Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2019 February 22

Recent AfDs: Today Yesterday

Media Organisations Biography Society Web Games Science Arts Places Indiscern. Not-Sorted

< 21 February	23 February >

Guide to deletion

Purge server cache

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

The result was delete. Sandstein 07:04, 2 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Nick Brockmeyer

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Doesn’t meet Notability guildlines in its current state, unlikely to even if improved Grey Wanderer (talk) 23:24, 22 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - fails WP:GNG and WP:RS as well as my standards for lawyers. Bearian (talk) 03:14, 23 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Missouri-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 12:36, 23 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Law-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 12:36, 23 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Baseball-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 12:37, 23 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the Article Rescue Squadron's list of content for rescue consideration. 7&6=thirteen (☎) 13:39, 23 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps post on his Facebook page [1] and ask him if he has ever been mentioned in any reliable sources. I found him listed at Bloomberg News [2] but just basic information about him. Dream Focus 01:10, 24 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Per nom. Not notable. Top 30 or top 40? That bar would be too low for any article and certainly a BLP. Otr500 (talk) 05:44, 24 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
~~Delete~~ Weak keep I added sources. ~~Not notable per nomination.~~ I've tried to find sources and gave consideration to alternatives per WP:Before. Take a look at added text and sources. May now meet WP:GNG. I send an inquiry to the subject about sources, and we will see if he responds. Agency represents 40 baseball players, and is largest sports agency in Missouri. ~~but went nowhere.~~ I have not been able to find faculty biographies at the two institutions where he teaches. Those could be a WP:RS. 7&6=thirteen (☎) 13:14, 24 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

So far none of these sources convince me. They’re either self-published, blogs, pay to play vanity books, and/or lack significant coverage. Looks to me like someone has been successful at self-promoting not just on Wikipedia. You’re making a case for the agency above, but remember this is a page about the man not his businesss. Grey Wanderer (talk) 15:55, 24 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

As I look at the list of Sports agents and their individual articles, a lot of them just consist of a mention of a prominent client(s). This article is close to, if not better than, that. 7&6=thirteen (☎) 16:16, 24 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I've flipped through some of the Sports agent articles you've referenced. The difference that these other articles are supported by citations from, among other things, The New York Times, the New York Post, CBS Sports, Sports Illustrated, MLB.com, and plenty of other reliable sources. Information about Nick Brockmeyer comes from Nick Brockmeyer. His agency, which represents "about 40" athletes (according to him) has no indication that any of these athletes are notable at all. Similarly, the claim that this agency is the largest agency in Missouri comes solely from Brockmeyer as well. Think of it this way. If this article was deleted, where would you go to read about this guy? Other sports agents can be found in major publications. This guy can't. Cosmic Sans (talk) 16:59, 25 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I have to agree with Grey Wanderer. This attorney (and his sports management company) lack substantial coverage outside of self-published sources. Aside from two articles from the mid-2000s, I'm not sure this company even exists -- let alone can prove the claim that it's the "largest" in Missouri. (Largest by number of players represented? Largest by total revenue? It's not clear.) Seems like a self-promotion article. Cosmic Sans (talk) 13:49, 25 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Follow Up After checking the history of the page, I think there's a strong likelihood that it was created by the subject of the page. Cosmic Sans (talk) 13:52, 25 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Clearly, the company exists. I see no reason to doubt the accuracy of the sources. This article exists in pari materia with the article about the agency, which was deleted, see here. 7&6=thirteen (☎) 14:38, 25 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Outside of interviews with Nick and articles published by Nick (I believe the Bloomberg information is self-reported), there are barely any references to this business. The references that do exist are quite old. For example, the most recent source in the article, aside from Bloomberg which is undated, is March of 2011. Ultimately there's a real lack of RS on this individual or his business. Cosmic Sans (talk) 14:57, 25 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Not a single material RS of which he is the subject. Can't construct a borderline GNG case. The refs are either primary or passing mentions. Article is very promotional. Will this article exist long-term in WP (unless something material happens to the subject), I don't think so. On the evidence in this article and available online, he has no inherent notability. He is trying to use WP to establish notability; it should be the other way around. "In 2006, the St. Charles Business Magazine named Nick to the "Top 40 Professionals under 40."; COI/UDP issue. Britishfinance (talk) 19:55, 27 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. per nom. Legion X (talk) 20:34, 1 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Sandstein 07:05, 2 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comparison of different maze types

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

This is in essence "List of arbitrarily chosen labyrinths", with the actual "comparison" consisting half of redlinks and having no data. And there's nothing here that Labyrinth and Maze don't already cover. --Elmidae (talk · contribs) 21:51, 22 February 2019 (UTC) Elmidae (talk · contribs) 21:51, 22 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Mathematics-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 22:51, 22 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 22:51, 22 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Unsalvageable original research. Squeamish Ossifrage (talk) 01:51, 23 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. As per nom, this appears to be a WP:INDISCRIMINATE list of anecdotes. There can be no comparisions if there is not enough information to classify "types" of mazes rather than single mazes, and this presentation of a comparison chart seems to make a generalization – WP:OR. The cited examples can be merged into labyrinth or maze if they are not already there. ComplexRational (talk) 16:03, 23 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Yeah my point was to make a comparison chart so it would be easier for people to compare the different types. Technically it is more like a glossary than a wikipedia article. I have given up fighting you, go ahead and delete Cattrina (talk) 19:17, 23 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Comments: Last week I saw mention of an article being an almanac listing and now a "glossary". There may be some stuff that can be merged. Otr500 (talk) 07:18, 24 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I hate saying "delete" in big bold letters when the topic is one that I find interesting. This subject has recreational mathematics, the history of religious art, etc., but the article does have serious WP:OR concerns. There's work to be done on labyrinth and maze; we should be getting the tags off of those pages instead. XOR'easter (talk) 16:41, 25 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. This is a topic that may be notable (enough people have studied maze design that surely some have published taxonomies of them) but an article like this, based on personal reflection rather than reliable sources, isn't helpful. —David Eppstein (talk) 21:23, 25 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. We already have good WP articles on Labyrinths and Mazes. Definately OR (given selectivity), but really a WP:TNT case. Britishfinance (talk) 10:51, 28 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Rename to List of maze types. It is a list article just didn't have the right name to make that obvious enough for some people. It links to blue articles about the different types of mazes listed. Dream Focus 21:39, 1 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete These are not even maze types, they are just examples of mazes. The Bayeux labyrinth is not a type of maze, it's just the shape of the labyrinth at the Bayeux Cathedral, and the same appears to be true for the other "types". This is original research and sourced content can go at maze. Reywas92^Talk 21:46, 1 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the Article Rescue Squadron's list of content for rescue consideration. --Tryptofish (talk) 22:28, 1 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Maybe this particular article isn't well written, but surely this is a notable topic. I don't even think the sourcing is that bad. https://labyrinthsociety.org/labyrinth-types lists several of the types in this article. "Mazes and Labyrinths". Google Books. Retrieved 1 March 2019. describes several others. You need to put some work into searching, since both "maze" and "labyrinth" show up in a great many titles unrelated to this subject. I suspect, given the number of contrary !votes, this won't get kept, but in that case, at least draftify, and hopefully User:Cattrina will continue to work on this. This article, whatever it's faults, is worth more to the encyclopedia that most of the crap we have about porn stars, pokemon cards, and other pop culture ephemera. -- RoySmith (talk) 02:02, 2 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

...that's why we have Maze and Labyrinth. What exactly is missing from those that is covered here in a structured manner? --Elmidae (talk · contribs) 04:54, 2 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Beyond NFOOTY, for a footballer playing almost 100 years ago, sufficient sources have been provided to indicate GNG, even going back that far. Fenix down (talk) 13:35, 1 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Dave Roberts (English footballer)

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Fails WP:NFOOTBALL having never played outside whatever the Republic of Ireland was called then or a senior international game. Fails WP:GNG also. Dougal18 (talk) 21:30, 22 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 22:56, 22 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Ireland-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 22:56, 22 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 22:56, 22 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 22:56, 22 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete a non-notable footballer.John Pack Lambert (talk) 23:37, 22 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I haven't found any sources of my own since I don't have paid access to Irish historical newspapers, but I struggle to believe the League of Ireland top scorer and someone who scored the winning goal in an Irish cup final would fail WP:GNG. Per WP:NEXIST, typing "Dave Roberts" into www.irishnewsarchive.com and limiting the results to 1923-1926 brought up a couple results. SportingFlyer T·C 23:47, 22 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I wonder if the fact that he played for the League of Ireland XI at a time when its games were seen as highly significant (and almost as internationals) in the Republic of Ireland gives him enough notability? Dunarc (talk) 20:31, 23 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

As the article now suggests he played in Football League I think there is definitely a strong case for Keep. Dunarc (talk) 20:50, 27 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comments: I am almost persuaded to agree with User:SportingFlyer. I will surmise the subject is not alive so not a BLP. The sources are a bit sketchy on birth and possible death dates but with all the totally non-notable live players having articles I could see this as historical. Otr500 (talk) 06:16, 24 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Passes WP:NFOOTBALL because he played in the English Football League for Walsall before going to Ireland. Added to his achivements already mentioned: top-scoring in the LoI while playing for the title-winners, scoring for the winning side in the Cup Final, and 3 appearances for the League of Ireland XI, and some individual coverage which I've added to the article, there's enough to suggest a GNG pass. cheers, Struway2 (talk) 14:36, 24 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Keep Struway2 updates certainly help, if that's right he passes WP:NFOOTBALL for playing when Div 3 was divided into North and South. Govvy (talk) 15:23, 24 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Giant Snowman 15:55, 25 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - per Struway2. Giant Snowman 15:56, 25 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - per Struway2. If he played in the English Football League at a time when it was the top level league in England, that should be enough pass WP:NFOOTBALL on its own; his career in Ireland also seems notable. GirthSummit _(blether) 10:11, 27 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as above. Played in the English Football League. -- Necrothesp (talk) 11:23, 27 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) Jovanmilic97 (talk) 22:48, 1 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Homeric Prayer

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

As it stands this article is like a personal essay rather than an encyclopaedic treatment. It lacks proper sourcing and if there’s an article to be written in this topic it might be better with a clean start. Mccapra (talk) 21:23, 22 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Greece-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 23:01, 22 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 23:01, 22 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 23:01, 22 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. No opinion whether a Homeric prayer article might be possible... but this isn't it in any case. Clearly OR, written as an essay. Squeamish Ossifrage (talk) 01:49, 23 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. For starters, the subject is clearly notable - "Homeric prayer has indeed received significant scholarly attention"[3], ""As Muellner established in his study of Homeric prayer formulae.... The article does have a reference - [4] which seems like an academic source (all be it closed). It reads as a summary of the subject, or aspects of the subject - so I don't see this being an ESSAY. Wikipedia:Deletion is not cleanup - article could use an expansion, in-line citations (instead of a single reference for the whole thing), and other improvements - but this is far from TNT or ESSAY zone. Icewhiz (talk) 10:20, 26 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, after some rootling around. Notable topic [5], to get that out of the way; and as far as I can see, not covered yet in related articles. Essay style isn't too bad as these things go, it's more the style of a Humanities paper, specifically of the single source (Lateiner) that was apparently used to write this. It needs more, and more explicit, sourcing but that appears to be readily available. Not in WP:NUKE territory, and looks like it could be improved in situ. --Elmidae (talk · contribs) 16:20, 27 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep There seem to be enough academic sources on the topic, e.g. [6][7][8][9], the topic can therefore be considered notable. I don't think the nominator has presented a convincing enough argument for a WP:TNT. Hzh (talk) 17:33, 28 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep since the sources above have established coverage. The article definitely requires a lot of work, but that is not a reason for an AfD. Though I am wondering why "Prayer" is capitalized. Aoba47 (talk) 19:42, 1 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. I've assessed all the comments and !votes with interest. A quick review here would be beneficial. The keep !votes of Willthacheerleader18 and Hninthuzar have no reference or allusions to any notability guideline. That leaves one keep !vote of Epiphyllumlover, which I have considered despite not understanding what the editor means by "third party treatments". All delete !votes reference either the nom or relevant notability guidelines (the lack of, that is). It is reasonable under these circumstances to assess consensus as delete. Lourdes 07:39, 2 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Arnold zu Windisch-Graetz

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Sources include a paid obituary, a caption of a photograph, passing mentions about the church, and passing mentions about his wife. No indication of notability from substantive independent sources, and notability is not inherited from being a minor member of a house of nobility. Reywas92^Talk 20:52, 22 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. I stress that we have tended to keep real royalty, not the articles of wannabes. This person didn't do anything notable; he was a run of the mill clergyman who inherited a title and money to support himself as clergyman of a minor synod. Bearian (talk) 21:13, 22 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Interesting claim, seeing as the article says nothing about financial inheritances. Furthermore, WP:MILL is an essay and not policy. He had administrative roles in the Lutheran Church-Missouri Synod, which makes him more than a run of the mill clergyman. -- Willthacheerleader18 (talk) 00:27, 23 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Austria-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 23:06, 22 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 23:06, 22 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 23:06, 22 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: As the author of this article, I do not appreciate the fact that I was not notified by the nominator about this article's nomination for deletion. -- Willthacheerleader18 (talk) 00:02, 23 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Willthacheerleader18 (talk) 00:37, 23 February 2019 (UTC) [reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Slovenian-related deletion discussions. Willthacheerleader18 (talk) 00:42, 23 February 2019 (UTC) [reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Illinois-related deletion discussions. Willthacheerleader18 (talk) 00:44, 23 February 2019 (UTC) [reply]

