Wikipedia:XfD today

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to navigation Jump to search

This page transcludes (or when this is not feasible, links to) all of the deletion debates opened today on the English-language Wikipedia, including articles, categories, templates, and others, as a convenience to XfD-watchers. Please note that because this material is transcluded, watchlisting this page will not provide you with watchlist updates about deletions; WP:DELT works best as a browser bookmark checked regularly.

Contents


Speedy deletion candidates[edit]

The category is at Category:Candidates for speedy deletion.

Articles[edit]

Guide to deletion

Purge server cache

National Wrestling Federation (1986-1994)[edit]

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

Caryn Marooney[edit]

Caryn Marooney (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)

Possibly non notable and was created by a paid editor per https://www.huffpost.com/entry/wikipedia-paid-editing-pr-facebook-nbc-axios_n_5c63321be4b03de942967225 Abote2 (talk) 10:05, 24 April 2019 (UTC)

Laura Cosoi[edit]

Laura Cosoi (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)

Tagged for 8 years for notability, IMDb is the main reference, fails WP:GNG Theroadislong (talk) 09:25, 24 April 2019 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Ceethekreator (talk) 09:38, 24 April 2019 (UTC)
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. Ceethekreator (talk) 09:38, 24 April 2019 (UTC)
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. Ceethekreator (talk) 09:38, 24 April 2019 (UTC)
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Romania-related deletion discussions. Ceethekreator (talk) 09:38, 24 April 2019 (UTC)
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Ceethekreator (talk) 09:38, 24 April 2019 (UTC)

Glenn Dunlop[edit]

Glenn Dunlop (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)

He fails WP:NFOOTBALL having never played in a fully pro league. GNG is failed also. Source 1 is a blog of unknown reliability and source 2 is a Questia article that I can't read the whole of but doesn't look like it will provide significant coverage of Dunlop. Dougal18 (talk) 09:18, 24 April 2019 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. Ceethekreator (talk) 09:39, 24 April 2019 (UTC)
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. Ceethekreator (talk) 09:39, 24 April 2019 (UTC)
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Ireland-related deletion discussions. Ceethekreator (talk) 09:39, 24 April 2019 (UTC)
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 09:40, 24 April 2019 (UTC)
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Northern Ireland-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 09:41, 24 April 2019 (UTC)

TyneTees Express[edit]

TyneTees Express (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 topic seems to fall short of the notability guidelines. The TyneTees Express is a proposed railway service from a no longer accesilbe policy document produced for a defunct local government organisation in the late 2000s. I've no reason to doubt the truthfulness that the idea was mooted in this report, and it is mentioned in passing here by another group. However, the initial report (were it findable!) is not an independent source, and no other coverage seems to come close being "Significant coverage [which] addresses the topic directly and in detail".

It is also worth noting that an alternative railway service between the cities involved, not running along the route described here or using the name TyneTees Express, is due to be launched in December 2019 under the Northern Connect scheme.

An alternative to deletion would be to merge and redirect it into either Northern (train operating company) who will be running the new service, or Leamside line, which is the stretch of rail that would require reopening for the TyneTees Express to run. However my hesitation behind this is that the name 'TyneTees Express' seems to refer to a perhaps more notable local bus service (see Google results and the bus service page). I'm therefore suggesting deletion. Super Nintendo Chalmers (talk) 08:46, 24 April 2019 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 09:43, 24 April 2019 (UTC)
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 09:44, 24 April 2019 (UTC)

Ryan Zabinski[edit]

Ryan Zabinski (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)

Our article says he played 21 WP:NFOOTY games in 2008 and 2010 in the third-tier semi professional, non-WP:FPL USL Second Division (SW lists 4 games in 2010). Other than that, Apparently hasn't played in any WP:FPLs and does not meet NFOOTY. Search results return no significant coverage to meet WP:GNG. Levivich 17:23, 7 April 2019 (UTC)

Update: I have updated the nomination to reflect that this article no longer meets WP:NFOOTY because USL Second Division has been removed from WP:FPL per the note below. Levivich 18:19, 10 April 2019 (UTC)
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Levivich 17:23, 7 April 2019 (UTC)
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. Levivich 17:23, 7 April 2019 (UTC)
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Levivich 17:23, 7 April 2019 (UTC)
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Pennsylvania-related deletion discussions. Levivich 17:23, 7 April 2019 (UTC)
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Levivich 17:33, 7 April 2019 (UTC)
  • Keep The article clearly passes the criteria of notability as stated in the Football/Fully professional leagues list. Shotgun pete 8:10, 7 April 2019 (UTC)
  • Keep – Clearly passes WP:NFOOTY. As to the Soccerway discrepancy, the site doesn't have lineups for American leagues prior to ~2009; therefore, the 21 games is correct (see the Riverhounds to back up the other 16 games), and that is much more than a marginal WP:NFOOTY pass. 21.colinthompson (talk) 22:28, 7 April 2019 (UTC)
  • Delete. nom consulted me prior to nomination. Merits of NFOOTY here are somewhat dubious as while USL Division Two was nominally professional, many players were semi-professionals (holding additional jobs). This particular player retired after a short stint in order to become a golf caddie per his LinkedIn (unfortunately - actual independent RSes don't exist). Regardless, NFOOTY merely creates a presumption of notability - a presumption that sources should exist. In this particular case - as evident in a very simple google search - there is no SIGCOV. As the presumption of GNG is being challenged here, !votes who assert NFOOTY without providing supporting sources (which should be quite easy to locate - English speaking country, most sources online in this time period) - should be disregarded. Icewhiz (talk) 06:03, 8 April 2019 (UTC)
  • Keep - meets WP:NFOOTBALL by some way; needs improving, not deleting. GiantSnowman 07:44, 8 April 2019 (UTC)
  • Delete no evidence that he passes GNG. That is the threhold, not the arbitrary trolling inclusion cretiera that has lead to half of all Wikipedia biographies being on footballers.John Pack Lambert (talk) 04:08, 10 April 2019 (UTC)
  • Note: per consensus in Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Football/Fully professional leagues#Status of US minor leagues (concurrent to this AfD) - USL Second Division was struck from the WP:FPL essay, as it was not fully-professional. This should affect !voting based on play in USL D2. Icewhiz (talk) 07:24, 10 April 2019 (UTC)
  • Keep passes WP:FOOTY.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 04:38, 14 April 2019 (UTC)
    How? Levivich 14:39, 15 April 2019 (UTC)
  • Delete: I don't care if he passes WP:NFOOTY or not. SNGs are subservient (with the exception of PROF) to GNG. They are meant to be a quick rule of thumb for probable notability. Passing them does not guarantee GNG passage. I do not see significant coverage in independent, reliable sources, therefore he's not notable. Simple as that. SITH (talk) 16:49, 15 April 2019 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Please see the comment by Icewhiz and updated rationale by Levivich. Further discussion may be needed as to whether he does indeed meet NFOOTY (and why), not to mention GNG.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Black Kite (talk) 09:14, 16 April 2019 (UTC)
  • Keep, clearly meets WP:NFOOTY along with several other pages nominated by the same user. Mosaicberry (talk) 11:58, 16 April 2019 (UTC)
  • delete Coverage of him doesn't meet the GNG and playing in the USL Second Division does not meet WP:NFOOTY. Sandals1 (talk) 18:26, 22 April 2019 (UTC)
  • Delete. It is not at all "clear" that the player meets NFOOTY, and there does not seem to be any coverage outside of comprehensive player databases. Alpha3031 (tc) 07:24, 24 April 2019 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, B dash (talk) 08:18, 24 April 2019 (UTC)

Tucson Brown[edit]

Tucson Brown (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)

Our article says he played 7 WP:NFOOTY games in 2009 in the third-tier semi professional, non-WP:FPL USL Second Division. Other than that, Apparently hasn't played in any WP:FPLs and does not meet NFOOTY. Search results return no significant coverage to meet WP:GNG. Levivich 17:19, 7 April 2019 (UTC)

Update: I have updated the nomination to reflect that this article no longer meets WP:NFOOTY because USL Second Division has been removed from WP:FPL per the note below. Levivich 18:17, 10 April 2019 (UTC)
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. Levivich 17:20, 7 April 2019 (UTC)
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Levivich 17:20, 7 April 2019 (UTC)
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Arizona-related deletion discussions. Levivich 17:20, 7 April 2019 (UTC)
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Massachusetts-related deletion discussions. Levivich 17:20, 7 April 2019 (UTC)
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Levivich 17:32, 7 April 2019 (UTC)
  • Keep The article clearly passes the criteria of notability as stated in the Football/Fully professional leagues list. Shotgun pete 8:10, 7 April 2019 (UTC)
  • Keep – clearly passes WP:NFOOTY. 21.colinthompson (talk) 22:32, 7 April 2019 (UTC)
  • Delete. nom consulted me prior to nomination. Merits of NFOOTY here are somewhat dubious as while USL Division Two was nominally professional, many players were semi-professionals (holding additional jobs). Regardless, NFOOTY merely creates a presumption of notability - a presumption that sources should exist. In this particular case - as evident in a very simple google search - there is no SIGCOV. As the presumption of GNG is being challenged here, !votes who assert NFOOTY without providing supporting sources (which should be quite easy to locate - English speaking country, most sources online in this time period) - should be disregarded. Icewhiz (talk) 06:03, 8 April 2019 (UTC)
  • Keep - meets WP:NFOOTBALL by some way; needs improving, not deleting. GiantSnowman 07:43, 8 April 2019 (UTC)
  • Comment. This meets NFOOTBALL, per the guideline could be kept. This is because he played in a league that is considered fully professional, and so it is presumed sources must exist. But in reality, this league gets no significant coverage, so should we follow this circular reasoning of a flawed guideline? I can't hold my nose hard enough to keep the smell out, so I will not vote to keep.Jacona (talk) 11:39, 9 April 2019 (UTC)
    @Jacona: The guideline merely creates a presumption of notability - it actually states (at the top of NSPORTS) - "If the article does meet the criteria set forth below, then it is likely that sufficient sources exist to satisfy the inclusion criteria for a stand-alone article. ..... Please note that the failure to meet these criteria does not mean an article must be deleted; conversely, the meeting of any of these criteria does not mean that an article must be kept. These are merely rules of thumb which some editors choose to keep in mind ...". Furthermore, while NFOOTY says " See a list of fully professional leagues kept by WikiProject Football." - that "see a" doesn't not confer policy status on WP:FPL - which is an essay (and unlike NSPORTS - which I think would generally require a community RfC with wide participation to update - is updated on a much looser local consensus). Icewhiz (talk) 07:23, 10 April 2019 (UTC)
  • Note: per consensus in Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Football/Fully professional leagues#Status of US minor leagues (concurrent to this AfD) - USL Second Division was struck from the WP:FPL essay, as it was not fully-professional. This should affect !voting based on play in USL D2. Icewhiz (talk) 07:19, 10 April 2019 (UTC)
  • Delete, does not meet NFOOTY nor any other applicable guideline.Jacona (talk) 19:57, 10 April 2019 (UTC)
  • Delete Lack of substantive sources to pass GNG. Reywas92Talk 05:45, 11 April 2019 (UTC)
  • Delete not WP:GNG Lubbad85 () 20:25, 11 April 2019 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Please see the comment by Icewhiz and the updated rationale by Levivich. Further discussion may be needed as to whether he meets NFOOTY (and why), not to mention GNG.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Black Kite (talk) 09:15, 16 April 2019 (UTC)
  • Delete per multiple analysis described at Special:Diff/892709075. SITH (talk) 10:40, 16 April 2019 (UTC)
  • Keep, clearly meets WP:NFOOTY along with several other pages nominated by the same user. Mosaicberry (talk) 11:57, 16 April 2019 (UTC)
    Can you elaborate on how it meets NFOOTY? Levivich 05:58, 20 April 2019 (UTC)
  • Delete per SITH. As contemporary footballers in an English speaking country, the lack of available sources override any presumption of notability from playing in a semi-professional league. Alpha3031 (tc) 07:31, 24 April 2019 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, B dash (talk) 08:14, 24 April 2019 (UTC)

