. North America1000 04:13, 23 April 2019 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. North America1000 04:13, 23 April 2019 (UTC)
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. North America1000 04:13, 23 April 2019 (UTC)
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Tennessee-related deletion discussions. North America1000 04:13, 23 April 2019 (UTC)

Vikki Tobak[edit]

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

Deleted in September 2017. Not seeing enough to suggest the subject is now sufficiently notable. Edwardx (talk) 19:06, 16 April 2019 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. ...William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 19:29, 16 April 2019 (UTC)
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. ...William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 19:29, 16 April 2019 (UTC)
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Kazakhst