Weak Delete/Redirect and maybe merge/summarize into Windisch-Graetz#Notable family members, where he is already listed. If someone finds more sources, then he might be notable. For what it's worth, he was well-known enough to have a reporter-written obituary in the Chicago Tribune, though that would count as merely-local coverage. I cleaned the citations up a bit. --Closeapple (talk) 18:24, 23 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep (Article author) as subject was an administrative authority in the Lutheran Church-Missouri Synod and one of the longest-serving ministers in Chicago. -- Willthacheerleader18 (talk) 15:19, 24 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Adding an exaggeration to an article doesn't get it kept. You've added "one of the longest-serving ministers in Chicago" to the article twice. ~~The source https://www.chicagotribune.com/news/ct-xpm-2007-10-05-0710041012-story.html doesn't seem to say that. It says 40 years, which is probably not any kind of record for a priest.~~ See discussion at Talk:Arnold zu Windisch-Graetz#Longest-serving clerics in Chicago. --Closeapple (talk) 21:22, 24 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

As I stated on the article's talk page, I did not add any exaggeration to the article in order to "keep it", and I don't appreciate being accused of doing so. The Reverend Prince Arnold zu Windisch-Graetz, one of Chicago's longest serving Pastors, passed away while serving in his 40th year is clearly stated here. -- Willthacheerleader18 (talk) 22:38, 24 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I stand corrected. There's a reliable sources problem since it's claimed by family/friends in a paid death notice, but it's there. I don't know how I missed it. (I keep getting confused because there's a paid notice, then a reporter-written obituary that has different things.) --Closeapple (talk) 22:57, 24 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Of course, there are X number of pastors in Chicago, of which Y are younger and less experiences and Z are older and more experienced. He was older and was indeed among the longest-serving in the city at that time by a simple distribution. This is no claim to notability though. Reywas92^Talk 04:18, 25 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment -- The question seems to be how important "Assistant Grand Chaplain of the Priory of the United States" of the Lutheran Church-Missouri Synod is. The denominational article indicates that the Missouri Synod is led by a President, whom we can perhaps treat as equivalent to an archbishop or bishop. I suspect his position was the equivalent of a diocesan secretary, who would be NN. Adding a few words, with a link to the synod, to the family article might be appropriate. I am not clear if noble titles survived WWI in Yugoslavia: they were abolished in Austria. Peterkingiron (talk) 16:57, 24 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I don't see any evidence that "Assistant Grand Chaplain" is anything notable. When I search for "Assistant Grand Chaplain" and "Priory of the United States" on the web, the only document where it appears is the source for Windisch-Graetz having been "Assistant Grand Chaplain of the Priory of the United States", OSMTH Resolution Nr 8 of 2008: "A Resolution Adopting the Recommendations of the Chaplain’s Meeting Hosted at Canterbury College on the University of Windsor Campus Which Will Be Known as the Windsor Statement". Even "Priory of the United States" does not normally appear alone anywhere else: It appears to be the "Grand Priory of the United States" or "Autonomous Grand Priory of the United States of America", which is the U.S. chapter of the Sovereign Military Order of the Temple of Jerusalem (OSMTH), one of the multitude of "revived" Knights Templar organizations. http://www.smotj.org/index.php/about-us/who-we-are says "The Order has both a Chaplain's Corps for ordained ministers and a Chirurgeon's Corps for medical professionals." So I'm guessing that Grand Chaplain is the head of the Chaplain's Corps. So, as far as I can tell, Windisch-Graetz was some assistant within the office that runs of the Chaplain's Corps of the U.S. chapter of the OSMTH. The OSMTH allows any Christian in its order, and is not related to the Lutheran Church-Missouri Synod; I don't see any source that says that he held this role "for" the LCMS, though it could be that's how they pick the assistants. --Closeapple (talk) 22:30, 24 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

It very well may be that the position was with the knightly order and not the Lutheran denomination. Thank you for the clarification. -- Willthacheerleader18 (talk) 22:52, 24 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep -- the knightly order business is not in itself notable, because he was never in power and doesn't appear to be a potential claim to any throne, but his life as a cleric and a historian in Chicago is.

What especially makes him unusual is that his church spoke German. At the time, there were only a handful of Lutheran churches in the US which spoke German. I think there is only one now. If you delete this article, you remove some of the collective history of immigration/assimilation. These details on historical movements are often only captured by biographical treatments. This must have been the tail end of the German diaspora. His congregation must have been made up of WWII refugees brought over after the war by LIRS or maybe POW camp members who never went home. If you leave the article, I would imagine some of his life or historian work along these lines might eventually be flushed out. In general, Wikipedia has very little material about the post WWII diaspora in the U.S.

He passes the notability test because he has multiple third-party treatments. Also, he was an immigrant who married a German consul. Was she east German or west German? This sort of thing is helpful for people tracing political relationships.

Of the sources listed, 1,2,3,4,5,6,8 and 9 are all third party. Typically the ministers deleted here for notability have no or nearly no third party references, only church references.--Epiphyllumlover (talk) 20:10, 25 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. If you think this congregation is notable, then make an article for it and justify your assumptions. He is not. If you think his wife is notable for being a consul, make an article for her. He is not. If you want more content on the diaspora then expand German Americans or a subarticle, but this article is not linked in that. What makes you think these sources are "treatments"? These are passing mentions and there are not multiple substantive sources on him to establish notability:

Source assessment table
Source	Independent?	Significant coverage?	Count source toward GNG?
[10]	Paid death notice		✘ No
[11]			✔ Yes
[12]		Brief mention of the church, brief mention of him in a photo caption	✘ No
[13]		Passing mention - quotation from wife of the late pastor	✘ No
[14]		Passing mention that he was the pastor	✘ No
[15]		Passing mention that he was the pastor	✘ No
[16]		Passing mention that his widow made a donation	✘ No
[17]		He is not mentioned at all!	✘ No
[18]		Passing mention that his wife was a member of this group, among many other people	✘ No
This table may not be a final or consensus view; it may summarize developing consensus, or reflect assessments of a single editor. Created using {{source assess table}}.

So there is the one local obituary that is mainly the death notice plus a few quotations from his widow and people who knew him, as obituaries go. Perhaps these sources can contribute to content on the church or Germans in America but notability is not established for him. Reywas92^Talk 06:07, 26 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete fails WP:GNG. Is not the subject of press (only mentioned in passing here and there).-TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 15:18, 27 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep this person had held high-level appointed administrative post at Chicago as a one of the longest-serving ministers and Lutheran Church-Missouri Synod. IMO, that's clearly meet GNG. Best Hninthuzar (talk) 03:31, 1 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
- Unclear what this supposed "high-level appointed administrative post at Chicago" is. Please clarify what he was administering and where this position in its hierarchy is. The family-written death notice claimed he was one of the longest-serving in Chicago, but do you have a reliable source about this record within the synod? Plenty of people hold a job from right out of college to when they die but that doesn't make them notable nor relate to the GNG. Reywas92^Talk 07:48, 1 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  - Sry, i have think he was cabinet minister of the city, but now i know he is not. Hninthuzar (talk) 09:41, 1 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) wumbolo ^^^ 20:45, 1 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Rebecca Riots (band)

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Fails the notability guideline for musicians and bands and the general notability guideline due to a lack of significant coverage in independent, reliable sources. SITH (talk) 20:40, 22 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep as has reliable sources coverage such as an Allmusic biography by a professional staff member together with an independent album review which normally indicates that more reliable sources are available. Have not checked for additional sources yet, have you seen this list of Wikipedia:WikiProject Albums/Sources where you can see which sources are reliable and independent and those which are not ?Atlantic306 (talk) 20:56, 22 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Atlantic306, I am aware of the procedure for AllMusic sources however on its own it definitely doesn't constitute passage of WP:BAND. I have searched for additional sources and found nothing. SITH (talk) 23:18, 22 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

There are more results using the search term "Rebecca Riots" (band) instead of the "Rebecca Riots (band)" term used in the search links above, some are irrelevant but there are some that look promising and remember google and it's algorithms are not the be all and end all, thanks Atlantic306 (talk) 00:09, 23 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 23:12, 22 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 23:12, 22 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 23:12, 22 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 23:12, 22 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. There is further coverage in reliable sources: [19], [20], [21], [22]. --Michig (talk) 08:07, 23 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Week keep: Per "User talk:Michig's" sources. I can see "some" notability more than just the two sources on the article provide. Most of the "History" and all of the "Activism" section needs to go or be sourced as this is a BLP related article. Not sure what "building with straw bale" means unless literal. I did learn a little. I had never heard of "Afro-Celtic style", "Afro-Celtic Funk", or "Afro-Celtic bluegrass" before. Otr500 (talk) 07:01, 24 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Atlantic306 I found some other sources and added them. There's enough to pass GNG. Megalibrarygirl (talk) 04:58, 25 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Xymmax ^{So let it be written} _{So let it be done} 04:40, 2 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Ruchikaa Kapoor

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Lacks significant coverage in independent reliable sources to establish notability. The sources in the article consist of a Bloomberg directory entry gossip piece on her being some actor's new girlfriend, and another directory entry listing her credits for marketing movies. My own search for more information turns up just some more about her dating an actor. Whpq (talk) 20:21, 22 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - marketing people are run of the mill. She hasn't done anything notable. Bearian (talk) 21:16, 22 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 23:19, 22 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 23:19, 22 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 23:19, 22 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Per nom. Senior Vice President, creative producer, and Marketing Head are just not notable enough, especially with the lack of sourcing, for a BLP article. Otr500 (talk) 07:27, 24 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Xymmax ^{So let it be written} _{So let it be done} 04:10, 2 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hollywood Covered

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Claim for notability - ‘Hollywood Covered threw amazing parties.’ Mccapra (talk) 19:27, 22 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of News media-related deletion discussions. Bakazaka (talk) 19:47, 22 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. Bakazaka (talk) 19:47, 22 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Another throwaway metro freebie magazine among others. These things are like weeds; they will never go away. Nate • (chatter) 02:14, 23 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Non notable magazine. Fails WP:NCORP. Lapablo (talk) 11:02, 23 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. ~ Amory (u • t • c) 21:00, 1 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Holiday mansion

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Unsourced since 2006. Mccapra (talk) 19:18, 22 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Bakazaka (talk) 19:46, 22 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. Bakazaka (talk) 19:46, 22 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Kansas-related deletion discussions. Bakazaka (talk) 19:46, 22 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete not a very good search term, so there could be sources that I can't find... but at some point the creator of the article should step up and provide a source.--Paul McDonald (talk) 20:19, 22 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Unsourced (except for the single external link) and promotional article. Ajf773 (talk) 20:39, 22 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Besides being spam, it's so poorly written as to require a total re-write. Bearian (talk) 21:18, 22 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Currently no evidence of notability found here. Seems spammy. Lapablo (talk) 11:08, 23 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Merge Maybe merge with the other companies listed here. A yacht company in Kansas, a state with no natural lakes, seems like an amusing thing. Kevin Lyda (talk) 13:37, 24 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Per nom. Britishfinance (talk) 10:52, 28 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Xymmax ^{So let it be written} _{So let it be done} 04:13, 2 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Greenbriar Capital Corp

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Standard run of the mill corp - no meaningful coverage, just the typical PR, funding and passing mentions. Praxidicae (talk) 18:57, 15 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. IntoThinAir (talk) 19:31, 15 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, wumbolo ^^^ 19:11, 22 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Idaho-related deletion discussions. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 19:38, 22 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. I think that the references are sufficient to establish notability. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 19:39, 22 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

could you please elaborate on which sources you find to be sufficient and how press releases, passing mentions and primary sources satisfy the criteria? Praxidicae (talk) 19:53, 22 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per WP:LISTED. UnitedStatesian (talk) 05:54, 23 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Per your guideline link Consensus has been that notability is not automatic in this (or any other) case. However, sufficient independent sources almost always exist for such companies, so that notability can be established using the primary criterion discussed above - emphasis mine. In the absence of actual in depth, meaningful coverage, merely being listed is insufficient, so unless you can provide in-depth coverage, it still fails WP:NCORP. Praxidicae (talk) 22:13, 24 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