Bryan Zobre[edit]

Bryan Zobre (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)

Our article says he played 24 WP:NFOOTY games in 2008–2010 in the third-tier semi professional, non-WP:FPL USL Second Division (SW lists 7 games in 2009). Other than that, Apparently hasn't played in any WP:FPLs and does not meet NFOOTY. Search results return no significant coverage to meet WP:GNG. Levivich 17:18, 7 April 2019 (UTC)

Update: I have updated the nomination to reflect that this article no longer meets WP:NFOOTY because USL Second Division has been removed from WP:FPL per the note below. Levivich 18:16, 10 April 2019 (UTC)
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. Levivich 17:18, 7 April 2019 (UTC)
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Levivich 17:18, 7 April 2019 (UTC)
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Connecticut-related deletion discussions. Levivich 17:18, 7 April 2019 (UTC)
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Massachusetts-related deletion discussions. Levivich 17:18, 7 April 2019 (UTC)
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. Levivich 17:18, 7 April 2019 (UTC)
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Levivich 17:32, 7 April 2019 (UTC)
  • Keep The article clearly passes the criteria of notability as stated in the Football/Fully professional leagues list. Shotgun pete 8:10, 7 April 2019 (UTC)
  • Keep – Clearly passes WP:NFOOTY. As to the Soccerway discrepancy, the site doesn't have lineups for American leagues prior to ~2009; therefore, the 24 games is correct, and that is much more than a marginal WP:NFOOTY pass. 21.colinthompson (talk) 22:34, 7 April 2019 (UTC)
  • Delete. nom consulted me prior to nomination. The Pioneers dropped to the not-FPL PDL in 2010, and regardless per the non-reliable sources (soccerway, socerstats) covering this stint - he was utilized as a sub in these games. Merits of NFOOTY here are somewhat dubious as while USL Division Two was nominally professional, many players were semi-professionals (holding additional jobs). Regardless, NFOOTY merely creates a presumption of notability - a presumption that sources should exist. In this particular case - as evident in a very simple google search - there is no SIGCOV. As the presumption of GNG is being challenged here, !votes who assert NFOOTY without providing supporting sources (which should be quite easy to locate - English speaking country, most sources online in this time period) - should be disregarded. Icewhiz (talk) 06:18, 8 April 2019 (UTC)
  • Keep - meets WP:NFOOTBALL by some way; needs improving, not deleting. GiantSnowman 07:43, 8 April 2019 (UTC)
  • Note: per consensus in Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Football/Fully professional leagues#Status of US minor leagues (concurrent to this AfD) - USL Second Division was struck from the WP:FPL essay, as it was not fully-professional. This should affect !voting based on play in USL D2. Icewhiz (talk) 07:19, 10 April 2019 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Please see the comment by Icewhiz and updated nomination by Levivich. Further discussion may be needed as to whether he does indeed meet NFOOTY (and why), not to mention GNG.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Black Kite (talk) 09:16, 16 April 2019 (UTC)
  • Keep, clearly meets WP:NFOOTY along with several other pages nominated by the same user. Mosaicberry (talk) 11:56, 16 April 2019 (UTC)
    None of the leagues this player played in are on the WP:FPL list. How does this article meet NFOOTY? Levivich 05:55, 20 April 2019 (UTC)
  • Delete. For a contemporary American footballer, the absolute dearth of viable sources outweighs any presumption of notability afforded by the fact that he played in a semi-professional league. Alpha3031 (tc) 07:39, 24 April 2019 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, B dash (talk) 08:13, 24 April 2019 (UTC)

Matt Langton[edit]

Matt Langton (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)

Our article says he played 11 WP:NFOOTY games in 2009 in the third-tier semi professional, non-WP:FPL USL Second Division (SW lists 9 games). Other than that, Apparently hasn't played in any WP:FPLs and does not meet NFOOTY. Search results return no significant coverage to meet WP:GNG. Levivich 17:16, 7 April 2019 (UTC)

Update: I have updated the nomination to reflect that this article no longer meets WP:NFOOTY because USL Second Division has been removed from WP:FPL per the note below. Levivich 18:13, 10 April 2019 (UTC)
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Levivich 17:16, 7 April 2019 (UTC)
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. Levivich 17:16, 7 April 2019 (UTC)
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Levivich 17:16, 7 April 2019 (UTC)
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Pennsylvania-related deletion discussions. Levivich 17:16, 7 April 2019 (UTC)
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Levivich 17:32, 7 April 2019 (UTC)
  • Keep The article clearly passes the criteria of notability as stated in the Football/Fully professional leagues list. Shotgun pete 8:10, 7 April 2019 (UTC)
  • Keep – clearly passes WP:NFOOTY. As to the Soccerway discrepancy, the site doesn't cover American leagues prior to ~2009, so the 11 appearances are correct (see the Riverhounds to back up the total), and that is much more than a marginal NFOOTY pass. 21.colinthompson (talk) 22:38, 7 April 2019 (UTC)
  • Delete. nom consulted me prior to nomination. Merits of NFOOTY here are somewhat dubious as while USL Division Two was nominally professional, many players were semi-professionals (holding additional jobs). Per our player himself - LinkedIn - he worked as an associate in accounting firm PwC (Sep 2008-Jul 2011) concurrent to his time with the Riverhounds - in Apr 2008-Aug 2009. From Aug 2009 he was only with PwC (seems he moved from Pittsburgh to NYC as well). As such, this refutes the notion that USL D2 was a fully-professional league as this player was very clearly semi-professional. Regardless, NFOOTY merely creates a presumption of notability - a presumption that sources should exist. In this particular case - as evident in a very simple google search - there is no SIGCOV. As the presumption of GNG is being challenged here, !votes who assert NFOOTY without providing supporting sources (which should be quite easy to locate - English speaking country, most sources online in this time period) - should be disregarded. Icewhiz (talk) 06:25, 8 April 2019 (UTC)
  • Keep - meets WP:NFOOTBALL by some way; needs improving, not deleting. GiantSnowman 07:43, 8 April 2019 (UTC)
    @GiantSnowman: - a source showing he was semi-professional (worked as an accountant at PwC). As he was semi-pro, clearly the league itself (with other semi-pros as well) was not fully professional. How does he meet NFOOTY (which stipulates "fully professional") then? Icewhiz (talk) 08:00, 8 April 2019 (UTC)
    @Icewhiz: please do not @ me at every single AFD ok thanks. GiantSnowman 08:01, 8 April 2019 (UTC)
    I did not. I did in AfDs where you asserted a rationale clearly contradicted by sourcing provided - in this case - the subject was clearly a semi-professional. Icewhiz (talk) 08:06, 8 April 2019 (UTC)
    Yes and in all three, the player has played in a WP:FPL, as confirmed by the nominator. I respectfully suggest you both spend more time deleting articles which clearly don't meet NFOOTBALL as opposed to going after those that do. It makes no sense. GiantSnowman 08:36, 8 April 2019 (UTC)
    Per the player himself (permissible per WP:ABOUTSELF) - [LinkedIn - he was semi-pro, working as an accountant concurrent with his stint on the team. WP:FPL is an essay, not policy. WP:NFOOTY is a notability guideline - and in this case even the presumption of notability isn't met when the player himself asserts he working as an accountant and thus wasn't fully-professional. Icewhiz (talk) 08:46, 8 April 2019 (UTC)
  • Delete clearly we need to scap this league from fully pro listing since people were working as accountants and playing games on the side. It is also time to come up with better inclusion creteria for footballers so we do not have half the articles on Wikipedia be on footballers any more.John Pack Lambert (talk) 04:05, 10 April 2019 (UTC)
  • Note: per consensus in Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Football/Fully professional leagues#Status of US minor leagues (concurrent to this AfD) - USL Second Division was struck from the WP:FPL essay, as it was not fully-professional. This should affect !voting based on play in USL D2. Icewhiz (talk) 07:18, 10 April 2019 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Please see the comment by Icewhiz and updated nomination by Levivich. Further discussion may be needed as to whether he does indeed meet NFOOTY (and why), not to mention GNG.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Black Kite (talk) 09:16, 16 April 2019 (UTC)
  • Delete: again, I have done a Google Search and an offline source search for Langton and I do not see significant coverage in independent, reliable sources, therefore he fails WP:GNG. WP:NFOOTY is only supposed to be a guide which predicts the likelihood of passing WP:GNG. When source searches can be done, WP:GNG is preferable. SITH (talk) 10:35, 16 April 2019 (UTC)
  • Keep, clearly meets WP:NFOOTY along with several other pages nominated by the same user. Mosaicberry (talk) 11:55, 16 April 2019 (UTC)
  • Keep Having a side job doesn't prove the league is semi-professional. Even some MLS players have side jobs while making six figures. Meets WP:NFOOTY. Smartyllama (talk) 15:22, 16 April 2019 (UTC)
  • Keep, clearly meets WP:NFOOTY Not sure why an Afd this subject passes WP:GNG and WP:NOTCLEANUP Lubbad85 () 20:12, 16 April 2019 (UTC)
  • Question: Are there any sources that say USL Second Division was a fully-professional league? (Also, accounting is not a "side job", it's a profession, for which a bachelor's degree, a professional examination, and licensure is required.) Levivich 21:02, 16 April 2019 (UTC)
    Which doesn't prove he wasn't doing it part time on the side. Russell Canouse, a professional athlete making six figures in a fully professional league, just got a side job as a realtor, which also requires a professional examination and a license. The source doesn't prove he was a full-time accountant who played soccer on the side as opposed to being a full-time soccer player who works as an accountant on the side. And we had sources saying it was professional before, but apparently that wasn't good enough for some people because someone's LinkedIn said something ambiguous and so we had to delete it apparently. Smartyllama (talk) 23:02, 16 April 2019 (UTC)
    Realtor ≠ accountant. You don't need a bachelor's degree to get a real estate license. That's a big difference, like a 4-year, $200,000 difference. Accountant is in the same group as architect, engineer, etc. It's unlikely that someone would spend 4 years of school and like a quarter of a million dollars and then go work part-time as an accountant.
    But this guy, Matt Langton, according to his LinkedIn, was working at PriceWaterhouseCoopers as an accounting associate at the same time as he was playing football. That's like the largest or one of the largest accounting companies in the world. Accounting majors would kill to get that job, it's got to be one of the most prestigious entry-level positions for an accountant. Not impossible, but not likely this was a part-time gig. $200k, 4 years of schooling, get the accountants license, get hired by one of the top firms in the world... and you're going to go part time so you can play in the third-division USL Second League? After he stopped playing football, he became a Senior Associate at PwC. Then a Fund Accountant, then an Accounting Manager. All indications suggest he is an accountant by profession, not a football player.
    He's not the only one in the USL Second Division that had an obvious full-time job while playing. There was a discussion about this at WT:FPL#Status of US minor leagues with other examples. You participated in it, as did several other editors. Multiple sources were examined. You brought up the same example. But just because there's a guy in the MLS that's a realtor doesn't prove that USL Second Division was professional. We have sources showing it's not fully professional. We have no sources, so far, showing it is fully professional. I'm surprised it's like.. "Keep per NFOOTY" *league removed by consensus from FPL* "Still keep per NFOOTY". Levivich 01:25, 17 April 2019 (UTC)
    Working as an accountant was not a "side job". Being a footballer for a few months was - he continued working at PwC after his short stint in the not fully professiinal USL D2 - including moving to New York and advancing in the ranks in PwC. Minor leagues in the US have very little coverage (less than college football) and are used for tryouts from college - many of whom are thinking of other careers.Icewhiz (talk) 04:02, 17 April 2019 (UTC)
  • Delete - Article about a soccer player who played only 11 matches in the third-tier US league (This suggests the club was not fully professional prior to building its own stadium - long after Langton had left the club - as it used high school stadia and averaged no more than 1,000 spectators per game). I'm confused by his LinkedIn profile as it is my experience with public accounting firms like PwC that "moonlighting" is strictly prohibited for almost all employees - meaning you cannot be a salaried employee for another firm while you work there. Perhaps he took a leave of absence to play soccer, or perhaps he was an unpaid trainee, but the idea that he would have been playing professional soccer and working as an accountant at PwC at the same time doesn't seem plausible. As far as meeting the GNG, we have very little in non-routine coverage (This and thisare hardly in-depth coverage). Jogurney (talk) 02:47, 18 April 2019 (UTC)
    The games - per soccerway - were all on Sunday and Saturday. 5 were at home. The 4 away games - 2 in Maryland, 1 in Harrisburg, and 1 in Richmond are all in driving distance from Pittsburgh. Working for a different accounting firm or as an accountant elsewhere is obviously a no-no in terms of non-compete and confidentiality at a major accounting firm - but playing soccer on the weekend? The overlap is also at the beginning of his term in PwC - so it might've been a trainee/internship later promoted to full-time there. Icewhiz (talk) 07:24, 18 April 2019 (UTC)
  • delete Coverage of him doesn't meet the GNG and playing in the USL Second Division does not meet WP:NFOOTY. Sandals1 (talk) 18:27, 22 April 2019 (UTC)
  • Delete. No indication of meeting any notability guideline. No coverage in newspaper archives. Alpha3031 (tc) 07:48, 24 April 2019 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, B dash (talk) 08:12, 24 April 2019 (UTC)