WP:BEFORE would have enabled you to find this source, this source, this source, many others. UnitedStatesian (talk) 16:32, 25 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Apart from the fact that it seems promotional and might need to be rewritten, the company is notable as it is being traded publicly in the Canadian stock exchange. Lapablo (talk) 11:24, 23 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. Two of the three sources provided above are "contributed opinions". I wouldn't cite them. wumbolo ^^^ 20:48, 1 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect to Albanians in Scandinavia. As an alternative to deletion per WP:ATD. If anyone wants to merge something can freely do so by WP:BOLD. (non-admin closure) Jovanmilic97 (talk) 22:46, 1 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Albanians in Norway

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Diasporas are not inherently notable. I see little coverage in independent, reliable sources of the diaspora. There are 195 countries so there could be 38,025 of these; not all of them are inherently notable. I see no issue with a redirect to Albanian diaspora after consensus has been gained. SITH (talk) 15:10, 8 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Norway-related deletion discussions. ~Ruyaba~ {talk} 15:14, 8 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Albania-related deletion discussions. IntoThinAir (talk) 16:33, 8 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. The television program cited as a reference seems to be the in-depth coverage that established notability, and the people on the list in the article are individually notable. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 20:52, 8 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete The IPS and OECD sources cited are both about a particular wave of Albanian refugees coming to Norway. I cannot understand what that 30-minute news program is about. I am not opposed to the idea of an article but there has to be a little content and some sources identified to be a Wikipedia. My standards are low, and about 3 sources talking about 3 different topics (3 sentences, 3 citations) is my usual minimum expectation. This article is not there yet. Almost none of the content here is matched to citations. We have a quality standard to uphold and it would take a lot of work to get this article up to our low standards. If someone does that work I could change my vote. Blue Rasberry (talk) 22:20, 8 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep if it's improved. If the numbers are correct then I believe there is a considerable number of the Albanian community in Norway. Such articles are all over wikipedia, so if it is improved with reliable resources then it can keep it as well Bes-ARTTalk 19:08, 9 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

See List of Scandinavian AlbaniansPRehse (talk) 13:28, 11 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I have added a ref and cleaned it up a bit. The nominators 38,025 argument is compelling. I note there is no Norway section on Albanian diaspora. (Dushan Jugum (talk) 03:53, 12 February 2019 (UTC)).[reply]
Comments: I removed the unsourced "Notable people" section and list of names that was BLP violations and original research. This may need relisting for more discussion because at present I am inclined to swing to Delete. Otr500 (talk) 12:28, 13 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, Otr500. I have no great love for such lists, but I thought while borderline it was standard on such pages. I asuum inline citations would be a good start, is anything else needed? ~~I am leaning towards merge with Albanian diaspora~~. (Dushan Jugum (talk) 18:40, 13 February 2019 (UTC)).[reply]

Hello, I share the lack of love. If anyone wants to add some names I don't have an issue but they can't be just dropped names. I stopped after randomly picking three, Bajram Ajeti, Bersant Celina, and Mërgim Hereqi. The last one claims Kosovan-Albanian descent in the lead but is unsourced and the other two have no mention of descent so sourcing would be important. Twenty thousand immigrants may or may not be a threshold for notability to a country and the slippery slope could be new lists of any minor immigration to all countries. A main concern with the list of notable people, not backed by sources, that their families might be war related immigrants or actually just migrated or "moved". Otr500 (talk) 21:53, 13 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Jovanmilic97 (talk) 16:25, 15 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect this poorly sourced page to Albanians in Scandinavia, where a subhead already exists. Among the problems on thia page is source#2, an old article about Norway accepting 700 temporary Albanian refugees. Are they still in Norway? several European countries have sent their temporary Balkan refugees home. Note also tha the # cited at Albanians in Scandinavia for Norway is only ~11,000. Better to consolidate this brief, ill-sourced, paltry page to an article where knowledgeable editors may have a better chance at bring it up to snuff, and keeping it up to date.E.M.Gregory (talk) 19:52, 21 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect Merge the good text if any with Albanians in Scandinavia and make the page a redirect as above. (Dushan Jugum (talk) 20:02, 21 February 2019 (UTC)).[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Jovanmilic97 (talk) 18:53, 22 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Merge Albanians in Scandinavia would be a great place to cover this information. Reywas92^Talk 21:20, 22 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect: Alright with merging anything salvageable. I don't know if User:StraussInTheHouse's figures are correct but a poorly sourced article would be grounds for the poor but often cited other stuff argument for potentially hundreds of like articles. Otr500 (talk) 07:42, 24 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Xymmax ^{So let it be written} _{So let it be done} 04:40, 2 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Profit efficiency

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Not notable; can't find any sources supporting this concept. A quick JSTOR search for "profit efficiency" only shows the term being used to refer to the profit margins of firms, not the level of rent-seeking in the overall economy. Qzekrom (talk) 18:15, 22 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Language-related deletion discussions. Bakazaka (talk) 19:38, 22 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Economics-related deletion discussions. Bakazaka (talk) 19:38, 22 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. There is a reason why this article is unrefenced, and that is because this is not an accepted term in finance or economics. The phrase "profit efficiency" can appear in different uses, but there is not defined term or concept of "Profit Efficiency". Britishfinance (talk) 20:39, 22 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Not notable. The wording exists but as an actual term or concept it is mostly relegated to banking. Seems to be an attempt at promoting an unsourced neologism. Otr500 (talk) 07:56, 24 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. It's possible this is a notable topic, but this unsourced, essay-like, article isn't worth keeping. If somebody wants to write about this, they can start from scratch. -- RoySmith (talk) 02:17, 2 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. ~ Amory (u • t • c) 20:57, 1 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Young Peculiar

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Fails WP:GNG and WP:BAND. PROD contested on the grounds of passing criteria 7 and 12 of WP:NMUSIC, with the reasoning "having a set on a C4 (Channel 4) channel is a claim to pass WP:NMUSIC as well as being the best in their genre within their regional locality", but I believe both of those reasons are incorrect, as I will explain.

Firstly, the reason for passing criterion 12 is being featured playing two songs on Project4.tv. However, although Project4.tv was set up and supported by 4Music, it's not a national TV station. The band's two songs are archived here [23] and Project4.tv's home page stated that it is "an exclusive TV service for university students... only available to students with a ".ac.uk" address" [24]. So, not a national TV station, just a web streaming service available to a limited number of people.

Secondly, the reason for passing criterion 7 is that their EP was voted number one that year by a local online newspaper. But that isn't the same as saying they are a prominent representative of the local scene, as criterion 7 states... this is a list compiled not according to genre or local scene, but a type of record format with limited releases in the modern era. And was it coincidence that the only local band in the list was number one?

So these are apparently the two most notable sources for the band. The group have no further recordings other than the two EPs mentioned in the article – they split up two months after the release of the second EP. Vocalist Dales and guitarist Hukins immediately formed another band, Maze Canyons, which evolved into their current outfit, Molly Anna (also not notable). The rest of Young Peculiar seem to have left the music industry and found jobs in Sheffield, from what I can track down. Richard3120 (talk) 17:48, 22 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Richard3120 (talk) 17:48, 22 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. Richard3120 (talk) 17:48, 22 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. Richard3120 (talk) 17:48, 22 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Per nom. The passing of NMUSIC should not be so "contrived" or "gamed". At a common sense level, this band is not notable. Britishfinance (talk) 20:41, 22 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Sources do not make it evident that the band it notable. Reywas92^Talk 21:22, 22 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Per nom and totally agree with User:Britishfinance. I have seen specific notability criterion argued as being an exception to WP:GNG and that is simply not true. If someone is notable in a specific area they are surely "generally notable". We should not "stretch" or game notability criterion to allow substandard BLP or reated articles to exist. I fully support that a reference might be acceptable for content verification while not advancing notability. Otr500 (talk) 08:15, 24 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: I don't know whether Britishfinance and Otr500 are referring to the article creator or the editor who dePRODded my PROD proposal, but just to be absolutely clear, I do not believe the dePRODding editor was acting in bad faith... I believe they sincerely believed that the band had been featured in a national TV station and had been considered a representative of a local scene, but had not investigated the finer details of these sources. Richard3120 (talk) 13:57, 24 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Not a greatly significant or important band; nothing really worth keeping. RobinCarmody (talk) 22:20, 24 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. czar 03:59, 1 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

HaLo

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

This is an article about a Japanese musician. I'm not so much arguing for deletion, as I'm requesting help from Japanese-speaking editors in finding out whether there are enough Japanese-language sources out there to pass WP:GNG. English-language sources are almost completely absent, save for wikipedia mirrors and a few passing mentions about a minor appearance on Lori Carson's album. – Uanfala (talk) 15:46, 2 February 2019 (UTC) – Uanfala (talk) 15:46, 2 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. – Uanfala (talk) 15:48, 2 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Japan-related deletion discussions. – Uanfala (talk) 15:48, 2 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Name seems to be 平方亜弥子 if anyone is checking for sources. She seems to do more with narration than with music. Dekimasuよ! 19:15, 2 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ―Matthew J. Long -Talk-^☖ 12:53, 8 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Jovanmilic97 (talk) 16:30, 15 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 07:22, 17 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, DannyS712 (talk) 17:24, 22 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Per nom. If there are foreign references "out there" then someone would need to prove it. If we can't find it we can't just assume they are there as Wikipedia isn't a crystal ball. A single sourced BLP doesn't pass any notability criterion. Otr500 (talk) 08:24, 24 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. No prejudice against an early renomination in case any editor believes that the sources added by JGabbard don't pass notability standards. Lourdes 07:15, 2 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Tamko

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

This article's references do not show that the subject qualifies for a Wikipedia article—that is, they do not show significant coverage (not just passing mentions) about the subject in published, reliable, secondary sources that are independent of the subject (see the guidelines on the notability of organizations and companies). The references are dependent, local and unreliable. As per WP:INTREF Wikipedia referencing guide, the subject's own website is not an acceptable reference. As per WP:ORG, if no independent, third-party, reliable sources can be found on a topic, then Wikipedia should not have an article on it. OliverKianzo (talk) 09:56, 1 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Missouri-related deletion discussions. AllyD (talk) 11:19, 1 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. AllyD (talk) 11:19, 1 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete No neutral sources. UnitedStatesian (talk) 11:27, 1 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Multiple refs added, including two neutral sources. With no further comments during the week, propose close of AfD. - JGabbard (talk) 17:23, 7 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Jovanmilic97 (talk) 17:15, 8 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. DreamLinker (talk) 07:08, 13 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 14:36, 15 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per most recently added references. Remember, judgments of notability should be based on what sources are out there, not what sources are already in the article. Even the most cursory web search turns up a number of independent secondary sources, not a surprising result for a large, 70 year old company. Sneftel (talk) 15:34, 15 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: With the new added sources it passes WP:NORG. GN-z11 ^☎ ^★ 17:39, 15 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Just a random company not even mentioned in industry related sources or news papers. Came here through random button. BananasReborn (talk) 22:15, 20 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Almost even split, without much discussion about whether or not it is notable but instead focusing on whether the current references show its notability.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, DannyS712 (talk) 17:22, 22 February 2019 (UTC) comment added --DannyS712 (talk) 18:32, 22 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep not a WP:MILL company but a major manufacturer of roofing with operations across a number of states. Many more sources available given it's 70+ year history. Legacypac (talk) 19:51, 22 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Tamko employs 650 people just in the local area, is unquestionably notable regionally and also known nationally, and is one of the largest employers in Joplin. All companies of this size or larger in this area already have articles. - JGabbard (talk) 02:03, 23 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Week keep: There is always the old other stuff argument when that is not only generally a bad argument but not supported by any policies or guidelines. The company has been around a long time and even though likely rated outside the top ten (was #11) I can see some notability although a search seems to be more about the class action lawsuit. That is not abnormal as GAF, Owen Corning, Atlas, CertainTeed, IKO, and Globe Building Materials (probably others) along with Tamko, had these suits over roof failures (and fading), deceptive warranties, substandard roofing shingle manufacturing, false advertising, etc..., for fiberglass, organic, and asphalt shingles. My issue is that because a company has good advertising, as shown by mostly primary sources, does not equate to notability regardless of how much we like it. Adding more primary sources to support notability does not make the case. Otr500 (talk) 14:20, 24 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete if I have to compare it with policies like WP:NCORP and WP:GNG it fails both. I created much better articles that were heavily referenced but deleted. HPlilly (talk) 20:19, 25 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Just about every excuse has been used by the Keep !voters above - except the only measure that counts which is at least two references that pass WP:NCORP. Not a single reference that is either in the article or that I can locate online meets the criteria for establishing notability. If we want to simply ignore our own guidelines, fine, lets keep any article on a company that is 70 years old, a major employer and has been sued in court. Otherwise, lets follow our own guidelines. Topic fails NCORP and GNG. HighKing⁺⁺ 17:59, 26 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Very well explained above, I guess nothing more left to debate. BananasReborn (talk) 12:52, 27 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Came to the article through random tab. I looked from the above search but nothing much, and as far as I know about GNG it's not fully comply. It is an old company which could be a fact but just an age is not enough. This is what GNG says, " If a topic has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject, it is presumed to be suitable for a stand-alone article or list." Serena Sermin (talk) 17:37, 27 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Additional neutral references added. Reevaluation necessary. - JGabbard (talk) 00:15, 28 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. There is no support for deletion at all, and there is consensus that there is coverage of Beno Dorn (even if it was not pointed at all in this AfD) (non-admin closure) Jovanmilic97 (talk) 22:44, 1 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Beno Dorn