David Feazell[edit]

David Feazell (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)

Our article says he played 11 WP:NFOOTY games in 2008 in the third-tier semi professional, non-WP:FPL USL Second Division. Other than that, Apparently hasn't played in any WP:FPLs and does not meet NFOOTY. Search results return no significant coverage to meet WP:GNG. Levivich 17:14, 7 April 2019 (UTC)

Update: I have updated the nomination to reflect that this article no longer meets WP:NFOOTY because USL Second Division has been removed from WP:FPL per the note below. Levivich 18:12, 10 April 2019 (UTC)
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Levivich 17:14, 7 April 2019 (UTC)
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. Levivich 17:14, 7 April 2019 (UTC)
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Levivich 17:14, 7 April 2019 (UTC)
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Maryland-related deletion discussions. Levivich 17:14, 7 April 2019 (UTC)
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Levivich 17:32, 7 April 2019 (UTC)
  • Keep The article passes the criteria of notability as stated in the Football/Fully professional leagues list it just needs to be updated. Shotgun pete 8:10, 7 April 2019 (UTC)
  • Keep – clearly passes WP:NFOOTY, this feels like a case of WP:DINC more than anything. 21.colinthompson (talk) 22:42, 7 April 2019 (UTC)
  • Delete. nom consulted me prior to nomination. Merits of NFOOTY here are somewhat dubious as while USL Division Two was nominally professional, many players were semi-professionals (holding additional jobs). Regardless, NFOOTY merely creates a presumption of notability - a presumption that sources should exist. In this particular case - as evident in a very simple google search - there is no SIGCOV. As the presumption of GNG is being challenged here, !votes who assert NFOOTY without providing supporting sources (which should be quite easy to locate - English speaking country, most sources from this time period are available online) - should be disregarded. Icewhiz (talk) 06:30, 8 April 2019 (UTC)
  • Keep - meets WP:NFOOTBALL by some way; needs improving, not deleting. GiantSnowman 07:43, 8 April 2019 (UTC)
  • Note: per consensus in Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Football/Fully professional leagues#Status of US minor leagues (concurrent to this AfD) - USL Second Division was struck from the WP:FPL essay, as it was not fully-professional. This should affect !voting based on play in USL D2. Icewhiz (talk) 07:18, 10 April 2019 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Please see the comment by Icewhiz and updated nomination by Levivich. Further discussion may be needed as to whether he does indeed meet NFOOTY (and why), not to mention GNG.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Black Kite (talk) 09:17, 16 April 2019 (UTC)
  • Delete: I've just realised the past two AfDs I have voted on are all nominated by the same person with the same rationale, so I have completed a source search for all of them (Feazell, Townsend, Tyrie, Reinberg, Clark and Brown). None of them have received significant coverage in independent, reliable sources. As WP:NSPORTS, the parent guideline of WP:NFOOTY, is subservient to WP:GNG, whether they meet one of the criteria at WP:NFOOTY is irrelevant. SITH (talk) 10:39, 16 April 2019 (UTC)
  • Keep, clearly meets WP:NFOOTY along with several other pages nominated by the same user. Mosaicberry (talk) 11:54, 16 April 2019 (UTC)
  • Keep subject is WP:NFOOTY develop the bio, WP:NOTCLEANUP Lubbad85 () 19:39, 16 April 2019 (UTC)
Given the change in status for the USL Second Division, how does he meet WP:NFOOTY? Papaursa (talk) 23:40, 17 April 2019 (UTC)
  • Delete After the reassessment of the USL Second Division as not being fully professional, he does not meet WP:NFOOTY. Coverage isn't close to meeting WP:GNG. Papaursa (talk) 21:54, 19 April 2019 (UTC)
  • delete Coverage of him doesn't meet the GNG and playing in the USL Second Division does not meet WP:NFOOTY. Sandals1 (talk) 18:29, 22 April 2019 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, B dash (talk) 08:11, 24 April 2019 (UTC)

Ashleigh Townsend[edit]

Ashleigh Townsend (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)

Our article says he played 39 WP:NFOOTY games in 2007–2009 in the third-tier semi professional, non-WP:FPL USL Second Division (SW lists 14 games in 2009). Other than that, Apparently hasn't played in any WP:FPLs and does not meet NFOOTY. Search results return no significant coverage to meet WP:GNG. Levivich 17:12, 7 April 2019 (UTC)

Update: I have updated the nomination to reflect that this article no longer meets WP:NFOOTY because USL Second Division has been removed from WP:FPL per the note below. Levivich 18:10, 10 April 2019 (UTC)
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Levivich 17:13, 7 April 2019 (UTC)
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. Levivich 17:13, 7 April 2019 (UTC)
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sweden-related deletion discussions. Levivich 17:13, 7 April 2019 (UTC)
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. Levivich 17:13, 7 April 2019 (UTC)
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Levivich 17:13, 7 April 2019 (UTC)
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Indiana-related deletion discussions. Levivich 17:13, 7 April 2019 (UTC)
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Kentucky-related deletion discussions. Levivich 17:13, 7 April 2019 (UTC)
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Maryland-related deletion discussions. Levivich 17:13, 7 April 2019 (UTC)
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of North Carolina-related deletion discussions. Levivich 17:13, 7 April 2019 (UTC)
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Ohio-related deletion discussions. Levivich 17:13, 7 April 2019 (UTC)
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Levivich 17:31, 7 April 2019 (UTC)
  • Keep The article clearly passes the criteria of notability as stated in the Football/Fully professional leagues list. Shotgun pete 8:10, 7 April 2019 (UTC)
  • Keep – clearly meets WP:NFOOTY (39 games?!?!) Soccerway doesn't cover American leagues prior to ~2009, so the total of 39 games is correct, which is much more than a marginal WP:NFOOTY pass. 21.colinthompson (talk) 22:43, 7 April 2019 (UTC)
  • Keep, per reasoning above. /Julle (talk) 00:16, 8 April 2019 (UTC)
  • Delete. nom consulted me prior to nomination. Merits of NFOOTY here are somewhat dubious as while USL Division Two was nominally professional, many players were semi-professionals (holding additional jobs). According to www.soccer-elite.co.uk - he has since moved to on training for soccer-elite coupled with some semi-pro play. Regardless, NFOOTY merely creates a presumption of notability - a presumption that sources should exist. In this particular case - as evident in a very simple google search - there is no SIGCOV. As the presumption of GNG is being challenged here, !votes who assert NFOOTY without providing supporting sources (which should be quite easy to locate - English speaking country, most sources from this time period are available online) - should be disregarded. Icewhiz (talk) 06:35, 8 April 2019 (UTC)
  • Keep - meets WP:NFOOTBALL by some way; needs improving, not deleting. GiantSnowman 07:43, 8 April 2019 (UTC)
  • Note: per consensus in Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Football/Fully professional leagues#Status of US minor leagues (concurrent to this AfD) - USL Second Division was struck from the WP:FPL essay, as it was not fully-professional. This should affect !voting based on play in USL D2. Icewhiz (talk) 07:18, 10 April 2019 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Please see the comment by Icewhiz and updated nomination by Levivich. Further discussion may be needed as to whether he does indeed meet NFOOTY (and why), not to mention GNG.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Black Kite (talk) 09:17, 16 April 2019 (UTC)
Given the change in status for the USL Second Division, how does he meet WP:NFOOTY? Papaursa (talk) 23:41, 17 April 2019 (UTC)
  • Delete After the reassessment of the USL Second Division as not being fully professional, he does not meet WP:NFOOTY. Coverage is typical sports reporting and is insufficient to meet WP:GNG. Papaursa (talk) 21:51, 19 April 2019 (UTC)
  • delete Coverage of him doesn't meet the GNG and playing in the USL Second Division does not meet WP:NFOOTY. Sandals1 (talk) 18:30, 22 April 2019 (UTC)
  • delete He Doesn't meet WP:GNG. Padavalam Kuttan Pilla  Talk  09:47, 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) 08:10, 24 April 2019 (UTC)