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Notability of this tailor is exclusively via occasional connection with the Beatles, who just had happened to order suits from him. There are zillions of shops where the beatles went shopping. No in-depth coverage of this guy, just mentions in passing. Notability is not inherited. Staszek Lem (talk) 21:33, 31 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 22:48, 31 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fashion-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 22:48, 31 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Fashion didn't just happen in London. Andy Dingley (talk) 23:00, 31 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
- and how is this related to our notability rules? Namely, which reliable sources speak in depth of influence of Dorn on London fashion? Staszek Lem (talk) 23:09, 31 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  - Why would you expect someone based 200 miles away to have an effect on London fashion? Phil Bridger (talk) 13:11, 1 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 08:57, 1 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ad Orientem (talk) 00:43, 8 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sheldybett (talk) 14:18, 15 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, DannyS712 (talk) 17:22, 22 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep the guy did not just make any suits he made the suits the Beattle got famous with. This is not hurting anyone and has good sources. Legacypac (talk) 19:22, 22 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
- Our rule is that notability is not inherited. Many people did many things for beatles and bragged about this. We do not have articles about them. Staszek Lem (talk) 20:21, 22 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  - It's not that he bragged about this, but that other people wrote about it, that shows notability. Phil Bridger (talk) 20:24, 22 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. The guy is even on the Beatles tour. There are plenty of references to this guy in various Beatles books confirming his part in the groups outfits. Maybe borderline, but given the mega-notability Beatles, am happy to take a view on it. If a reader heard of this guy clothing the band, wouldn't they expect to find him in WP? Britishfinance (talk) 21:06, 22 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep because folks keep writing about this guy, after all these years. And when the sources are there....E.M.Gregory (talk) 15:49, 26 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. There might be coverage in Bill Harry's The Beatles Encyclopedia, page 352. wumbolo ^^^ 21:03, 1 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Randykitty (talk) 19:18, 1 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

John Acland (died 1553)

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Fails basic notability; only claim to fame is being the apparent subject of a single (also non-notable) portrait. Sneftel (talk) 09:14, 15 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. ~Ruyaba~ {talk} 09:35, 15 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom and the article's own words: "Little if anything is known of his life and career". Clarityfiend (talk) 20:26, 16 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - he had a portrait made, and his estate is ~~not~~ now a national landmark, indicating that he was important back then. Once a person is notable, always thus. Bearian (talk) 18:59, 21 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Keep. House and portrait is owned by the National Trust (which means that they attach some notability). He is getting listed in historical books for Devon (although not nationally as far as I can see). Could be a redirect case to Acland, Landkey also. A well constructed and sourced article so willing to give it the benefit of the doubt. Britishfinance (talk) 13:35, 22 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

He has no connection to the house. Killerton was purchased by a later John Acland (died 1620). And I don't see how simply being the subject of a painting (unless it's the Mona Lisa) confers notability. Clarityfiend (talk) 20:22, 25 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

WP is packed with BLPs (and BPs) that meet GNG but will be deleted over the coming years. Historians will not chronicle them in even a hundred years time; despite meeting many of our policies, they are inherently non-notable in the long-term. This subject, almost 500 years later, is still being recorded. Maybe the policy is WP:PRESERVE or WP:NOTPAPER, but this is a well constructed article which does no disservice to WP or its subject (there is no PROMO/COI here). There are far (far far) more serious cases for AfD then this one. Britishfinance (talk) 15:51, 1 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Jovanmilic97 (talk) 14:25, 22 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Per WP:GNG. Notable work.BabbaQ (talk) 13:01, 24 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. No prejudice against speedy renomination per low participation. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 14:43, 1 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Netmorf

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Speedy declined, appears to lack the requisite depth of coverage for corporations. SITH (talk) 13:46, 7 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep on the basis of these magazine articles. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 14:32, 7 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 14:33, 7 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 14:34, 7 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Massachusetts-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 16:05, 7 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ad Orientem (talk) 01:59, 15 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Jovanmilic97 (talk) 14:25, 22 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. ~ Amory (u • t • c) 16:24, 1 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Byrdie Green

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Questionable notability, not enough sources exist for an article of substance, not sure she is a jazz singer (more blues or soul) Vmavanti (talk) 00:34, 15 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. ~Ruyaba~ {talk} 00:36, 15 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. ~Ruyaba~ {talk} 00:36, 15 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Michigan-related deletion discussions. ~Ruyaba~ {talk} 00:36, 15 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Delete. A couple of NY Times articles (and having appeared as a soloist at Carnegie Hall in the first place) make a good first step to notability, but there just doesn't seem to be much else. Sneftel (talk) 09:53, 15 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

One of those articles is about seven sentences, a very brief review of her performance. The other is about the same, too brief to be of much use.
Vmavanti (talk) 18:27, 15 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

DeleteWhile her albums are verifiable and her credits/history meets notability, I can't find notable sources to verify any more of her history. Actaudio (talk) 03:36, 16 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The sourcing on this article which was added yesterday may look adequate, but it isn't. Click on the links under "sources". A citation link is supposed to lead directly to the source of the information. These links don't.
Vmavanti (talk) 17:42, 16 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I disagree. For sources in archive.org, that is just how it works - documents open in the middle, and you use the search function (just above the document, on the right) to search for the word(s). For Google Books sources, a link with the search expression could be used, but if not, the search window in the result brings up the relevant page. Offline and paywalled sources are acceptable per WP:SOURCEACCESS, and these are much more easily accessible than that (they WP:NEXIST). Anyone can easily find them (and could easily have found them in a WP:BEFORE search). RebeccaGreen (talk) 12:27, 21 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

You are not supposed to link to a search. Readers should not have to do a search after being led to a page by a citation. The citation must lead directly to the information. From what you've said, you've been doing your citations wrong. You can find URLs in both Google Books and archive.org that lead directly to the information. Doing a search isn't necessary.
Vmavanti (talk) 17:49, 21 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

1. These are not my citations - I was explaining why the citations in the article before I added any lead to a search within the source. 2. Why not replace the urls in the citations with the urls that lead directly to the cited information? Editors are not general readers - WP:BEFORE requires editors to perform searches, and encourages us to then cite the sources. RebeccaGreen (talk) 22:32, 21 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I don't have a problem with improving citations. I do it almost every day. I was defending my comment, which you criticized, that the citations had not been done properly. I didn't say you added them. I simply said they were inadequate. I always search before I propose deletion. I continue to be puzzled by the crusader mentality regarding "rescuing" articles and "saving" them from deletion (Oh no!) as though one were saving a drowning child. I don't care either way. As long as the information is sourced.
Vmavanti (talk) 01:30, 22 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Second point. This, too, is a courtesy to the reader: Avoid sources that require payment. I'm baffled by your suggestion that paid sources are "easily accessible". Easy for you maybe, but not everyone can afford to pay for every web site they come across. Let's put readers first.
Vmavanti (talk) 17:51, 21 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

1. It may be your preference to avoid sources that require payment, but it is not Wikipedia policy. 2. I did not say that paid sources are easily accessible, I said that these sources, the sources in the article which require a search within the source, are more easily accessible than paid sources.RebeccaGreen (talk) 22:32, 21 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I'm talking about common sense.
Vmavanti (talk) 01:30, 22 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep She released 3 albums on Prestige Records, and therefore meets WP:MUSICBIO #5 "Has released two or more albums on a major record label or on one of the more important indie labels". (The previous editor also says that she meets notability, so it's not at all clear why they voted delete.) RebeccaGreen (talk) 09:01, 21 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

She didn't release three albums. Prestige released three albums. Sounds like nitpicking, but it isn't.
Vmavanti (talk) 17:53, 21 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

It is the exact wording that WP:MUSICBIO #5 uses, and is irrelevant to the fact that she meets that notability guideline. RebeccaGreen (talk) 22:32, 21 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

It may be unrelated to notability, but it has a lot to do with common sense and clear, logical prose.
Vmavanti (talk) 01:30, 22 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Apart from meeting WP:MUSICBIO #5, there are also many reviews of her recordings and performances in newspapers of the time, so she also meets #1. I have already added 4 to the article, and there are more to add. RebeccaGreen (talk) 09:38, 21 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Four albums on Prestige if we include the one she recorded with Johnny "Hammond" Smith. Satisfies WP:NMUSIC. Coverage found includes a couple of brief reviews from Billboard ([25], [26]. More coverage from the 1960s is likely to exist in print sources. --Michig (talk) 08:40, 22 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Jovanmilic97 (talk) 14:24, 22 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Satisfies MUSICBIO. Also sources can be behind paywalls, and sometimes there are no urls available for search results. Clarityfiend (talk) 19:42, 22 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per above. Hninthuzar (talk) 12:08, 24 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - changing my vote because this had a LOT of info added since it was first nominated. Actaudio (talk) 06:47, 26 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Randykitty (talk) 19:21, 1 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Gadi Moran

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

While accomplished, he simply does not meet WP:GNG, and neither does he meet WP:NACADEMIC. His most cited work (which also happens to be listed first in the included selected works section), was cited only 54 times. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 14:13, 22 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 14:14, 22 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Israel-related deletion discussions. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 14:14, 22 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Mathematics-related deletion discussions. —David Eppstein (talk) 17:17, 22 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment There was apparently a meeting in memoriam for him, whose speakers included Menachem Magidor and Marcus du Sautoy. I doubt that's as noteworthy as a dedicated festschrift, but it's at least pertinent to evaluating WP:PROF#C1. I caution against using citation counts to argue one way or the other regarding WP:PROF#C1, since Moran worked in pure mathematics, a field where GS numbers are generally unilluminating. XOR'easter (talk) 18:16, 22 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - I worried about that XOR'easter, since the editor creating these articles has been pretty spot on in terms of notability, except for potentially this one. Hopefully folks from the Mathematics group will chime in.Onel5969 ^{TT me} 18:25, 22 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I took a look and found two more which should be scrutinized: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Assaf Rinot and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ilan Amit. The creator recently created almost a dozen articles about Israeli mathematicians that should be reviewed. — MarkH21 (talk) 03:46, 25 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Seems to be just a little biography about his life, but no mention of his notability. A review of his work does not suggest that he made significant contributions to combinatorics, algebra, or set theory based on both citations (which isn't usually a good metric but is useful as a rough guide for whether an older mathematician was "established") and the journal quality of his publications. None of his works are mentioned elsewhere on Wikipedia either. Furthermore, the one-day meeting in memoriam for him also does not really seem to classify as a notable mathematical memorial as it consisted of four general-audience talks with a memorial organized by his family as opposed to a mathematical conference organized in his honor or a major publication volume in his honor (plus, if we're really nitpicky, Magidor was a classmate of Moran under their PhD advisor Azriel Lévy). — MarkH21 (talk) 04:30, 24 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Can't see any major claims to notability here. Number 5 7 12:02, 24 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete from what I can tell from the article. We need more than he is a scientist and did some very decent works in his field (there are too many such researchers for us to cover). -- Taku (talk) 03:11, 25 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Randykitty (talk) 19:17, 1 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Emmy Ruiz

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Does not appear to meet Wikipdia's general notability guideline. Ridingincar (talk) 13:44, 22 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Bakazaka (talk) 16:41, 22 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. Bakazaka (talk) 16:41, 22 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Colorado-related deletion discussions. Bakazaka (talk) 16:41, 22 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Nevada-related deletion discussions. Bakazaka (talk) 16:41, 22 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Texas-related deletion discussions. Bakazaka (talk) 16:41, 22 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete state campaign managers of presidential campaigns are not default notable, and the coverage is not enough to show notability.John Pack Lambert (talk) 23:51, 22 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails WP:GNG, being a state-level director of a presidential campaign doesn't even come close to WP:NPOL. Best, GPL93 (talk) 16:11, 25 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 15:16, 1 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

List of Estonian punk bands

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Incomplete version of content found at Category:Estonian punk rock groups. SITH (talk) 13:23, 22 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. ___CAPTAIN MEDUSAtalk 13:25, 22 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. ___CAPTAIN MEDUSAtalk 13:25, 22 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. ___CAPTAIN MEDUSAtalk 13:25, 22 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Then “complete” it. I don’t understand why we’re at AFD. postdlf (talk) 13:42, 22 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Postdlf, because this is more suited to the category namespace... SITH (talk) 13:51, 22 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Please read WP:NOTDUP. postdlf (talk) 20:02, 22 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per WP:CLN, Has information on each listed band that the category does not have. UnitedStatesian (talk) 21:44, 22 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep as a notable list as punk is a very popular genre, the article needs expanding not deleting, there is no time limit on wikipedia Atlantic306 (talk) 23:47, 22 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per WP:NOTDUP. However, this list does need referenced content. ExRat (talk) 00:32, 26 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 15:17, 1 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Die Trip Computer Die

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Fails the notability guideline for musicians and bands and the general notability guideline due to a lack of significant coverage in independent, reliable sources. SITH (talk) 12:44, 22 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. ___CAPTAIN MEDUSAtalk 13:08, 22 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. ___CAPTAIN MEDUSAtalk 13:08, 22 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. ___CAPTAIN MEDUSAtalk 13:08, 22 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - The article is probably a copy of self-promotional material from the band's website, as no encyclopedic article would complain about the "apathy" of the local scene because the band can't get a gig. More importantly, I can find no reliable coverage of the band as a working unit, and just a few brief reviews of their albums in unreliable blogs ([27], [28], [29]). Not enough for a Wikipedia article. ---DOOMSDAYER520 (Talk|Contribs) 13:17, 22 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: fails WP:GNG and WP:BAND. Ha, I think this lot are way too punk to have anything as "corporate sellout" as a website, Doomsdayer520 ;-) The majority of this article was created by an IP (their sole edit to Wikipedia – probably either a band member or a fan disgruntled at "the system" that stops their heroes becoming legends) and later embellished by another IP with further OR. It's true that their first two albums were reviewed in The Wire magazine, but unless anyone has a digital subscription to the magazine's archive or print copies of issues 187 and 200, we're not going to be able to access them... and anyway, those are reviews of the albums, not of the band itself. There were some really poor "keep" reasons given at the last AfD – one editor noting that a band member was a former member of a more notable outfit, which is true but a WP:INHERITED argument, and another stating that they pass four criteria of WP:MUSIC, at least two of which are demonstrably factually untrue. There just don't seem to be any reliable sources that could be used to save this article, even if it were rewritten in a more encyclopedic style. Richard3120 (talk) 14:00, 22 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. Again, sadly. There seems to be a consensus that there are two reliable sources/reviews in the article for the subject, but there was a WP:BARE concern raised, and there was no support of the "typically 7 to 10 for a song article" part of the nomination. (non-admin closure) Jovanmilic97 (talk) 22:40, 1 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Faces (Candyland and Shoffy song)

AfDs for this article:

Articles for deletion/Faces (Candyland song)

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Two years ago, I initially submitted this page to AfD with the weak rationale of "Not notable", and a result of no consensus. I still believe this song is not notable due to the lack of available sources (typically 7 to 10 for a song article), the fact that the song did not make any notable performance or sales chart, and that it has not been nominated for or awarded a notable award, the latter 2 of which are requirements for WP:NSONG. Jalen D. Folf (talk) 20:15, 7 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Keep, there are two reviews and three other references. Gab4gab and I both voted to keep this the last time around, and the AFD for "Faces (Candyland song)" has not yet been posted on this page. --Jax 0677 (talk) 21:26, 7 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

It's linked in the nomination, but I've added the Oldafdlist template, if it helps. Bakazaka (talk) 21:45, 7 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - At a minimum, the article should be merged into Candyland (musician). --Jax 0677 (talk) 17:34, 13 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep- The song is the subject of multiple independent reliable sources with non-trivial coverage which Meets WP:NSONG. I'll point out that the notability criteria presented in the nomination is incorrect. There is no criteria requiring 7-10 sources. The three additional criteria (charting , receiving awards, releases by multiple artists) are not notability requirements. They simply suggest that if a song fits one or more of them then it is likely to have the necessary coverage even if it hasn't been located by editors. The article meets the notability guideline with multiple independent reliable sources and should be kept. I urge JalenFolf to withdraw the nomination because it is based on a misreading of the notability guidelines. Gab4gab (talk) 15:29, 8 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 03:49, 9 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: @Jax 0677: @Gab4gab: I agree with you that a song article doesn't need seven to ten references, as Jalen has suggested. But Daily Beat and Goodmusicallday don't look like reliable sources to me, and I'm uncertain about Earmilk, which leaves a maximum of two reliable sources for the article (the iTunes link only proves the song exists and was released), so it's still borderline. Richard3120 (talk) 16:56, 13 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Based on the little info available on Daily Beat and Goodmusicallday I agree they don't appear reliable. Gab4gab (talk) 23:30, 13 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ad Orientem (talk) 00:30, 15 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. ~Ruyaba~ {talk} 00:34, 15 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. ~Ruyaba~ {talk} 00:34, 15 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Mz7 (talk) 11:52, 22 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy delete. Per G5. (non-admin closure) Jovanmilic97 (talk) 12:21, 26 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

David Remo

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

No notable kid actor - fails WP:NACTOR - WP:TOOSOON. CASSIOPEIA^(talk) 10:32, 22 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. CASSIOPEIA^(talk) 10:33, 22 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. CASSIOPEIA^(talk) 10:33, 22 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Philippines-related deletion discussions. CASSIOPEIA^(talk) 10:33, 22 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: nothing in independent, reliable sources that constitutes significant coverage. Fails actor and general notability guidelines. SITH (talk) 11:08, 22 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: I first placed {{unsourced}} on 2019-01-14 & {{Prod blp/dated}} on 2019-02-17. The latter has been removed twice by IP editors, & the former several times. The irony is that there seems to be a considerable number of news sources for David Remo, but I just cannot be bothered for an article that was created by a sock puppet & continually edited by IP editors without regard for WP:V. If someone really wants this article, let them do it in the Draft namespace. Peaceray (talk) 18:14, 22 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 18:45, 22 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. 78.26 _{(spin me / revolutions)} 14:45, 1 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Kryterium

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Fails all criteria for band notability. Let's look at the sources:

Source assessment table
Source	Independent?	Reliable?	Significant coverage?	Count source toward GNG?
[30]	404	404	404	? Unknown
[31]	Cannot determine affiliation due to use of pseudonyms.	Internet forum.	Two-line review in a forum post.	✘ No
[32]	404	404	404	? Unknown
[33]	WP:SPS	~ For some things, WP:SPS are okay like basic biographical verification, but not for establishing notability.	By virtue of SPS.	✘ No
This table may not be a final or consensus view; it may summarize developing consensus, or reflect assessments of a single editor. Created using {{source assess table}}.

All in all, this appears to be a case of yet another MySpace band. SITH (talk) 10:32, 22 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. CASSIOPEIA^(talk) 10:49, 22 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. CASSIOPEIA^(talk) 10:49, 22 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Idaho-related deletion discussions. CASSIOPEIA^(talk) 10:49, 22 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - A WP:BEFORE found not RS and IS. Fails WP:BAND. CASSIOPEIA^(talk) 10:54, 22 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete. Problem with having such a distinctive name is that it makes searching for RS easier. Nothing turns up on this band in my search. Per nom above, references in the article are either junk, and/or gone (did they ever exist). Certainly nothing to even start a WP:GNG case. Britishfinance (talk) 11:11, 22 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. The only real coverage I found was the Boise Weekly article already cited. With metal bands there is often more offline coverage in metal magazines than there is online, but in this case it seems unlikely that there would be enough for notability. --Michig (talk) 08:45, 1 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. 78.26 _{(spin me / revolutions)} 14:44, 1 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Suhail KK

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Fails WP:GNG. No significant coverage in reliable and independent sources can be found. Hitro talk 08:56, 22 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Bakazaka (talk) 16:43, 22 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Per Nom. There is literally nothing here. Otr500 (talk) 07:38, 25 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete. WP:A7. --Hiwilms (talk) 18:32, 25 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. There is some suggestion of draftifying this. I'll restore to a userspace if anyone requests it. Fenix down (talk) 13:27, 1 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Valeriy Bondar

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Never played in a fully professional league thus failing WP:NFOOTY. This can change in the future, but for the time being he fails our notability criteria. Ymblanter (talk) 07:54, 22 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Giant Snowman 11:02, 22 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - fails WP:GNG and WP:NFOOTBALL. Giant Snowman 11:06, 22 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Bakazaka (talk) 16:43, 22 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. Bakazaka (talk) 16:43, 22 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Ukraine-related deletion discussions. Bakazaka (talk) 16:43, 22 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - fails WP:NFOOTY having never played in a competitive fixture between two teams from fully professional leagues or a senior international fixture. Also does not have enough significant independent coverage to meet WP:GNG. Kosack (talk) 18:32, 22 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete or draftify? Seems like a clear WP:TOOSOON if he's on the bench for the Europa league knockout stages. SportingFlyer T·C 00:04, 23 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Draft Youth player who has represented Ukraine at 17, 18 and 19. These types of players normally go on to make senior appearances, I think this would be better moved to draft space than to straight up delete. Govvy (talk) 12:01, 24 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Draft. Was considering a weak keep - there is coverage, but much of it is interviews which I don't consider independent. International U-19, on squad of rather major FC Shakhtar Donetsk. He'll probably either pass the SIGCOV bar (and I could be convinced he has already - requires digging through the Ukrainian sources) or the much weaker NFOOTY by the dint of a garbage time sub. Icewhiz (talk) 14:04, 26 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect to Tampa Bay Rays minor league players. (non-admin closure) Jovanmilic97 (talk) 22:36, 1 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Tyler Frank

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Fails WP:GNG and WP:NBASE John from Idegon (talk) 03:22, 15 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. IntoThinAir (talk) 04:11, 15 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Baseball-related deletion discussions. ~Ruyaba~ {talk} 04:26, 15 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. ~Ruyaba~ {talk} 04:26, 15 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, DannyS712 (talk) 07:17, 22 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Tampa Bay Rays minor league players. Best, GPL93 (talk) 14:35, 22 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete or Redirect He doesn't meet the notability criteria for baseball players and the references are typical reporting for a college baseball player. All conference is insufficient to show notability. He's only played in a short season A league and no other Tampa player at that level even has a redirect. Definitely doesn't meet any criteria for having his own article, but I can go with WP:CHEAP. Papaursa (talk) 16:08, 23 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Tampa Bay Rays minor league players. Legion X (talk) 20:45, 1 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. czar 03:29, 1 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Piggy (Mutual Fund)

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Fails WP:ORGCRITE, financial express source is reliable, but this company is not the sole focus. Other sources might not qualify. Also somehow the username of the creator led me to evidence for COI on this article, can't say how because of WP:OUTING. Daiyusha (talk) 08:09, 7 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Ruyaba (talk) 08:11, 7 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. Ruyaba (talk) 08:12, 7 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Finance-related deletion discussions. Bakazaka (talk) 08:34, 7 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Promotional article for a start-up company. Britishfinance (talk) 21:29, 12 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ad Orientem (talk) 02:07, 15 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. An in-depth reference need not be primarily about the topic. The Financial Express discussion of Piggy is more than a passing mention. Some of the other references are from reliable sources as well. The article does not seem unduly promotional. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 02:53, 15 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.

Comment - I took a look at the Financial Express article. It seems rather promotional and I'm not confident that it would be an RS. Or am I mistaken? I am leaning towards delete, but willing to learn more. Skirts⁸⁹ 15:55, 22 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, DannyS712 (talk) 07:17, 22 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - promotional, no indication of notability from reliable sources. Smallbones_(smalltalk) 04:12, 24 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - lacking the in-depth coverage required to meet WP:NCORP; the one-paragraph description in the Financial Express does not do it for me. In addition, this startup company (a label used by multiple sources) may fall under WP:TOOSOON.--SamHolt6 (talk) 01:17, 25 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect to Tehrik-e-Istiqlal. (non-admin closure) Jovanmilic97 (talk) 22:35, 1 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Justice Party (Pakistan)

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

PROD-ed (Why should I have a User Name?) and de-PROD-ed (Soman) in 2014. My source searches don't show the requisite depth of coverage in independent, reliable sources to pass WP:NORG. I'm also open to a redirect to Tehrik-e-Istiqlal, but as it has already been PROD-ed I'm opting to discuss it. SITH (talk) 13:53, 7 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 16:02, 7 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 16:02, 7 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - This is a brutally google unfriendly title. Do we have it in Urdu? Trying to separate it both from the general words and also its successor is making me lack any confidence in an actual BEFORE judgement. Nosebagbear (talk) 21:10, 7 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. This search finds a few reliable-looking sources confirming some basic facts. A merge with Asghar Khan might be better than one with Tehrik-e-Istiqlal, because this seems to have been a vehicle for his personal ambitions rather than a broad-based party. Phil Bridger (talk) 17:30, 8 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
~~Merge/~~Redirect with Tehrik-e-Istiqlal. Not enough sources to confirm independent notability, seems more sensible to add it to the Tehrik-e-Istiqlal article, which this article claims to be a fore-runner of. 12 years on and the article still lacks a single reference. Britishfinance (talk) 13:45, 13 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Given the material is unsourced, it is not worth merging, just Redirect. Britishfinance (talk) 10:33, 1 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ad Orientem (talk) 01:59, 15 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, DannyS712 (talk) 07:17, 22 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect, per nom. Legion X (talk) 20:44, 1 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. 78.26 _{(spin me / revolutions)} 14:42, 1 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Damien Croux

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

fails WP:NHOCKEY; fails WP:GNG Joeykai (talk) 05:05, 22 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete No indication of any coverage that meets WP:GNG or any accomplishments that meet WP:NHOCKEY. The highest league he played in was second tier and per WP:NHOCKEY/LA none of his accomplishments/games played are enough to pass NHOCKEY. Fails the Google Test in both French and English. I am finding less than 5 passing mentions since he was captain of the team but nothing in-depth enough for GNG. HickoryOughtShirt?4 (talk) 05:32, 22 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete nothing I can find meets GNG. Just another article from way back when 1 pro game in any league met the requirements which has long since been removed. -DJSasso (talk) 12:31, 22 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 18:49, 22 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Ice hockey-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 18:49, 22 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of France-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 18:50, 22 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Fails to meet either WP:GNG or WP:NHOCKEY. My search, admittedly in English, found no significant independent coverage of him and none is given in the article. Papaursa (talk) 17:16, 23 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Speedy Delete. A9 by RHaworth. (non-admin closure) power~enwiki (π, ν) 04:28, 24 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I Fucked Up ( Mysterious Crow song )

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Non-notable song by garage band with no article. Cannot redirect, deletion only option. A loose necktie (talk) 03:47, 22 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 18:51, 22 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 18:51, 22 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete per WP:A9. Richard3120 (talk) 19:05, 22 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Since this has already been the subject of a speedy delete, this should be closed. Aoba47 (talk) 21:23, 22 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Randykitty (talk) 19:15, 1 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Zak Smith

If you came here because someone asked you to, or you read a message on another website, please note that this is not a majority vote, but instead a discussion among Wikipedia contributors. Wikipedia has policies and guidelines regarding the encyclopedia's content, and consensus (agreement) is gauged based on the merits of the arguments, not by counting votes.