Ben Clark (footballer, born 1984)[edit]

Ben Clark (footballer, born 1984) (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 to be confused with other footballers with the same name. Our article says the Ben Clark born in 1984 played 38 WP:NFOOTY games in 2008–2009 in the third-tier semi professional, non-WP:FPL USL Second Division (SW lists 20 games in 2009). Other than that, apparently hasn't played in any WP:FPLs. Does not meet NFOOTY. Search results return no significant coverage to meet WP:GNG. Levivich 17:04, 7 April 2019 (UTC)

Update: I have updated the nomination to reflect that this article no longer meets WP:NFOOTY because USL Second Division has been removed from WP:FPL per the note below. Levivich 18:03, 10 April 2019 (UTC)
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Levivich 17:05, 7 April 2019 (UTC)
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. Levivich 17:05, 7 April 2019 (UTC)
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Finland-related deletion discussions. Levivich 17:05, 7 April 2019 (UTC)
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. Levivich 17:05, 7 April 2019 (UTC)
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Levivich 17:05, 7 April 2019 (UTC)
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Massachusetts-related deletion discussions. Levivich 17:05, 7 April 2019 (UTC)
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of North Carolina-related deletion discussions. Levivich 17:05, 7 April 2019 (UTC)
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions.CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 17:16, 7 April 2019 (UTC)
  • Keep - clearly meets WP:NFOOTBALL. Needs improving, not deleting. PS it would be nice if the nominator notified article creators about AFDs... GiantSnowman 19:27, 7 April 2019 (UTC)
    GiantSnowman, of course I did. I use Twinkle. Levivich 21:06, 7 April 2019 (UTC)
  • Keep The article clearly passes the criteria of notability as stated in the Football/Fully professional leagues list. Shotgun pete 8:10, 7 April 2019 (UTC)
    Wikipedia:WikiProject Football/Fully professional leagues is merely an essay, with no policy standing for notability. Icewhiz (talk) 07:24, 8 April 2019 (UTC)
  • Keep – 38 games is a clear pass of WP:NFOOTY. As to the Soccerway discrepancy, the site doesn't cover American leagues before ~2009, and thus the total of 38 is correct. 21.colinthompson (talk) 22:52, 7 April 2019 (UTC)
    What's the reliable source supporting 38 games? Levivich 23:55, 7 April 2019 (UTC)
    This link gives him 18 games and 1 goal, to add to the 20 games shown on Soccerway. 21.colinthompson (talk) 00:29, 8 April 2019 (UTC)
  • Keep. Twenty games would have been enough too. /Julle (talk) 00:17, 8 April 2019 (UTC)
  • Delete. nom consulted me prior to nomination. Merits of NFOOTY here are somewhat dubious as while USL Division Two was nominally professional, many players were semi-professional (holding additional jobs - several such examples can be provided). Regardless, NFOOTY merely creates a presumption of notability - a presumption that sources should exist. In this particular case - as evident in a very simple google search - there is no SIGCOV. As the presumption of GNG is being challenged here, !votes who assert NFOOTY without providing supporting sources (which should be quite easy to locate - English speaking country, most sources online in this time period) - should be disregarded.Icewhiz (talk) 06:59, 8 April 2019 (UTC)
  • Note: per consensus in Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Football/Fully professional leagues#Status of US minor leagues (concurrent to this AfD) - USL Second Division was struck from the WP:FPL essay, as it was not fully-professional. This should affect !voting based on play in USL D2. Icewhiz (talk) 07:17, 10 April 2019 (UTC)
  • keep as a clear pass of WP:NFOOTBALL Although the article needs a lot of work, AfD is not cleanup Lubbad85 () 20:30, 11 April 2019 (UTC)
    Does it still pass NFOOTY if USL 2nd Div wasn't fully professional? Levivich 03:47, 12 April 2019 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Please see the comment by Icewhiz and updated nomination by Levivich. Further discussion may be needed as to whether he does indeed meet NFOOTY (and why), not to mention GNG.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Black Kite (talk) 09:18, 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) 08:10, 24 April 2019 (UTC)

Merrimack Valley Conference[edit]

Merrimack Valley Conference (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, no third party sources. Page was previously deleted per WP:PROD and then restored without rationale for restoration. Paul McDonald (talk) 18:59, 9 April 2019 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. Icewhiz (talk) 19:34, 9 April 2019 (UTC)
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. Icewhiz (talk) 19:34, 9 April 2019 (UTC)
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. Icewhiz (talk) 19:34, 9 April 2019 (UTC)
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Massachusetts-related deletion discussions. Icewhiz (talk) 19:34, 9 April 2019 (UTC)
Comment: I found this ESPN article on the conference, but no other secondary sources. If other secondary sources should be found I'd most likely vote keep, all member schools have pages. Willsome429 (say hey or see my edits!) 01:19, 13 April 2019 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Spartaz Humbug! 06:41, 17 April 2019 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 07:30, 24 April 2019 (UTC)

Kristin Zachariassen[edit]

Kristin Zachariassen (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 important enough as an actor. A couple of minor roles in films many years apart. And, in addition: "a small role in Hotel Cæsar in season 19 or 20". Geschichte (talk) 20:56, 9 April 2019 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 20:57, 9 April 2019 (UTC)
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Norway-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 20:57, 9 April 2019 (UTC)
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 20:58, 9 April 2019 (UTC)
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 20:58, 9 April 2019 (UTC)
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 20:59, 9 April 2019 (UTC)
  • Delete just having roles mentioned in credits does not make someone notable. They need to be significant in notable productions.John Pack Lambert (talk) 04:02, 10 April 2019 (UTC)
  • Delete Agree with nominator, couldn't find reliable sources 9H48F (talk) 13:36, 12 April 2019 (UTC)
  • Comment Her role in Kule kidz gråter ikke was certainly significant - she was nominated for best supporting actress for it. [1], [2] (yes, both of those just list her name, but do show the significance of that role). Her role in Luftens Helter was also significant (see the Norwegian Wikipedia article [3], and here [4]). There is no English Wikipedia article about that sitcom yet, but that does not mean that the significant coverage which would show its notability does not exist. Her role in Kvinnen i mitt liv also looks significant. Given that articles about those don't yet exist on English Wikipedia, though, it would be hard to show that she was notable. (I agree that the inclusion in the article of the words "a small role in Hotel Cæsar in season 19 or 20" certainly doesn't help a claim to notability, but it doesn't necessarily mean she's not, it just means it's badly presented.) RebeccaGreen (talk) 11:19, 16 April 2019 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Spartaz Humbug! 06:41, 17 April 2019 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 07:30, 24 April 2019 (UTC)

Hermann Barsdorf[edit]

Hermann Barsdorf (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)

Declined PROD. Rationale was Likely ineligible for A7 due to the credible claim of significance, however, source searches do not turn up the requisite depth of coverage for it to be considered notable. Google, WorldCat and JSTOR searches in both English and German turn up little in the way of significant coverage and while it has since been improved I feel the original PROD rationale still applies. SITH (talk) 21:18, 9 April 2019 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 05:03, 10 April 2019 (UTC)
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Germany-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 05:03, 10 April 2019 (UTC)
  • Comment This looks like a very interesting publisher, from the titles of the books they published (on topics including erotica, magic, the evil eye, crime fiction, etc). It seems that they were based in Leipzig in the second half of the 19th century, then in Berlin in the first half of the 20th century. German Wikipedia has redlinks for this publisher's name in a couple of articles, but no article yet. I think this is a subject which requires access to resources which are not online, and probably not in English either (though I have searched under "Verlag Hermann Barsdorf", "Hermann Barsdorf Verlag" and "Barsdorf Verlag", I think there probably aren't enough digitised sources in German yet). I will try searching in digitised German newspapers, although those which are online only cover a few years of the 20th century ..... Wuapinmon, sources do not need to be in English, so if you do have sources in other languages, please add them! RebeccaGreen (talk) 10:28, 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) 06:01, 17 April 2019 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 07:29, 24 April 2019 (UTC)

Electric Brain[edit]

Electric Brain (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)

Fairly obscure UK video game magazine from 1989 to 1993. Fails WP:GNG. Probably should not be a subject on Wikipedia, but it could be useful for a source. Harizotoh9 (talk) 07:24, 24 April 2019 (UTC)

Ma[edit]

Ma (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)

Still just another word for marijuana. Nothing substantive in the article. Should be a redirect to the main article, but a couple of editors insist on recreating. WP is not a dictionary. Onel5969 TT me 23:41, 10 April 2019 (UTC)