However, you are invited to participate and your opinion is welcome. Remember to assume good faith on the part of others and to sign your posts on this page by adding ~~~~ at the end.

Note: Comments may be tagged as follows: suspected single-purpose accounts: {{subst:spa|username}}; suspected canvassed users: {{subst:canvassed|username}}; accounts blocked for sockpuppetry: {{subst:csm|username}} or {{subst:csp|username}}.

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Non-notable artist. A search for sources brings up blog posts, Reddit threads, false positives for other people with the same name, and not a lot else. The talk page is full of people saying "I don't think he's notable" - well, here's your chance to make your case properly. Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 11:22, 14 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Artists-related deletion discussions. ~Ruyaba~ {talk} 11:28, 14 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletion discussions. ~Ruyaba~ {talk} 11:28, 14 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. ~Ruyaba~ {talk} 11:28, 14 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Science fiction-related deletion discussions. Newimpartial (talk) 21:14, 26 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

~~Delete~~ On the fence - insignificant former RPG professional / yet another bad-boy of porn. Though this person's misbehaviour is probably one of the main causes of the restructuring of White Wolf Publishing, the inside baseball of the tabletop games industry is not something that gets consistent coverage in things Wikipedia considers reliable sources. As it is probably impossible to demonstrate notability for anything he's actually notable for, it'd be better to remove him than allow his page to remain as the sanitized piece of self-promotion it was. Simonm223 (talk) 13:03, 14 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Non-notable RPG person other than current news regarding his sexual misconduct. Doesn't seem to have enough notoriety to justify page based on repeated "sources/references" that are mostly the same interview or blog article over and over again. Brandon (talk) 22:47, 14 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. Articles that were notable for a decade or more don't become un-notable — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2600:1700:7642:25E0:C082:CA38:383C:EAFB (talk) 23:39, 14 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

WP:ARTICLEAGE : "Having survived a long time on Wikipedia does not guarantee the article a permanent spot. The article may have achieved its age ... because its lack of notability was not discovered until recently." Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 09:21, 15 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The early history of the article [34] also makes me think it was started by some extreme fan, or well something else ..... Nil Einne (talk) 16:49, 17 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Actually seems it was a pure copyvio [35]. Whatever the causes of the article creation, I think it's fair to say it had multiple problems. Such sort of stuff tended to be handled more poorly in the past. There's a fair chance now if something similar has happened it would have been caught and handled differently probably via deletion. Of course the article couldn't even have been created now since it was created by an IP in main space. Nil Einne (talk) 16:53, 17 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Non-notable since there is very little verifiable information on this page. First two sections have no references at all. Numerous anonymous edits to this page suggest self-promotion. Art section contains only one reference to support the three statements. Irrelevant personal life statement describes two cities the subject lived in (again no reference). See also section appears irrelevant. Also: WP:ITSINTHENEWS Merxa (talk) 09:37, 15 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been added to the WikiProject Pornography list of deletions. • Gene93k (talk) 11:42, 15 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sexuality and gender-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 11:42, 15 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Games-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 11:45, 15 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Non-notable as an artist, little to no verifiable information. The only notable thing is the sexual misconduct and multiple abuse news. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.168.1.135 (talk) 02:25, 17 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Even if his RPGs publications are few, the awards he acquired from those (see: Vornheim, Frostbitten and mutilated, Maze of the blue medusa, A red and pleasant land each have at least one, usually multiple, industry recognized award) tend to mark him as notable in this field, though corresponding sections of his biography have been deleted recently (among the 50+ conflicting edits/restorations of the last week). My recommendation, would be to restore his page to pre-"hate campaign" (be it justified or not, this is what it seems from a bystander point of view) state and monitor editing strictly until heads cool down (initially I'd have said locking edits but I'm not sure this is policy compatible and a "neutral tone" additions regarding current situation might make sense). In fact the strength of the current, industry wide, reactions alone could mark him as notable (As per, e.g., https://oneblogshelf.blogspot.com/2019/02/drivethrurpg-responds-to-current.html they would "quietly stop doing business with" most people, Zak S. situation on the other hand deserves a dedicated communication from them) Xiangh (talk) 12:23, 18 February 2019 (UTC)— Xiangh (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

None of this content is published on the page, and is unlikely to be suitable for inclusion on this page.Merxa (talk) 21:36, 18 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - At the time of this vote there is probable political issues going on to corrupt any probable outcome and the vote itself may be connected with current events. I say leave the article for now, and after the current events die down then review it again. Wikipedia should be viewed and reviewed based on its content, and deletions around some current event seems pretty sketchy to me. if it turns out criminal activity is the end result found from the current events, then it doesn't dismiss the articles on Adolf Hitler and the Zodiac Killer among many more exist. reviews just probably shouldn't happen during a time when the subject of an article is a "hot topic". Later it will probably be deleted as insignificant for inclusion or of lack of merit to be included in Wikipedia. I say the article should be protected from vandalism until admins can decide the current events are sorted out enough to continue with this vote or other actions regarding this article. shadzar-talk 16:58, 18 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The timing of the deletion is not relevant, if its suitable for deletion, it should be deleted.Merxa (talk) 21:36, 18 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

yes, but being a current event, the outcome of said events may warrant its merit in the long run where it didn't have merit for inclusion prior. Also Wikipedia shouldn't be used as a battleground during current events. If it gets deleted now and then has to be recreated after current events, we have all wasted our time and effort, while waiting for current event events to subside will show if there is any reason for its inclusion. shadzar-talk 11:14, 19 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

It's not up to admins to decide what should or should not be included on Wikipedia. In addition I find suggestions that the current situation makes him notable seem disingenuous considering how no reliable sources exist to comment on the current situation. Either the sources that talk about the allegations of harassment are reliable, and may confer notability. Or they are not and he's another non-notable individual whose notoriety in a small sub-culture doesn't extend far enough outside its bounds to provide any WP:LASTING coverage. Simonm223 (talk) 16:59, 19 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

who said admins decide is the article should stay? i say for them to decide if it should be protected due to the vandalism prior to and shortly after this delete vote. it makes me wonder as further posts and votes below suggest that maybe the current events could be the only reason driving a vote. that is a bit strange to allow to happen. sure maybe people like myself only came across this article due to recent events, but its always a bit coincidental when two such things coincide. this is why i suggested to hold off on this vote until after recent events and protect the game by admins from vandalism to see what people, as the deletion header notes, find to edit into the article. it may very well not be worth keeping. but it is the timing of the deletion and current events that i am calling into question. shadzar-talk 21:30, 21 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I believe your response is helping us to get towards consensus. We now have an extra week to discuss, and the page is locked to editing for the next few days. If the page is retained, the media coverage picked up by Google News would form a major part of the current article. The new content should reshape the content in general (i.e. by updating it, removing irrelevant or unsourced content, rephrasing to reflect the content from the media coverage), as well as enabling us to create a Sexual Abuse Allegations section.Merxa (talk) 03:46, 22 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep — actor of several professional movies, author of several RPG books that were professionally published, several secondary sources on his page. — cdang|write me 01:17, 19 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

This content not referenced in this article.Merxa (talk) 04:03, 19 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Nor was I able to find any such content when I looked for refs about Smith. Simonm223 (talk) 16:59, 19 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The movies are mentionned here. You can find his work on RPG here, here or there. cdang|write me 00:26, 20 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Storefronts are not reliable sources. Simonm223 (talk) 12:46, 20 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Are public video reviews, reliable sources ? Are written resumes, on reference website, reliable sources? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2A01:E35:8BBB:5D50:603E:8751:A81C:21FB (talk) 18:42, 21 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

"Is 'x' a reliable source?" doesn't mean anything. If you mean "a reliable and independent source to demonstrate notability?" then no. The Yellow Pages is a reliable source, in as much as we can trust the information in it is factually accurate, but you can't use it to show that JB's Diner, Brighton is a notable topic (because it isn't). Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 10:08, 22 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Wizards of the Coast has seen fit to make a statement of disassociation from him, including a pledge of profits to Rape, Abuse & Incest National Network (http://dnd.wizards.com/articles/news/dndstatement) as has been reported in Comicbook.com (https://comicbook.com/gaming/2019/02/19/dungeons-and-dragons-zak-smith-statement/) at the time of this edit. This took a two minute search, if even that. Editors that can’t find relevant articles aren’t making a good faith effort, imo. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2806:102E:8:4636:7C58:3252:E552:A537 (talk) 22:05, 19 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Welcome to Wikipedia, feel free to register an account and begin editing. Merxa (talk) 10:54, 20 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

As stated in the nomination, I did a search for sources which indeed took two minutes. However, I found nothing that would normally meet the source quality level for biographies of living people. If he's had no national broadsheet coverage (and I can't see that he has), that's a major red flag. Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 11:07, 20 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I'll make a parrallel. If Leonardo diCaprio would be accused of sexual abuse, would a request for deletion created on his page? Folks, this guy is the equivalent of Leonardo DiCaprio in tabletop RPG community. If he commited such crimes, it is in the interest of the public to know! Also, Wikipedia is an encyclopedy, not a f** battlefield for teenagers. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2A01:E35:8BBB:5D50:E0CB:C8E0:B642:6D2C (talk) 22:21, 19 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Nice try, but no Leonardo_DiCaprio.Merxa (talk) 23:12, 19 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Deletion campaign appears to be linked to current events so it should be frozen; if notability evidence (MoMA paintings and 4 books collecting awards, with tabletop RPG major companies enough concerned to publish dedicated statements) are revoked for not being on his page this only indicates this page needs serious update (the fact peoples vandalize his page should be considered as a stark for notability).

Deletion decisions are made on the basis of the notability of the individual. The content you anonymously refer to is of minor significance (many individuals similarly accomplish such minor achievements through their lifetimes without the need for an article to be created) and it doesn't justify the existence of this article.Merxa (talk) 10:54, 20 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

As stated in the nomination, the deletion was driven by a bunch of people saying "this guy isn't notable" on the talk page and not being challenged on it. Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 11:07, 20 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Honestly this is beginning to almost seem like the best summary policy would be WP:BLP1E. The arguments are either that Smith is notable because his name is attached to media products (which is not grounds for notability) or that Smith is notable because of the controversies surrounding his career of late. However these controversies are 1) the accusations of abuse that arose on social media and 2) the role he played in the fiasco at White Wolf Publishing over We Eat Blood. And the problem with using these controversies to confer notability is that, as is the case with many missing stairs, the discussion of his behaviour is confined to social media conversations and blogs; and both constitute self-published sources which are unable to confer notability. So we have two major categories of source: blogs and social media on one hand, storefronts on the other hand, neither of which confer notability.

Frankly this is very frustrating. I would prefer that we have an article that discusses the controversies surrounding Smith if only because an example of a career implosion this severe may be of interest to the historical record of the tabletop gaming industry. However, the reality we have to work with is that, until some major publication deigns to slum it to write an article about abuse in the porn industry, abuse in the the tabletop games industry or how his edge-lord antics at Paradox Interactive contributed to the collapse of White Wolf Publishing, reliable sources are not only absent, but deeply unlikely to arise. Frankly, most of his creative output, whether paintings, games or porn, is far too niche to be of any interest to really anybody in mainstream media or academia. Simonm223 (talk) 12:55, 20 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep (Note that i saw this while browsing an external site that has generally been critical of WP deletions and this caught my eye). Before 2019, he appears to have some notability. (eg [36], [37]) Now post the accusations, tehre's going to be more attention to him even if the accusations prove false. His work has already been taken out of the AD&D 5th edition manuals due to this. [38], so there's an impact on his career. So clearly passes GNG notability at this point. --Masem (t) 19:43, 20 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Question What is the opinion on the use of the Polygon article to establish notability? I'm discounting Bleedingcool and the Maxim article as not meeting WP:SUSTAINED concerns. Simonm223 (talk) 19:49, 20 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Why discount them? There's coverage over time about him prior to the events of now, and it doesn't look like a "bust" of coverage (which is what SUSTAINED is asking about). --Masem (t) 21:21, 20 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

sources are enough for WP:N. I ran across this due to his story showing up on my newsfeed. Maxim plus the current issues put this well over the bar. Hobit (talk) 20:05, 20 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep mostly per Masem. The existing Vice profile from years ago is exactly the kind of coverage normally considered to provide notability. It's significant and primarily focused on the article subject. The Maxim article is less direct but still adds to notability, and the newer articles from Polygon and Bleeding Cool put it over the top in my view. Current events are ongoing and it seems likely more coverage will result. —Tourchiest ^talk_edits 20:39, 20 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. "Following the arrest and punishment of Lavrentiy Beria, the head of the NKVD, in 1953 the encyclopedia—ostensibly in response to overwhelming public demand—mailed subscribers to the second edition a letter from the editor instructing them to cut out and destroy the three-page article on Beria and paste in its place enclosed replacement pages expanding the adjacent articles on F. W. Bergholz (an 18th-century courtier), the Bering Sea, and Bishop Berkeley." I love that the glorious Great Soviet Encyclopedia tradition continues on Wikipedia today. SNAAAAKE!! (talk) 21:36, 20 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

So far the subject has been compared with Adolf Hitler, the Zodiak Killer, Leonardo DiCaprio, and now, Lavrentiy Beria. Fascinated to see what next. Merxa (talk) 22:29, 20 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Seems needlessly snarky. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:204:CA00:784:DD62:D696:2F6D:52E2 (talk) 02:47, 21 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

TNT As written, the article doesn't rise to WP:Author. I do think the article could be updated to meet the standard but doubt there are many editors who are interesting in doing so in a non-biased way right now. When the current situation calms down, if the subject is noteworthy, someone will notice there's no article and create one based on good sources. BrynnAthena (talk) 21:54, 20 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

This is my view as well. Merxa (talk) 22:22, 20 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I've changed my !vote from delete to on the fence based on the new sources found by Masem. I still have concerns about WP:LASTING coverage here and how it connects to WP:BLP1E. Smith is an individual who seems to get a puff piece once every decade and a flurry of coverage when his bad behaviour catches up with him and I suspect that once the industry finishes saying that they'll no longer have anything to do with him, that'll be the last we hear of him. However my concern that Wikipedia cannot have a neutral article on Smith is ameliorated by the presence of the Polygon article, which is a reliable source commenting on the things that make him actually, currently notable. As such I'm not wedded to deletion though I think the !votes for TNT may be leaning the right direction. Simonm223 (talk) 14:59, 21 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I've only spent minutes in any detailed searching but BLP1E would not apply here: he was notable at a fantasy artist, and there was a wholly separate incident with White Wolf that I believe this Zak Smith was connected with (yes, there are multiple poeple with this name so we do need to be careful). In terms of "neutral" recognizing that what he seems to be more notable for is negative press, we just have to be careful of tone in how we write about things. Negative coverage in media is still coverage, just as long as we don't adapt the media's tone from that. --Masem (t) 15:10, 21 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

As somebody with personal connections to the writer-side of the industry, Smith, notwithstanding his controversies is a painfully mundane content developer. The reason the media coverage is almost entirely tied to his negative press is because his contributions when he isn't either harassing women, trolling people on social media or writing deliberately edgy content to drive rage clicks just isn't newsworthy. His work isn't even bad enough, as a whole, to be notably bad. He's just... ordinary; excepting his notable behaviour. I'm citing WP:BLP1E because there isn't sufficient coverage for WP:AUTHOR to apply to his creative work, and his personality-profile articles are at best very sporadic. Which means the fundamental basis of establishing noteworthiness has been his career self-destruct. The stuff with White Wolf was a part of that. In fact, it was effectively exactly what's going on now only that time there was also the issue of the bad taste of his Vampire content output and this time more people are paying attention. Simonm223 (talk) 15:20, 21 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

It's a valid perspective given the appearance of newsworthy content related to the subject. It should now be possible to add the material relating to sexual abuse allegations once the lock has expired. Merxa (talk) 21:16, 21 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Right now this is a no consensus, but it might be heading towards a keep. So let's give it another week and see where things go.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ad Orientem (talk) 03:09, 22 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - The subject has recently become notable primarily as the result of reporting of sexual abuse allegations in the media as recognised by Google News. Therefore my current stance reflects this development. Furthermore, the comments from editors have given me hope that we can reach consensus. My thoughts on some issues follows 1) Timing - the timing of events has brought focus on this article, and provides an incentive to achieve consensus at a time when there is a focus on the subject, 2) Existing Content - the existing content in some cases is unreferenced and irrelevant, it needs to be updated and informed by the recent media coverage, 3) Sexual Abuse Allegations - the media coverage has provided more than enough independently verifiable content to enable this section to be created, 4) References - we should review the references carefully, for example in the case of media articles we should reference those included by Google News, 5) Article Locking - locking allows time to achieve consensus, to prepare the content and to diffuse tension. Please add your thoughts to these issues and how best to proceed towards consensus and to achieve the best result for this article.Merxa (talk) 04:37, 22 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: the thing I find most frequently when searching for him is the current drama more than significant coverage of his art. He seems to be neither a notable criminal nor a notable artist, by our standards. - - Slashme (talk) 16:21, 22 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Good discussion. I'm close to the fence, but think that Massem's sources don't add up to meeting either WP:AUTHOR or WP:CRIME, and don't think adding them together adds much. TheronJ (talk) 21:45, 22 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Subject has published game materials, which meets or comes close to WP:ARTIST #3. Those materials have won awards in the relevant genre. He's had art pieces in major museums and galleries per Coolabahapple's sources below. At least 'some' of Emperor's sources below are reliable. Overall, I think it meets notability. TheronJ (talk) 14:29, 26 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep (unless this is another zak smith?), meets WP:NARTIST (point no. 4), works in collections of MOMA - here, Walker Art Center - here, and Saatchi Gallery - here. Coolabahapple (talk) 00:12, 23 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

note: have asked helpful friendly admins via smith talkpage to add the above info to the article:)) Coolabahapple (talk) 00:36, 23 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

- This one convinced me - I'm changing to a light keep, above. TheronJ (talk) 14:29, 26 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I wanted to ensure that the article could have been properly sourced before this controversy blew up and I'm happy enough that the following sources, of varying length and depth, were available and could have been used to demonstrate notability and source information in the article: Artnet looks at his art (2007), Escapist Magazine looking at his RPG Vornheim (2011), Vice interview of him and Mandy Morbid about porn and art (2012), Maxim feature on his D&D with porn stars series (2012), Huffington Post look at his art (2013), Bleeding Cool interview (2014), Bleeding Cool covering allegations of homophobia and transphobia (2014), Huffington Post mentions how his illustrations for Gravity's Rainbow inspired similar efforts (2014) (see also Moby Dick, Song of Myself and Blood Meridian, and it helped the publisher get recognition), Bleeding Cool's overview of his Red & Pleasant Land (2015), Motherboard mentions his porn work in passing (2015), Kotaku looks at his game Vampire the Masquerade: We Eat Blood (2017) (also in Eurogamer and PC Gamer), LA Times piece on the last porn cinemas in LA (2017) (I can't seem to get the full content from that link though), Art News discusses International Whore's Day with art and input from Smith (2018). Also FandomMentals' overview of the scandal states his games have won a number of ENnie Awards, what I could find were: an honourable mention in 2011, Gold Winner for Best Writing in 2014, Silver Winner for Best Interior Art, Best Writing and Best Monster, as well as Gold Winner for Best Monster/Adversary in 2018. He also appears to have got an AVN Award nomination for Best Non-Sex Performance in 2014. Emperor (talk) 00:34, 23 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
- Those are really good finds - do you have thoughts on whether they qualify as Reliable Sources? It's been a while for me, so I honestly don't know the answer, but looking over WP:BLPRS, I have some concerns about artnet, flavorwire or even the Huffington Post. Thanks! TheronJ (talk) 14:18, 26 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  - It is always a bit tricky as it is rarely black and white. I got almost all of those from a Google News search for Zak Sabbath and most of them, like Artnet and Flavorwire are notable enough to warrant an article on here, which are two hand ways of filtering out the more unreliable sources (especially as I hadn't heard of Flavorwire before). The HuffPost has won a Pulitzer so I don't see an issue with using them as a source. Apart from the claims of transphobia and homophobia most would also be used to source uncontroversial statements in the article, at least demonstrating that whatever is being source is an actual thing and has proved worthy of notice from a reasonably high profile source. Even the homophobia/transphobia claims are a reporting of something others have said, which is, this side of legal action, the best we have for the more recent controversies. Now I'm more used to editing less controversial bios (including turning them round when they were in danger of deletion) and I'd be happy to use most of those sources (with a question mark over Flavorwire and the claims of transphobia/homophobia) to properly source an article to the point that it'd solid enough to meet the notability standard. Whether this article should be held to a higher standard because it is controversial and getting more intention than before is something I'll leave to the editors of the page. If so, each source may need to be analysed as suitable for inclusion on a case-by-case basis on the talk page although I, personally, wouldn't have thought that was necessary. Emperor (talk) 20:41, 26 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    - Looking it over the Flavorwire links are relatively minor, I largely added them as it continued a theme that was emerging when I went through the Google News results. It would be an interesting thing to add but the article wouldn't suffer if they were left out when doing a major sourcing and longer term editors can kick the idea of adding them in later as the article gets fleshed out. Emperor (talk) 02:04, 1 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: Here's another article, this one from Matter (magazine) by Vanessa Veselka in 2014, https://medium.com/matter/the-best-monster-38461c5cbbf1 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 73.164.234.219 (talk) 01:45, 23 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep -- Article will need a new sexual abuse allegations section, though this wouldn't be the excuse to keep on its own: existing cites plus those given above are sufficient to demonstrate notability, in particular the industry-standard awards over multiple years for multiple products produced by him. Palindromedairy (talk) 03:48, 24 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Support - creation of a sexual abuse allegations section is needed. Merxa (talk) 21:48, 28 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: His corpus as a commercial visual artist is not noteworthy, he has never produced anything that has been important or highly visible in the art world or outside of it. Similarly for his porn career, he has a low level of visibility and importance as far as I can discern. in the table top role-playing game world he has worked on important projects, but anything noteworthy he has been on he been as a contributor to a much larger project in a non-leadership/executive capacity. In the 5 years leading up to the recent controversy the most google searches in a day for his name was 13. The most noteworthy thing about him is far and away the current abuse allegations, which don't warrant a page for him personally. 142.229.115.117 (talk) 22:02, 26 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

this appears to be personal opinion as works are held by major/notable galleries (see above). Coolabahapple (talk) 22:43, 26 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Despite the foul nature of the accusations against him, it cannot be argued in good faith that he has not been a notable personage in the RPG industry. HAving been covered in Maxim, Vice, and a number of other professional publications, he certainly is notable....no matter one might think of him. His page does need editing.Ceronomus (talk) 17:49, 27 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep sources found in my searches establish notability.E.M.Gregory (talk) 15:57, 28 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - I am not the original author, but I updated some sourcing and the extensive list of RPG awards, and added details from the controversy over abuse. He is certainly notable in the RPG industry, at least as much as anyone in the RPG industry is. Matrox Lusch 13:12, 28 February 2019 (PST)
- Good work. I do wonder if the awards might be better in an "Awards" section as it is a bit listy already and might be better if it is boiled down into an actual list? No rush but something to consider. Emperor (talk) 01:59, 1 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Per consensus that, to the extent there was proper encyclopedic content could be written on the topic, it was already better covered elsewhere. Indeed, even the keep !votes favored moving the article to a different title. I examined the merged material and agree that retention of this history is unnecessary for attribution. While it was not raised explicitly in the discussion, the arguments presented here necessarily implicated a lack of notability, so deletion is appropriate. Xymmax ^{So let it be written} _{So let it be done} 04:57, 2 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Geometry of roots of real polynomials

AfDs for this article:

WP:Articles for deletion/Graphical methods of finding polynomial roots

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

This page is an orphan.

The main section has been merged into Quadratic equation#Graphical solution.

The content of the lead is better described in other articles.