  • Rename or merge: The suitable place to put this material in my opinion would be Cannabis in China. The word "ma" in English has a number of meanings, and cannabis is nowhere near the top of that list. Furthermore, because of tonal variants, "ma" can refer to at least four different Mandarin words. --Slashme (talk) 05:10, 11 April 2019 (UTC)
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of China-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 06:27, 11 April 2019 (UTC)
  • Merge: per WP:NOTDIC. No reason for this to be a separate article. Also, "hemp" is only one of the many meanings of "麻". Esiymbro (talk) 03:13, 12 April 2019 (UTC)
  • Delete per WP:NOTDIC, and restore redirect to MA. -Zanhe (talk) 03:35, 12 April 2019 (UTC)
  • Keep An initial stub for encyclopedic article about important name with a 5,000-plus year history. There is plenty of room for expansion in several areas, including migration of the term into other parts of the world, as alluded to in Abel. It would be inappropriate to merge into Cannabis in China because the article is about the etymology of the word ma and its history of use worldwide, including 500-plus years of English use. -- The Hammer of Thor (talk) 18:45, 16 April 2019 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Natg 19 (talk) 00:53, 17 April 2019 (UTC)
  • Retitle and redirect This is the English language Wikipedia but the title of the page in question is currently a Chinese word. The English sources for this topic have titles such as Cannabis in China and such a title would be more meaningful and helpful for our English language readership. The primary topic for the word "Ma" in English is mother and directing readers to an article about an illegal drug instead is an improper Easter egg. Also, per WP:DICDEF, our content should be structured around the general meaning of a topic, rather than being based upon a particular word. So, the page should be retitled and the current title used as a redirect to Mother, replacing Ma (mom). Andrew D. (talk) 09:18, 17 April 2019 (UTC)
Should the existing article be merged and redirected to Cannabis in China? Your suggested new title already exists. Agree to redirect "Ma" to Mother. Natg 19 (talk) 16:43, 17 April 2019 (UTC)
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Language-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 02:40, 19 April 2019 (UTC)
  • REVERT, this was a happy little redirect page for over 10 years until The Hammer of Thor, who appears to have some sort of obsession with canabis, changed it, there is nothing that shows that this "chinese canabis ma" should have priority over any other MA. Coolabahapple (talk) 06:09, 19 April 2019 (UTC)
  • That is not a valid argument in a deletion discussion. Debating content and/or how to "fix" articles isn't what we do here, sorry ☆ Bri (talk) 23:12, 19 April 2019 (UTC)
  • Comment it occurs to me that this debate has more than a little chauvinistic tone to it. Like East Asian topics are second-class citizens to "proper" English words. This is indeed the English Wikipedia, which guides the language we write in; it does not drive the articles we write about nor determine which has "priority". A strong argument can be made that in an encyclopedia, a many-thousands-year-old sociocultural entity takes priority over a slang word. Also, for precedent, note that Pa is a disambiguation page, not merely a redirect-as-slang to Father. See WP:PRIMARYUSAGE, "A topic is primary for a term with respect to long-term significance if it has substantially greater enduring notability and educational value than any other topic associated with that term" (emphasis mine). I don't buy any of these arguments that when an English speaker utters "ma" she's probably referring to her mother, therefore delete. ☆ Bri (talk) 23:24, 19 April 2019 (UTC)
  • sorry, but i am confused, youre saying delete for this article? Coolabahapple (talk) 00:08, 20 April 2019 (UTC)
  • I have not !voted. But I think the discussion here is largely way off base. WP:DICDEF defines a Wikipedia entry as "concept, a place, an event, a thing etc. that their title can denote" which I think the article under discussion does in fact do; it is a discussion of a multi-cultural (multi-continental in fact) sociological phenomenon as much as it is about a word. So that invalidates several of the !votes above. At least one other talking about reverting or otherwise making content changes are improper for this venue. The sole vote Retitle and redirect uses the ethnocentric argument that a Chinese term should not be an article topic. I don't see any good arguments here other than Keep. ☆ Bri (talk) 01:25, 20 April 2019 (UTC)
  • thanks (its just that the last two words of your comment above was "therefore delete" so it appeared confusing). Coolabahapple (talk) 06:11, 20 April 2019 (UTC)
  • Comment, Warning! humor to follow, proceed with extreme caution. Sorry everyone i can't resist, from above comment: "I don't buy any of these arguments that when an English speaker utters "ma" she's probably referring to her mother", you're probably right, when an English speaker infant utters "ma" they are more likely asking for cannabis ... hmmmmmm, i wonder if the South Park crowd would like to incorporate this into an episode involving Ike?Face-smile.svg anyway, i will now go back to munching all the chocolate eggs that Big Bunny has left me and will leave this afd to more sensible editors.Coolabahapple (talk) 12:40, 20 April 2019 (UTC)
  • (Restating keep) The article is appropriately-written from a neutral worldview. [Note that ma (mother) is unlikely to become a stand-alone Wikipedia article. The slang words mama, momma, and mom are similarly unlikely, even though they're more commonly-used.] -- The Hammer of Thor (talk) 00:32, 23 April 2019 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 07:27, 24 April 2019 (UTC)

Aboubacar Keita[edit]

Aboubacar Keita (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)

Player has yet to make his professional debut, thus failing WP:NFOOTY, and also does not meet WP:GNG. PROD was removed by article creator without providing a reason. 21.colinthompson (talk) 07:15, 24 April 2019 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. GiantSnowman 08:37, 24 April 2019 (UTC)

DAS Collection[edit]

DAS Collection (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 very notable Rathfelder (talk) 07:02, 24 April 2019 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fashion-related deletion discussions. Ceethekreator (talk) 07:14, 24 April 2019 (UTC)
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. Ceethekreator (talk) 07:14, 24 April 2019 (UTC)
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Ceethekreator (talk) 07:14, 24 April 2019 (UTC)
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United Arab Emirates-related deletion discussions. Ceethekreator (talk) 07:14, 24 April 2019 (UTC)

Alexis Triadis[edit]

Alexis Triadis (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 only claim for notability is 16 games in German 3 Liga (Wiesbaden reserve team), but it is unsourced, and I was not able to find sources myself (except for LinkedIn, where different years are stated). May be someone else could have more luck with the sources. Many other details, such as nationality, are not sourced either. Ymblanter (talk) 07:01, 24 April 2019 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. Ceethekreator (talk) 07:15, 24 April 2019 (UTC)
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. Ceethekreator (talk) 07:15, 24 April 2019 (UTC)
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Greece-related deletion discussions. Ceethekreator (talk) 07:15, 24 April 2019 (UTC)
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. GiantSnowman 08:37, 24 April 2019 (UTC)

David Tyrie[edit]

David Tyrie (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)

Our article says he played 15 WP:NFOOTY games in 2009 in the third-tier semi professional, non-WP:FPL USL Second Division (SW lists 14 games). Other than that, Apparently hasn't played in any WP:FPLs and does not meet NFOOTY. Search results return no significant coverage to meet WP:GNG. Levivich 17:10, 7 April 2019 (UTC)

Update: I have updated the nomination to reflect that this article no longer meets WP:NFOOTY because USL Second Division has been removed from WP:FPL per the note below. Levivich 18:08, 10 April 2019 (UTC)
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Levivich 17:11, 7 April 2019 (UTC)
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. Levivich 17:11, 7 April 2019 (UTC)
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. Levivich 17:11, 7 April 2019 (UTC)
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Levivich 17:11, 7 April 2019 (UTC)
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Connecticut-related deletion discussions. Levivich 17:11, 7 April 2019 (UTC)
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Massachusetts-related deletion discussions. Levivich 17:11, 7 April 2019 (UTC)
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Levivich 17:31, 7 April 2019 (UTC)
  • Keep The article passes the criteria of notability as stated in the Football/Fully professional leagues list. Shotgun pete 8:10, 7 April 2019 (UTC)
  • Keep – 15 appearances in a WP:FPL is a clear WP:NFOOTY pass. On a side note, if the nom thinks that the page incorrectly states the number of appearances, they are free to change that number as per their sources. 21.colinthompson (talk) 22:48, 7 April 2019 (UTC)
  • Delete. nom consulted me prior to nomination. Merits of NFOOTY here are somewhat dubious as while USL Division Two was nominally professional, many players were semi-professionals (holding additional jobs). Per our player himself - LinkedIn - he began working in Whitecap Technologies in June 2009 - concurrent with 8 of his games for the Pioneers per Soccerway.[5] (the Pioneers themselves self-relegated to the non-pro PDL in the following 2010 seasons), Tyrie (per himself) continued his business career after 2009. As such, this refutes the notion that USL D2 was a fully-professional league as this player was very clearly semi-professional. Regardless, NFOOTY merely creates a presumption of notability - a presumption that sources should exist. In this particular case - as evident in a very simple google search - there is no SIGCOV. As the presumption of GNG is being challenged here, !votes who assert NFOOTY without providing supporting sources (which should be quite easy to locate - English speaking country, most sources online in this time period) - should be disregarded. Icewhiz (talk) 06:45, 8 April 2019 (UTC)
  • Keep - meets WP:NFOOTBALL by some way; needs improving, not deleting. GiantSnowman 07:43, 8 April 2019 (UTC)
    @GiantSnowman: what's really relevant is sources for GNG, however - how does he pass WP:NFOOTBALL? A source has been provided above showing that he was semi-professional during his brief stint in the Pioneers - as such - he was not a fully-professional league, per his own (and other semi-pros) participation. Icewhiz (talk) 07:58, 8 April 2019 (UTC)
  • Delete does not pass our absurdly low inclusion criteria for footballers. Was never fully pro.John Pack Lambert (talk) 03:54, 10 April 2019 (UTC)
  • Note: per consensus in Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Football/Fully professional leagues#Status of US minor leagues (concurrent to this AfD) - USL Second Division was struck from the WP:FPL essay, as it was not fully-professional. This should affect !voting based on play in USL D2. Icewhiz (talk) 07:17, 10 April 2019 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Please see the comment by Icewhiz and updated nomination by Levivich. Further discussion may be needed as to whether he does indeed meet NFOOTY (and why), not to mention GNG.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Black Kite (talk) 09:17, 16 April 2019 (UTC)
  • Delete per multiple analysis described at Special:Diff/892709075. SITH (talk) 10:40, 16 April 2019 (UTC)
  • Keep, clearly meets WP:NFOOTY along with several other pages nominated by the same user. Mosaicberry (talk) 11:49, 16 April 2019 (UTC)
  • Keep subject passes WP:NFOOTY the article should be developed. WP:NOTCLEANUP Lubbad85 () 19:45, 16 April 2019 (UTC)
  • How does this meet NFOOTY? What sources are there saying the league(s) he played in were fully-professional? Levivich 05:50, 20 April 2019 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, B dash (talk) 05:44, 24 April 2019 (UTC)

Cody Reinberg[edit]

Cody Reinberg (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)

Our article says he played 16 WP:NFOOTY games in 2009 in the third-tier semi professional, non-WP:FPL USL Second Division. Other than that, Apparently hasn't played in any WP:FPLs and does not meet NFOOTY. Search results return no significant coverage to meet WP:GNG. Levivich 17:06, 7 April 2019 (UTC)

Update: I have updated the nomination to reflect that this article no longer meets WP:NFOOTY because USL Second Division has been removed from WP:FPL per the note below. Levivich 18:06, 10 April 2019 (UTC)
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Levivich 17:07, 7 April 2019 (UTC)
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. Levivich 17:07, 7 April 2019 (UTC)
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Levivich 17:07, 7 April 2019 (UTC)
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Iowa-related deletion discussions. Levivich 17:07, 7 April 2019 (UTC)
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Missouri-related deletion discussions. Levivich 17:07, 7 April 2019 (UTC)
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Pennsylvania-related deletion discussions. Levivich 17:07, 7 April 2019 (UTC)
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Levivich 17:31, 7 April 2019 (UTC)
  • Keep The article passes the criteria of notability as stated in the Football/Fully professional leagues list. Shotgun pete 8:10, 7 April 2019 (UTC)
  • Keep – 16 appearances is a clear pass of WP:NFOOTY. Although this page needs some cleaning up, WP:DINC. 21.colinthompson (talk) 22:50, 7 April 2019 (UTC)
  • Delete. nom consulted me prior to nomination. Merits of NFOOTY here are somewhat dubious as while USL Division Two was nominally professional, many players were semi-professional (holding additional jobs).Per our subject's LinkdIn he spent 6 months with the Islanders after college prior to pursuing a JD in law (he has since become an attorney). Regardless, NFOOTY merely creates a presumption of notability - a presumption that sources should exist. In this particular case - as evident in a very simple google search - there is no SIGCOV. As the presumption of GNG is being challenged here, !votes who assert NFOOTY without providing supporting sources (which should be quite easy to locate - English speaking country, most sources online in this time period) - should be disregarded.Icewhiz (talk) 06:52, 8 April 2019 (UTC)
  • Keep - meets WP:NFOOTBALL by some way; needs improving, not deleting. GiantSnowman 07:42, 8 April 2019 (UTC)
  • Note: per consensus in Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Football/Fully professional leagues#Status of US minor leagues (concurrent to this AfD) - USL Second Division was struck from the WP:FPL essay, as it was not fully-professional. This should affect !voting based on play in USL D2. Icewhiz (talk) 07:17, 10 April 2019 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Please see the comment by Icewhiz and updated nomination by Levivich. Further discussion may be needed as to whether he does indeed meet NFOOTY (and why), not to mention GNG.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Black Kite (talk) 09:17, 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) 05:43, 24 April 2019 (UTC)