The title is a misnomer, as it seems referring to the ___location of the roots in the complex plane, a subject that is studied in Properties of polynomial roots D.Lazard (talk) 11:52, 14 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Mathematics-related deletion discussions. ~Ruyaba~ {talk} 12:04, 14 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2019 February 14. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 12:22, 14 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I also fixed up the links to the prior discussion. Andrew D. (talk) 13:02, 14 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Keep as no reason to delete has been provided. Being an orphan is not a reason to delete as that's a deficiency elsewhere. Merger of content is a strong reason to retain the content not a reason to delete it – see WP:MAD. The leads of other articles point is unsupported by any evidence and, in any case, is still not a reason to delete. The title might need work but is still not a reason to delete as that's best addressed by a move. Note that the page previously had the title Graphical methods of finding polynomial roots, which seems clearer, so perhaps it should return to that. Overall, the page looks quite reasonable and just needs some polish per our policy WP:IMPERFECT. Andrew D. (talk) 12:45, 14 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The old title was plural, and 10 years later, the article contains a single method, that is defined only for polynomials of degree two. So the content does not correspond better to the old title than to the present one. D.Lazard (talk) 14:32, 14 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

That's an argument for expansion of the article, not deletion. See Beyond the Quadratic Formula, for example. Andrew D. (talk) 23:58, 23 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. @D.Lazard: Is the issue WP:Duplicate article; or at least wrong title to text that is duplicated? If so, is this a WP:MERGE option? Britishfinance (talk) 13:04, 14 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The single section of this articles called "Complex roots of quadratic polynomials". It belongs naturally to Quadratic equation, and it is there that, normally, a reader would search the content of this section. This is a reason for adding this content to a section "Graphical solution" of this article. I have done that, which does not increases significantly the size of the article (733 bytes). This is not really a merge, as I have completely rewritten the text, and the only things that have been copied are the reference and the figure. Thus, now, we have now a content fork, and this is clearly in this article that the duplicate content deserve to be removed. D.Lazard (talk) 14:32, 14 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@D.Lazard: Not 100% sure what you are saying there, but seems like you have already absorbed the useful parts of this article into another article and that this article is now not useful, and is out of sync with other articles on the same area? Would there ever be a reason to therefore have an article with this title? Britishfinance (talk) 20:47, 14 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

You are right. If the title would have correctly described the content, I would have simply transformed the article into a redirect. As the title "Geometry of roots of real polynomials" does not correspond to any notable concept, and certainly not to Quadratic equation#Graphical solution (where the useful part of the content has been absorbed), there is no natural target for a redirect. So deletion seems the best option. D.Lazard (talk) 21:10, 14 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I was expecting/hoping this article to be about this stuff. XOR'easter (talk) 19:28, 18 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and move back to Graphical methods of finding polynomial roots. Although mentioned on a number of other pages, this is a separate subject which deserves a separate page. My very best wishes (talk) 00:51, 21 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, since the article, as it stands, has no content, justifying its existence, not even the title, which deserves a decent article, is meaningfully addressed. Purgy (talk) 07:53, 21 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Per nom (and discussion with proposer above}. Britishfinance (talk) 15:03, 21 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and move back. There are enough arguments that the current title is inappropriate, but there is no reason to delete the article at the old title. wumbolo ^^^ 22:24, 21 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Tree editors suggest to give back the title Graphical methods of finding polynomial roots to an article containing only a single method for the non-real roots of quadratic polynomial. What is the rationale for such a general title for such a particular case? and for having a specific article for this single method? and for having this method in two different articles, here and in Quadratic equation#Graphical solution? --D.Lazard (talk) 01:48, 22 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ad Orientem (talk) 03:04, 22 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Redundant with Quadratic equation#Graphical solution, and not a good title for a redirect. XOR'easter (talk) 23:32, 23 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Not all polynomials are quadratic. wumbolo ^^^ 23:37, 23 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The brief mentions of higher-order polynomials are more confusing than illuminating, address topics better covered elsewhere and do not justify the existence of this article. XOR'easter (talk) 01:51, 24 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Mentioning higher-order polynomials is crucial to this article. It is not "better covered elsewhere" and it justifies "the existence of this article" because it is the article's topic. wumbolo ^^^ 09:20, 24 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete:

This article has no mathematical content. Misleading title aside (which should really mean algebraic geometry in general), this article just briefly states simple techniques one would teach in a secondary school algebra or pre-calculus class (which calls WP:NOTTEXTBOOK to mind).
The idea of plotting a polynomial with real coefficients on a two-dimensional plane over the real numbers is not a noteworthy concept that deserves its own article. It's just a technique one teaches students learning elementary algebra.
There is duplication of the main section with Quadratic equation#Graphical solution.

I'm surprised there is even a discussion about this. — MarkH21 (talk) 04:18, 24 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

If this is a technique that one would teach to "students learning elementary algebra" then it is obviously mathematical content. WP:NOTTEXTBOOK is irrelevant as that's about a style which includes things like leading questions and exercises. More relevant from that section is "A Wikipedia article should not be presented on the assumption that the reader is well-versed in the topic's field. ... the article should be written in plain terms and concepts that can be understood by any literate reader of Wikipedia without any knowledge in the given field ... Texts should be written for everyday readers, not just for academics." An accessible graphical treatment is therefore more appropriate than advanced abstract algebra. Andrew D. (talk) 09:57, 24 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

It is relevant, because much of the article as it exists sounds like one is trying to instruct the reader how to determine whether real roots exist by graphing. It's not that the material is somehow "too trivial". Nor was I saying that the problem is that the mathematics is written in an accessible manner. It's that it is teaching a simple technique, akin to having a passage illustrating how to find the x-intercept of a line of given slope passing through some given point. By all means I am trying to make math articles more accessible to general readers! — MarkH21 (talk) 10:40, 24 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to Zero of a function. First off, the previous title of Graphical methods of finding polynomial roots is far better; if the article is kept it must be moved there. The topic of examining graphs of a polynomial in the reals to find complex roots appears to be well-defined and covered in journal articles over a 100 year period. However, there's nothing in this article apart from one method for quadratic equations, and some badly-worded ways of saying that plotting a graph of a function can find the real roots. This doesn't seem to be a plausible stand-alone topic when there are other articles that can cover both the existing content and any new content that might be added (for example, on methods to find complex roots of a cubic polynomial through "graphical methods"). power~enwiki (π, ν) 04:40, 24 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Seems to be redundant. —- Taku (talk) 09:17, 24 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. As explained above, Quadratic equation#Graphical solution and Quadratic equation#Geometric interpretation more comprehensively describe the topic, whereas this article does not even talk about the geometry of real quadratic roots and includes no content not already found elsewhere, making it a WP:REDUNDANTFORK as it stands. A summary-style meta-article (WP:SPINOFF) describing various polynomial roots would only make sense if we had articles devoted to Geometry of roots of quadratic equations, Geometry of roots of cubic equations, etc.; likewise, this would not be a valid sub-article (WP:SPINOUT) if expanded because it would address too many unrelated cases (do we commonly use hatnotes to subsections?). Thus, it seems that reasonable content expansion of this article would create a mess of links and hatnotes (what would be the main article for the topic?) and/or require double the maintenance work if the same content is presented similarly in two different articles. On the other hand, keeping only the sections of quadratic equation, cubic equation, etc. will not misguide readers and enable us to polish those sections and avoid having scattered, lower-quality content spread across multiple pages. ComplexRational (talk) 21:30, 24 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
more comprehensively describe the topic This is false, all quadratic equations have polynomials but not all polynomials are quadratic. require double the maintenance work if the same content is presented similarly in two different articles That's a complete non-argument, see WP:RELAR. wumbolo ^^^ 22:26, 24 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

more comprehensively describe the topic Of course there are other polynomials (why else would I mention cubics?), though they are not currently discussed in Geometry of roots of real polynomials; hence, I clarify: the bulk of what is there now is more comprehensively described in Quadratic equation.

require double the maintenance work if the same content is presented similarly in two different articles I agree with WP:RELAR, though this discussion concerns the exact same content that is possibly presented in multiple places, not overlapping information that establishes context or draws connections between related topics. A brief summary in one article about the other is acceptable (per WP:SPINOFF), though I'm not so sure about several paragraphs (or sections) of nearly identical content when one article is not the main, detailed description of a topic – that is the scenario to which I am referring. ComplexRational (talk) 22:44, 24 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I'd suggest Merge somewhere, but the Quadratic equation article has everything that should be here, and the sentence on higher degree polynomials doesn't provide enough context to determine if it is interesting. As a JSTOR subscriber (through Wikipedia), I could check some of the references, but there would need to be text which would be better placed in cubic equation. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 05:44, 25 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per pury and lazard for the articles current state, parts of the little actual content could be merged into other articles. Keeping it would imho require a complete rewrite and expansion.--Kmhkmh (talk) 06:44, 25 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: The title is very broad, and the lead section is a good lead for an article with that title, pointing to a variety of material that fits under its heading. However, the lead is not appropriate for the current body, which, as several commenters have noted, contains only one method and only for quadratic equations and that method is better treated elsewhere. I do not know what is the right thing to do about the situation where there is an article with a reasonable title and reasonable lead but whose contents don't match either, but that seems to be the case here. --JBL (talk) 20:08, 25 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
The right thing to do is to improve the article, as per WP:ATD-E. wumbolo ^^^ 20:13, 25 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Assuming that it can be improved and fleshed out into an actual article, then yes. But currently there is no content. If you or another editor is willing to write an article on the topic of Graphical methods provide a means of determining or approximating the roots of a polynomial, then please draftify this article, change the title, and proceed to do write an article. Right now, there is nothing except the relevant parts of the lead and a main content section on the simplest case that has been made redundant. — MarkH21 (talk) 00:28, 26 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
~~Procedural keep or redirect~~ - According to the nom "The main section has been merged into Quadratic equation#Graphical solution." In that case this article cannot be deleted and the appropriate merge-to and merge-from tags need to be added to the talk pages to preserve attribution. Rlendog (talk) 16:09, 28 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Would the resulting redirect make sense? I think that redirecting a generic title to a specific section outlining only one case would be a WP:SURPRISE. To comply with WP:MAD, I would suggest renaming the redirect to something less confusing (perhaps Geometry of roots of quadratic equations as I stated above) and deleting the current title, or any other possible form of archiving the history without keeping a confusing article or redirect. ComplexRational (talk) 20:09, 28 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

To editor Rlendog: There is no problem of attribution after the merge, as no text has been copied. I have completely rewritten the description of the method (which was poor), and added a proof that was lacking. In other word, this was a merge of mathematical content, not a merge of text. As a mathematical content is not subject of a copyright nor of any license, there is absolutely no need of merge tags, and no procedural need of keeping any history. D.Lazard (talk) 22:44, 28 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. czar 03:28, 1 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Turan yoga

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

This is either original research where other information about yoga is being decreed to be about "Turan yoga", or a straight-up hoax. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 02:29, 22 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. There is no information about such yoga in classical sources (Yoga Sutras of Patanjali, Shiva Samhita, Hathapradipika, and others), nor in modern authoritative studies of yoga. Links only texts that mention the word "Tura" and the Russian-speaking book and blog on Kung Fu. Plus is original research. DayakSibiriak (talk) 07:31, 22 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Health and fitness-related deletion discussions. ___CAPTAIN MEDUSAtalk 13:11, 22 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I draw an almost total blank on this term on google, papers and books (apart from one facebook page for Lisa Turan Yoga). Is thia a WP:HOAX or Lisa inventing her own brand of Yoga. Regardless, completely fails GNG. Britishfinance (talk) 21:42, 28 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. czar 03:27, 1 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Korrek

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Does not appear to meet WP:GNG. Appears 11 times according to Marvel Wikia, indicating a lack of notability within the fiction. A google search for "korrek" mostly turns up unrelated results. Namenamenamenamename (talk) 00:41, 22 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. Bakazaka (talk) 03:31, 22 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Comics and animation-related deletion discussions. Bakazaka (talk) 03:31, 22 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep or merge into List of Marvel Comics characters: K or Howard the Duck. No need to delete when merge is a valid option. BOZ (talk) 05:26, 22 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - the vast majority of incoming links are from a navbox. Any others provide enough context within the article to be able to figure out who the character is. DO NOT merge or redirect, no notability makes this worthless. --Killer Moff (talk) 10:27, 22 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - I temporarily removed the character from two templates, and he's only by two articles inline: Howard the Duck and Dakimh the Enchanter. Both of those are name drops. No reason to retain this content, and not enough available to be a useful redirect. Argento Surfer (talk) 14:40, 22 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above. Aoba47 (talk) 18:39, 22 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. czar 03:26, 1 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The Bronx Company

AfDs for this article:

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

This company was formed to produce just one play. Though the play got a mention I can find no in-depth coverage of the company in RS and it has been unsourced since creation, by a SPA, in August 2009. Also see the first AFD for further analysis. Fails WP:ORG. Delete. Just Chilling (talk) 00:10, 22 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Theatre-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 00:23, 22 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 00:24, 22 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Arts-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 00:24, 22 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 00:24, 22 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 00:26, 22 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:MILL. Bearian (talk) 21:10, 22 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Per non. Little material coverage in any tier 1 source. Britishfinance (talk) 21:39, 28 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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