Citizens Party of the United States[edit]

Citizens Party of the United States (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 does not have any real sourcing aside from its own website. There is no evidence that this state party has any elected officers or that it been mentioned in a non-trivial way in reliable sources. Toa Nidhiki05 12:25, 9 April 2019 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 12:35, 9 April 2019 (UTC)
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 12:36, 9 April 2019 (UTC)
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Pennsylvania-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 12:36, 9 April 2019 (UTC)
  • Keep - Having elected officials is not a requirement. The page has enough information so that it isn't useless. Jon698 13:45, 9 April 2019 (UTC)
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. North America1000 15:05, 9 April 2019 (UTC)
  • Delete. Jon698, you've been here long enough to know that the fact that the page contains information has no relevance to whether we should keep the page unless that information comes from independent, reliable sources, which is not true of any of the pages cited in the article. ♠PMC(talk) 17:13, 9 April 2019 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Randykitty (talk) 14:12, 16 April 2019 (UTC)
  • Weak Keep Jon is correct in pointing out that having elected officials is not a requirement for an article on a political party. The party was cited in this book on the U.S. political scene [6] and in this news article [7], so there has been some coverage. I think a more vigorous rewrite would help the article. Capt. Milokan (talk) 16:46, 16 April 2019 (UTC)
    Do either of those sources qualify as significant, non-trivial coverage? I don’t think so. Simply saying an organization exists is not evidence of notability. Toa Nidhiki05 17:03, 16 April 2019 (UTC)
    I would respectfully disagree with your observation. Capt. Milokan (talk) 20:08, 23 April 2019 (UTC)
    I would like to note that the party is also discussed in this news article. IntoThinAir (talk) 17:22, 16 April 2019 (UTC)
  • Keep - per IAR. I favor the inclusion of all articles about political parties of confirmed existence, their youth sections, and their leaders. This is the sort of information that our readers have the right to expect in a truly comprehensive encyclopedia. That no such formal special notability guideline exists should not be allowed to impair our efforts to build and maintain the best encyclopedia possible. Carrite (talk) 19:01, 23 April 2019 (UTC)
  • Comment I understand you’re saying IAR, but the fact something exists does not make it notable. It needs significant, non-trivial coverage and this doesn’t have that. Non-trivial political parties don’t add value. Toa Nidhiki05 19:12, 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) 05:31, 24 April 2019 (UTC)

Justin H. Min[edit]

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

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. IntoThinAir (talk) 22:29, 16 April 2019 (UTC)
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 05:08, 17 April 2019 (UTC)
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 05:09, 17 April 2019 (UTC)
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Photography-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 05:09, 17 April 2019 (UTC)
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 05:12, 17 April 2019 (UTC)
  • Delete. Very minor notability as an actor; seemingly none as a photographer. -- Hoary (talk) 08:40, 19 April 2019 (UTC)
  • Keep. (Sorry but I change my mind!) Its not much but I believe its better to try and expand the article to contain a little more about the guy. Essentially im agreeing with Mahmoud. Perhaps we could get rid of some of the Tables and try to talk a little more about each of his roles in the series/shows that he's been in. --NikkeKatski [Elite] (talk) 15:51, 20 April 2019 (UTC)
  • Keep. Even though his only "significant" role is in The Umbrella Academy, he is globally known for it. He also had other roles in film and television series like, Faking It and CSI: Cyber, "significant" or not. He has also done photography work for the J.A.M. Awards. The article is well written and is informative. Overall, there is no prominent reason for the article to be deleted. –Mahmoud The Beast (talk) 13:44, 20 April 2019 (UTC)
  • Delete: Clearly fails the WP:GNG and WP:NACTOR. WP:TOOSOON applies. He doesn't have multiple significant roles other than The Umbrella Academy one. -- LACaliNYC 20:35, 21 April 2019 (UTC)
  • Keep: I actually think it passes WP:GNG and WP:NACTOR and agree that he well known for the role... ie Notable. - Ret.Prof (talk) 13:49, 23 April 2019 (UTC)
  • Delete: He has no "significant roles in multiple notable films, television shows, stage performances, or other productions." Having one significant role on The Umbrella Academy, does not meet the notability guidelines of WP:NACTOR. In addition, see WP:ONEEVENT. This also falls in the WP:TOOSOON category. — YoungForever(talk) 15:25, 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) 05:31, 24 April 2019 (UTC)

SDG 14 and the Rio Conventions[edit]

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

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Environment-related deletion discussions. ---DOOMSDAYER520 (Talk|Contribs) 15:38, 16 April 2019 (UTC)
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. ---DOOMSDAYER520 (Talk|Contribs) 15:38, 16 April 2019 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 05:30, 24 April 2019 (UTC)

St. Sebastian Church, Paralikkunnu[edit]

St. Sebastian Church, Paralikkunnu (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, it just happens to be "a church" in the page creator's village Daiyusha (talk) 11:08, 9 April 2019 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Architecture-related deletion discussions. CASSIOPEIA(talk) 11:31, 9 April 2019 (UTC)
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. CASSIOPEIA(talk) 11:31, 9 April 2019 (UTC)
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. CASSIOPEIA(talk) 11:32, 9 April 2019 (UTC)
  • Keep Added two more references; This appears to be a pilgrimage destination and one of the oldest churches in the area; added two more third-party references. It is mentioned in a list of 10 tourist attraction churches in the area.--Epiphyllumlover (talk) 22:54, 11 April 2019 (UTC)
@Epiphyllumlover: you might want to look again the sources and the article,you are getting confused between two different churches of the same name, just look at the image in the article,this church doesn't look remotely historic, and is not mentioned in the 2 new sources. Your sources speak about this church : St. Andrew's Basilica, Arthunkal. Daiyusha (talk) 01:45, 12 April 2019 (UTC)
Thank you; I mixed them up.--Epiphyllumlover (talk) 02:33, 12 April 2019 (UTC)
@Epiphyllumlover: you might want to strike off your previous keep or edit it. Daiyusha (talk) 05:33, 14 April 2019 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Randykitty (talk) 13:37, 16 April 2019 (UTC)
  • Delete Searching for reliable sources for this church is heavily complicated by there being an enormous quantity of St. Sebastian churches in India. That said, after digging around for quite some time I was unable to find anything in reliable sources about this church except that someone famous may have been married there. Notability isn't inherited because someone famous happened to get married there. Nothing I can find supports any notability of this church. --Hammersoft (talk) 19:16, 20 April 2019 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 05:28, 24 April 2019 (UTC)

Euwyn Poon[edit]

Euwyn Poon (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 individual. There is substantial coverage of the company he founded, but not about him as an individual. I suggest this should be redirected to Spin (company). SmartSE (talk) 15:21, 1 April 2019 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Singapore-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 16:16, 1 April 2019 (UTC)
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 16:16, 1 April 2019 (UTC)
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 16:16, 1 April 2019 (UTC)
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Law-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 16:16, 1 April 2019 (UTC)
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 16:17, 1 April 2019 (UTC)
  • Redirect to Spin (company). The sources definitely provide notability to the company but not himself. Meszzy2 (talk) 17:09, 1 April 2019 (UTC)

Sources addressing the notability of the individual have been added. These are in line with other sources that assert the notability of other entrepreneurs; more can be added.Samefox8 (talk) 22:20, 1 April 2019 (UTC)

I see sources about the company but not about the individual himself. Meszzy2 (talk) 05:30, 2 April 2019 (UTC)

The Tech in Asia piece at https://www.techinasia.com/asian-values-american-dream-ford-spent-100m-singaporeanfounded-scooter-startup seems to address this. It'd be helpful to see an example of a piece about an entrepreneur completely disassociated with the prominent company he founded. Samefox8 (talk) 18:44, 2 April 2019 (UTC)

Sources do not need to be completely disassociated with the company, the question here however is in terms of notability - is the individual notable enough for his own page? We usually show notability by the presence of secondary sources with the individual being the subject of that source as it shows that a news organization has dedicated editorial resources to reporting on that individual, meaning that the individual is of public interest. The problem with this individual in my view is that the sources are simply due to public interest in the company, but not the individual themselves. I cannot view the article you linked as its behind a paywall, but it does look like it is about this individual. However, it would seem to me that just one secondary source is not enough to prove notability for an entire article. WP:GNG does state that "multiple [secondary] sources are generally expected." In my opinion the only thing of public interest regarding this individual is the company, not really himself, whereas for a more notable entrepreneur, their birthday or where they went to school for example is of public interest, along with other aspects about them, which is why they receive their own article. This public interest is usually shown by an article meeting the requirements in WP:GNG, or more specifically for people WP:BASIC. Meszzy2 (talk) 21:37, 3 April 2019 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 07:57, 9 April 2019 (UTC)

Thanks for the clarification. There are multiple secondary sources, though some are behind paywall (TechInAsia and [1]) and some are podcasts [2][3]. Will return to this discussion with more sources. Samefox8 (talk) 18:22, 9 April 2019 (UTC)

References

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Randykitty (talk) 11:59, 16 April 2019 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 05:27, 24 April 2019 (UTC)
  • Keep Based on the sources added by editors since the AfD, and looking at overall notability reqs, I think the subject passes WP:GNG at the least. Skirts89 08:34, 24 April 2019 (UTC)
    • @Skirts89: No sources have been added since this began. Which sources do you think mean that GNG is met? The business insider article is about the company, not him personally. Being featured on random podcasts does not confer notability. @Meszzy2: did you look at the most recent links provided? SmartSE (talk) 09:50, 24 April 2019 (UTC)
      • @Meszzy2: Hi, I meant the sources added in this discussion above. TechInAsia is a reliable secondary source which I think indicates notability. Skirts89 09:52, 24 April 2019 (UTC)

K.R.Circle Mysore[edit]

K.R.Circle Mysore (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)

Removed PROD. This is not even a road, but just an intersection. No claim of notability. No refs to demonstrate in-depth coverage in RS. MB 03:51, 17 April 2019 (UTC)

  • Delete. Comment While being an intersection is not inherently non-notable (see Times Square in NYC or Dupont Circle in D.C.), there are no RS's I could find that indicate this is notable, although perhaps Wikipedians living in India could find better sources than I could in the US. John M Wolfson (talk) 04:01, 17 April 2019 (UTC)
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. KCVelaga (talk) 04:21, 17 April 2019 (UTC)
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. KCVelaga (talk) 04:21, 17 April 2019 (UTC)
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. Necrothesp (talk) 10:20, 17 April 2019 (UTC)
Comment The Hindu article is about the statue and makes passing mention of the Circle, mention in guidebooks is not in-depth coverage, the news article on police PA systems makes another passing mention. The fact that the article says the circle is a "prominent landmark" does not make it notable to WP without WP:SIGCOV, nor is the fact that there are other notable intersections. "The story of circles" article may contribute to the notablility of traffic circles in India, but not to every one it mentions in passing. MB 17:35, 20 April 2019 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Spirit of Eagle (talk) 05:12, 24 April 2019 (UTC)

Lloyd Zimmerman[edit]

Lloyd Zimmerman (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)

County-level judge who fails WP:GNG and WP:JUDGE. GPL93 (talk) 14:25, 10 April 2019 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Law-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 14:58, 10 April 2019 (UTC)
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 14:59, 10 April 2019 (UTC)
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Minnesota-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 15:01, 10 April 2019 (UTC)
  • Keep per the sources I have just added to the article. Zimmerman may not pass WP:JUDGE, but he seems to pass WP:GNG. Gilded Snail (talk) 16:05, 10 April 2019 (UTC)
  • Weak Delete I am not sure this meets GNG. All judges make rulings. There are not really stories focussed on his biographical history. The story about refusing to work in unsafe conditions is probably a WP:BLP1E.-TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 15:52, 15 April 2019 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Natg 19 (talk) 00:58, 17 April 2019 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Spirit of Eagle (talk) 05:11, 24 April 2019 (UTC)

Patrick Jones (activist)[edit]

Patrick Jones (activist) (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 activist. Rsrikanth05 (talk) 05:08, 24 April 2019 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Environment-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 06:27, 24 April 2019 (UTC)
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 06:28, 24 April 2019 (UTC)
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 06:28, 24 April 2019 (UTC)

Lehigh Valley Storm[edit]

Lehigh Valley Storm (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 deleted from PROD then restored with no rationale for restoration. Organization does not pass WP:GNG or any other notability standard I can find. Sources in article violate WP:COI and appears to have WP:ADV issues as well. Wikipedia is not a free web hosting server. Paul McDonald (talk) 18:43, 9 April 2019 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of American football-related deletion discussions. Paul McDonald (talk) 18:44, 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 Pennsylvania-related deletion discussions. Icewhiz (talk) 19:36, 9 April 2019 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Spartaz Humbug! 06:42, 17 April 2019 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 05:00, 24 April 2019 (UTC)

Lost Angelas[edit]

Lost Angelas (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)

Very short, unsourced. Xx236 (talk) 06:36, 10 April 2019 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. Eastmain (talkcontribs) 06:59, 10 April 2019 (UTC)
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. Eastmain (talkcontribs) 07:00, 10 April 2019 (UTC)
Comment: Someone added sources. One a lengthy review from Film Threat, the other isn't about the film rather the festival it appeared in. --Darth Mike(talk) 14:36, 10 April 2019 (UTC)
  • Comment. This smells a little of copyvio but I short search didn't turn up anything. --Comment by Selfie City (talk about my contributions) 03:17, 11 April 2019 (UTC)
  • Keep as has reliable sources coverage in reliable sources such as FilmThreat and other reviews shown here Atlantic306 (talk) 17:14, 13 April 2019 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 07:13, 17 April 2019 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 04:54, 24 April 2019 (UTC)

Group SJR[edit]

Group SJR (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:NCORP, non-notable JMHamo (talk) 09:07, 17 April 2019 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. Ceethekreator (talk) 09:19, 17 April 2019 (UTC)
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Ceethekreator (talk) 09:19, 17 April 2019 (UTC)
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. Ceethekreator (talk) 09:19, 17 April 2019 (UTC)

weak keep. It took me three seconds to realize it's written in extremely promotional tone and that certain needs to be corrected for NPOV; but Fast Week, as I understand it is a respectable business magazine and it's covered in quite a depth. I've culled out all the press release type sources and I think routine trivial announcements coming from press releases should be culled out, but at the core, I can't really support deleting it given in-depth coverage. Graywalls (talk) 17:32, 22 April 2019 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 04:46, 24 April 2019 (UTC)

MBillionth Award South Asia[edit]

MBillionth Award South Asia (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 award on its own doesn't seem to be notable. All the articles here are about a single individual or a company winning it. The main focus of the article ,in all cases,is the recipient. Not to mention just few sources which can be considered reliable or independent. Daiyusha (talk) 08:44, 10 April 2019 (UTC)

Comment If this article is kept after discussion, is receiving this award enough criteria for a page to be created about a company?? Daiyusha (talk) 09:07, 10 April 2019 (UTC)
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 09:09, 10 April 2019 (UTC)
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 09:10, 10 April 2019 (UTC)
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Asia-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 09:11, 10 April 2019 (UTC)
  • Weak keep. It is true that the focus of the individual source articles is whoever won the award, but most of the titles of these articles specifically use "won the MBillionth award" as a hook. That to me seems to be a reasonable indication of notability. - Re Daiyusha's question above: I don't think that works backwards... winning one award is rarely enough to satifsy notability on its own outside the really prestigious and selective class of awards. --16:03, 11 April 2019 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 14:24, 17 April 2019 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 04:33, 24 April 2019 (UTC)

Riptide(Star Wars Novel)[edit]

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

well every other star wars book has a page why not this one — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bearbro123 (talkcontribs) 14:27, 17 April 2019 (UTC)
See WP:OTHERSTUFF. Notability in books isn't inherited from the franchise (or author, publisher etc). I see that it is listed at List of Star Wars books, which is fine - but if we don't have enough reliable sources to build an article around, then we shouldn't be writing the article. GirthSummit (blether) 14:37, 17 April 2019 (UTC)
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Science fiction-related deletion discussions. Icewhiz (talk) 15:04, 17 April 2019 (UTC)
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. Icewhiz (talk) 15:04, 17 April 2019 (UTC)
  • Weak keep While there's a tendency to be more inclusive for popular franchise, sometimes fuelled by fanboy/fangirl attitude (as if Wookiepedia or Memory Alpha or such didn't have that handled well enough already), most SW novels have reviews. But the quality of them is often at blog-level. Still: TheForce.Net[9] (ironically, the website's article is tagged for notability...) - not a blog. SFCrowsnest [10] - if this is a blog, it's a rather serious one. Sci-Fi Online (website that describes itself as "The UK's leading telefantasy and cilt website"): [11]. Blog reviews: [12]. Podcast review: [13] . Probably sufficient presence in reviews to warrant pass, and that's without looking for reviews in other languages. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 04:43, 18 April 2019 (UTC)
Comment I did see those reviews before nominating, but I didn't think they were sufficiently reliable. NBOOK explicitly excludes blogs and other unreliable sources from counting towards notability, and it goes on to say that we should be cautious about sites that are themselves reliable, but allow members of the public to post material (Criterion 1, Note 2). The 'TheForce.net' review is written by someone called Adrick, who isn't listed amongst their staff - it looks like a fan review on a (barely notable?) fan site. I can't access SFCrowsnest - Chrome and Edge are both refusing to connect, saying that the site uses unsafe TLS security settings - so I can't comment (but this doesn't fill me with confidence!). Sci-Fi Online might be the best bet, insofar as the reviewer (Chris Packer) is listed on the site's 'About Us' page - where it also notes that he's a full-time psychiatric nurse.Again, this looks like a fan review on a fan site. The other blog site and the podcast (since it is hosted on a blog site) are excluded. I'll leave it to others to judge whether the first three sites, and their reviewers, are reliable enough to establish notability. GirthSummit (blether) 11:03, 18 April 2019 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 04:27, 24 April 2019 (UTC)

ToothPick (company)[edit]

ToothPick (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)

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

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. Ceethekreator (talk) 18:07, 17 April 2019 (UTC)
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Ceethekreator (talk) 18:07, 17 April 2019 (UTC)
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. Ceethekreator (talk) 18:07, 17 April 2019 (UTC)
  • Comment: Sources which could be added to the page 1, 2, 3, 4 - may not be suitable, 5. Dreamy Jazz 🎷 talk to me | my contributions 20:02, 17 April 2019 (UTC)
  • Keep. Although the article is written in a slightly promotional tone, this is something which could be easily edited out and the article is definitely not unambiguous advertising or promotion, as it is not unambiguous: Zingarese (who is not not the page creator) reverted your addition of the speedy deletion tag on the grounds that it was not unambiguous. They only have 5 employees listed on their company Linkedin profile. isn't a valid reason for deletion: First employees are not required to link themselves to a company via Linkedin and even then Wikipedia does not use Linkedin stats to determine notability. Just because an account is an SPA, does not mean that the article should be deleted. I think that this article does meet WP:GNG, as it has significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject from some of the sources above (some are not reliable) and those already on the article. Dreamy Jazz 🎷 talk to me | my contributions 20:17, 17 April 2019 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 04:24, 24 April 2019 (UTC)

Ambedkar College of Education, Periye[edit]

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

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

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 19:17, 17 April 2019 (UTC)
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 19:17, 17 April 2019 (UTC)
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 19:17, 17 April 2019 (UTC)
  • Keep - degree-awarding institution that awards accredited degrees. We keep degree-awarding institutions for the very good reason that experience shows that, with enough research, sources can invariably be found that meet WP:ORG. Google is a very poor tool for finding sources on Indian institutions because, unlike US schools for example, they don't dump everything on the Internet. We must avoid systemic bias and allow time for local sources to be researched since no evidence has been adduced that this college cannot meet notability requirements. Just Chilling (talk) 01:16, 18 April 2019 (UTC)
    Just Chilling,
    I agree with you on limitations of google search engines + limitations of online resources itself, but there are two issues with such articles.
    In the last couple of decades India has seen a flood of educational institutions, especially around teachers training/ D.Ed/B.Ed/etc colleges. many of which have difficulty in surviving since they started.
    A possible way to deal with this would be a new page with Dr. Ambedkar Memorial Educational Trust, which is a parent trust of this institution and few others. this trust has few online sources too. QueerEcofeminist "cite! even if you fight"!!! [they/them/their] 05:37, 18 April 2019 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 04:23, 24 April 2019 (UTC)

1994 Lake Constance Cessna 425 crash[edit]

1994 Lake Constance Cessna 425 crash (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 general aviation accident. That some media outlets got the story wrong doesn't make this notable. ...William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 22:47, 17 April 2019 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. ...William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 22:48, 17 April 2019 (UTC)
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. ...William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 22:48, 17 April 2019 (UTC)
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Aviation-related deletion discussions. ...William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 22:48, 17 April 2019 (UTC)
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Switzerland-related deletion discussions. ...William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 22:48, 17 April 2019 (UTC)
  • Delete doesnt appear to be a particularly noteoworthy crash, certainly doesnt justify a stand-alone article. MilborneOne (talk) 13:00, 18 April 2019 (UTC)
  • Keep a Cessna crashing into a lake is indeed on its own not very notable. However the surrounding media coverage imo can be regarded as significant give it was widely covered internationally for a considerable period. While media probably overhyped aspects of it, the “scare” was confirmed by authorities who monitored nuclear contamination throughout. So this makes it stand out from ordinary light aircraft accidents. As far as notability for events is concerned, the case expands to the present with reflections and reviews or is being cited in connection with eg other crashes in the region or wider issues such as border disputes in the lake. Those refs have been added now. This goes beyond “media getting it wrong”. Gng does not require the coverage at the time to have been correct. It can be classified to have been at best knowledge at the time. Recent coverage puts this into perspective. As such it should pass gng and event. pseudonym Jake Brockman talk 07:31, 19 April 2019 (UTC)
  • Keep. A bit beyond "media getting this wrong" (seems authorities got it wrong?) - this was a major nuclear scare. It had very wide international coverage around the event. Some of the sources in the article - [14][15][16][17][18] - are written well after the event and some are in-depth - showing this meets WP:NEVENT. Icewhiz (talk) 05:27, 23 April 2019 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 04:20, 24 April 2019 (UTC)

Heroic Management[edit]

Heroic Management (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 significant coverage, even under this company's former name, Heroic Records. All coverage found has mostly been about artists affiliated with this label or sublabels of it. Existing sources on the article are either self-published or unreliable. Fails WP:CORP and WP:GNG. Jalen D. Folf (talk) 03:20, 24 April 2019 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. North America1000 04:23, 24 April 2019 (UTC)
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. North America1000 04:23, 24 April 2019 (UTC)
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Netherlands-related deletion discussions. North America1000 04:23, 24 April 2019 (UTC)
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Management-related deletion discussions. North America1000 04:23, 24 April 2019 (UTC)

Missing Iranian oil rig[edit]

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

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

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 06:30, 24 April 2019 (UTC)
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Iran-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 07:11, 24 April 2019 (UTC)

Sexuality in music[edit]

Sexuality in music (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)

Text and sources are a patchwork, with no particular source talking about the main topic. The article violates WP:SYNTH, drawing unstated conclusions out of multiple sources. Binksternet (talk) 02:02, 24 April 2019 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:06, 24 April 2019 (UTC)
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sexuality and gender-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:06, 24 April 2019 (UTC)
  • Comment. This article appears to be very superficial coverage of a topic that I would have expected that Wikipedia might already cover in other articles, although I'm not sure which articles those would be. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 05:26, 24 April 2019 (UTC)

Lisa Wilson-Foley[edit]

Lisa Wilson-Foley (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)

Unsuccessful political candidate who otherwise isn't notable. Meatsgains(talk) 02:01, 24 April 2019 (UTC)

  • The "White-collar criminal" in the lead is already a red flag per BLP, and most of the sources appear to be about that. Delete John M Wolfson (talk) 05:38, 24 April 2019 (UTC)

John Zachary Danao[edit]

John Zachary Danao (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)

Promotional stub about recent college graduate who writes a lot of op-eds in local papers. Article sources are entirely written by the subject himself, and a search for other sources yields only local-boy-does-good puff-pieces. Article's confused as to whether he went to Harvard College, Harvard Business School, or the Harvard School of Education. At [19] we're told he was a "founding member of the school’s poetry magazine, Harvard Business Review." Hmmmm. EEng 01:20, 24 April 2019 (UTC)

  • The article was written and published by The London Post, a UK based news network. For sure it wasn't written by the person mentioned on this matter " John Zachary Danao ". I am not related to any of the subjects i contributed here on Wikipedia Community at all. It is clearly that the person went to Harvard Graduate School of Education as the supporting reference articles says it all. It did not says to any of the articles that the person is a member in such Harvard Business Review. Hope that this clears everything. I am requesting to you to please to take it down the deletion request. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Wikitips (talkcontribs) 02:18, 24 April 2019 (UTC)
If you're not the subject, how did you get hold of File:Autograph of John Zachary Danao.svg, and how is it "own work"? EEng 02:22, 24 April 2019 (UTC)
The file " File:Autograph of John Zachary Danao.svg " was a signed autograph given to me during the press conference at March For Life, a pro-life rally at US Supreme Court of this year at Washington DC. It is reasonable to claim own work once the item is given to you. Hope that this will clears your understanding. I am again requesting to you to please remove the deletion reques. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Wikitips (talkcontribs) 02:32, 24 April 2019 (UTC)
No, it's not your "own work". The subject is completely nonnotable; see WP:GNG. EEng 02:47, 24 April 2019 (UTC)
Yes it is. If you're referring to the subject alone " John Zachary Danao " and the answer is a no, the subject John himself is completely verifiable in which in this case, all reference articles are reliable. Hope this will resolve the issue. Hope that you will remove the deletion request. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Wikitips (talkcontribs) 02:57, 24 April 2019 (UTC)

If no more motion for appeal then i would like to request to please remove the deletion request and to close the discussion thread. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Wikitips (talkcontribs) 03:40, 24 April 2019 (UTC)

I would like to request coming from you User:Ser_Amantio_di_Nicolao to kindly review this debate and am highly suggesting to remove the deletion request notice and to close the discussion thread. No other motion appeal to defend his allegations towards me. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Wikitips (talkcontribs) 04:00, 24 April 2019 (UTC)

Delete per nom. No sources w/ a Google search other than social media and mirrors. John M Wolfson (talk) 05:41, 24 April 2019 (UTC)

Files[edit]

Files for discussion[edit]

April 24[edit]

Categories[edit]

April 24[edit]

NEW NOMINATIONS[edit]

Category:Friends[edit]

Nominator's rationale: DAB from Category:Friendship. Although Talk:Friends (disambiguation)#Requested move 12 April 2019 was closed as "no consensus" in the article space, categories usually have a higher threshold for primacy, also because unlike article names, category names are usually plural there's a greater risk of confusion, see WP:PLURALPT and Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2009 January 28#Category:Wells (when the article was at just "Wells") and Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2011 July 14#Category:Tours (even though the article is still at Tours). There are other cases such as Category:Plymouth, Devon/Plymouth and Category:Perth, Western Australia/Perth. As noted the Commons category is at Commons:Category:Friends (TV series) (with Commons:Category:Friends about friendship). Category:Friends (sitcom) is another possibility. I welcome suggestions for better disambiguation of the 10 different season categories. Crouch, Swale (talk) 08:14, 24 April 2019 (UTC)

Category:Referendums by cause[edit]

Nominator's rationale: Referendums are about issues. The poor choice of words here resulted in this category being given the completely non-sensical parent Category:Causes of events -- which was where I first came across it 2 weeks ago. I immediately replaced that parent cat with Category:Categories by issue. All that remains is to rename to Category:Referendums by issue, which properly reflects the contents of the category. Anomalous+0 (talk) 07:22, 24 April 2019 (UTC)
  • Query Who's to say what the "cause" or "issue" is? In the Irish "Repeal the 8th" referendum, was the issue the bodily integrity of women ("My body, my choice") or the right to life of all persons ("Love both")? Does Wiki have to adjudicate on "the issue" of every referendum? Not something that wiki is supposed to do. I think that another word or words is needed. Laurel Lodged (talk) 09:21, 24 April 2019 (UTC)

Category:Songs written by Aphex Twin[edit]

Nominator's rationale: Unnecessary when we also have Category:Aphex Twin songs. Aphex Twin is not a singer so it's not like he's sung on tracks written by other people. (And since he's not a singer I also think "songs" is not strictly correct in either case - there's no singing - and would prefer "tracks", but whatever.) Popcornduff (talk) 05:04, 24 April 2019 (UTC)

Category:Kidnapped African children[edit]

Nominator's rationale: Overcategorization: Category:Kidnapped children contains subcategories of countries, not continents. Gjs238 (talk) 02:56, 24 April 2019 (UTC)
  • I do not think that categorization by continent is really a problem but the category should only be kept if it can be expanded. If not kept, merge to parent categories instead of plainly delete. Marcocapelle (talk) 06:08, 24 April 2019 (UTC)
  • Comment - I just added this as a parent for 2 African subcats of Category:Kidnapped children. Anomalous+0 (talk) 07:35, 24 April 2019 (UTC)
  • Keep - After reading the article this category was evidently created for, I am further convinced that it serves a valid purpose. As well as serving as a parent/container for the African subcats I added, it also provides a measure of proper categorization for people who were kidnapped in/from Africa as children in order to serve as slaves. Not only were they kidnapped from Africa -- they were kidnapped precisely because they were African. And it's more than incidental that there is no way to categorize them by country. In short, this category serves two valid purposes. Anomalous+0 (talk) 09:00, 24 April 2019 (UTC)

Category:Images of history maps[edit]

Nominator's rationale: All maps show history. So do all images. It's parent Category:History images is a very bad idea (all images are images of history a second after they are created). Redundant to Category:History maps. Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 02:13, 24 April 2019 (UTC)

Category:History of philosophy images[edit]

Nominator's rationale: Single-image category related to problematic Category:History images (all images are images of history...). Category:Philosophy images is totally sufficient. Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 01:54, 24 April 2019 (UTC)

Encyclopedias by language[edit]

Proposed standardizing the convention for naming categories about encyclopedias in specific languages, as either "XXX encyclopedias" or "XXX-language encyclopedias".

Option A - rename categories currently using "XXX encyclopedias" to using "XXX-language encyclopedias"
  1. Category:Albanian encyclopedias
  2. Category:Belarusian encyclopedias
  3. Category:Bengali encyclopedias
28 more
  1. Category:Bulgarian encyclopedias
  2. Category:Burmese encyclopedias
  3. Category:Chinese encyclopedias
  4. Category:Croatian encyclopedias
  5. Category:Danish encyclopedias
  6. Category:Dutch encyclopedias
  7. Category:Esperanto encyclopedias
  8. Category:French encyclopedias
  9. Category:Greek encyclopedias
  10. Category:Gujarati encyclopedias
  11. Category:Hungarian encyclopedias
  12. Category:Icelandic encyclopedias
  13. Category:Korean encyclopedias
  14. Category:Latin encyclopedias
  15. Category:Lithuanian encyclopedias
  16. Category:Macedonian encyclopedias
  17. Category:Malayalam encyclopedias
  18. Category:Marathi encyclopedias
  19. Category:Norwegian encyclopedias
  20. Category:Persian encyclopedias
  21. Category:Polish encyclopedias
  22. Category:Romanian encyclopedias
  23. Category:Sanskrit encyclopedias
  24. Category:Slovak encyclopedias
  25. Category:Slovenian encyclopedias
  26. Category:Swedish encyclopedias
  27. Category:Thai encyclopedias
  28. Category:Urdu encyclopedias
Option B - rename categories currently using "XXX-language encyclopedias" to using "XXX encyclopedias"
  1. Category:Arabic-language encyclopedias
  2. Category:Armenian-language encyclopedias
  3. Category:Azerbaijani-language encyclopedias
21 more
  1. Category:Breton-language encyclopedias
  2. Category:Catalan-language encyclopedias
  3. Category:English-language encyclopedias
  4. Category:Estonian-language encyclopedias
  5. Category:Finnish-language encyclopedias
  6. Category:Georgian-language encyclopedias
  7. Category:German-language encyclopedias
  8. Category:Hebrew-language encyclopedias
  9. Category:Hindi-language encyclopedias
  10. Category:Italian-language encyclopedias
  11. Category:Latvian-language encyclopedias
  12. Category:Portuguese-language encyclopedias
  13. Category:Punjabi-language encyclopedias
  14. Category:Russian-language encyclopedias
  15. Category:Serbian-language encyclopedias
  16. Category:Sindhi-language encyclopedias
  17. Category:Turkish-language encyclopedias
  18. Category:Ukrainian-language encyclopedias
  19. Category:Uzbek-language encyclopedias
  20. Category:Vietnamese-language encyclopedias
  21. Cate