Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2019 April 2

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

The result was delete. — JJMC89 (T·C) 00:51, 10 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

United Isles of Colibar (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

Not a notable micronation by Wikipedia's standards WP:GNG / WP:NGEO. ... discospinster _talk 22:12, 2 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 22:22, 2 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Wikipedia is not for things made up one day. This is not a micronation, which requires "a formal and persistent, even if unrecognized, claim of sovereignty".--Pontificalibus 08:20, 3 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 20:04, 3 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - searches did not turn up enough in-depth coverage to show it passes WP:GNG.Onel5969 ^{TT me} 13:38, 4 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete The article is also plagued by coatracking beyond its total non-notability.John Pack Lambert (talk) 18:14, 4 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Unrecognized micronations are not handed an automatic inclusion freebie on Wikipedia just because their own website technically verifies that they exist in somebody's mind — they can clear the bar if they get reliable source coverage in real media, but not if their sourceability is limited to their own self-published content about themselves. This article is also, incidentally, a complete and total copy-paste of the website itself, apart from the first person being changed to the third in a couple of spots — so there's also a copyright violation issue here. Bearcat (talk) 21:27, 4 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. — JJMC89 (T·C) 00:51, 10 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Jodi Eichelberger (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

No significant coverage in reliable sources, does not meet WP:GNG. There's a fair amount of trivial coverage in connection with a radio show Story Story Night on NPR. The article claims that Eichelberger played a notable role in the original cast of Avenue Q, but the provided source lists them as an ensemble member and understudy. The only other role that Eichelberger has held that could be described as notable is Stingy on LazyTown, which means that they come up short of WP:NACTOR. Eichelberger has won an award for excellence in puppeteering, but as the sources that support this are both paywalled I'm unable to assess whether that's enough to meet WP:ANYBIO. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 21:42, 2 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 22:10, 2 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Radio-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 22:10, 2 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 22:10, 2 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete does not pass our notability guidelines for entertainers/performers.John Pack Lambert (talk) 20:34, 4 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. — JJMC89 (T·C) 00:52, 10 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comparison of free web hosting services (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

Fails WP policies on all fronts.

1. Fails WP:LISTCRITERIA due to lack of precise selection criteria. There is no clear definition of its subject - does "web hosting" in the title include blogs? forums? files? photos? Or was the intention to include only website builders that offer a free tier? What about webhosts that offer free landing page or even basic website builder on domain purchase, like Namecheap, OVH, etc.?
2. Fails WP:NOTADIRECTORY.
3. Looks like WP:PROMO, especially the "comparison" of the "price of connecting owned domain".
4. Unsourced, even though a tag has been in place since 2014.
5. Has historically been a spambait.

I see no purpose why this list should appear on Wikipedia, at least in its current form. — kashmīrī ^TALK 19:27, 2 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 20:29, 2 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 20:29, 2 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete: Per nom. Maybe I just don't get it. I would think an integral part of web hosting services would be registration but many are only if paying. Otr500 (talk) 00:52, 8 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete: Per nom. Clearly falls into several categories at WP:What Wikipedia is not. SSSB (talk) 14:43, 9 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. WP:SNOW Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 14:36, 5 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Marina Amaral (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

illustrating one unremarkable publication insufficient to establish notability Sirlanz 18:45, 2 April 2019 (UTC)

Sirlanz has withdrawn this Afd, see comment below.ThatMontrealIP (talk) 14:07, 4 April 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 April 2. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 18:59, 2 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Speedy Keep This was already sent to AfD once and there's no valid deletion rationale. (I wrote this article.) The nominator's edit history shows they're taking issue with me, so I can only assume (since this AfD is sloppily-done) that this is a bad-faith nomination. Chris Troutman (talk) 19:02, 2 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Artists-related deletion discussions. Chris Troutman (talk) 19:02, 2 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Chris Troutman (talk) 19:02, 2 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Brazil-related deletion discussions. Chris Troutman (talk) 19:02, 2 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Speedy Keep - too soon after last discussion for a new one, and nominator doesn't indicate anything to explain why it needs to be reevaluated again so soon(or at all) WikiVirusC^(talk) 19:12, 2 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Speedy Keep beyond the procedural reasons listed above, the subject is entirely notable. WP:BEFORE would have shown that and prevented this AFD. I did a short search myself and was able to add three new references (Artsy, Deutche Welle, Jerusalem Post) about her new project colouring archival images of Auschwitz prisoners. She is doing unique and interesting work, and getting lots and lots of RS coverage for it. Which is to say: the coverage clearly exists to establish GNG, so we need not ever do an AFD for her again. Pinging Sirlanz to consider closing this waste of time. ThatMontrealIP (talk) 23:26, 2 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep with another ping to Sirlanz as they've edited since, maybe missed it --valereee (talk) 15:51, 3 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep, meets WP:GNG, plenty of sources available that discuss Amaral and her work over a number of years, article reflects this. Coolabahapple (talk) 19:44, 3 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

My apologies in respect of the 2nd nomination process. This is the first time I've attempted an AfD where it turned out it was not a first and the process was new to me. As soon as the 2nd status return appeared, I was inclined to reverse out of it but could not find the way of achieving that, so I figured it had to stay. Nevertheless, I started the process convinced the subject could not possibly meet notability as only one published work was referenced in which the subject played only a minor role and there was no source suggesting the subject had any particular prominence in the field. It is all the more surprising that the article survived AfD the first time round and remained in this poor condition. There has been such improvement now, so I'm content that policy is now met and have no objection to its remaining. The encyclopaedia stands the beneficiary. sirlanz 02:45, 4 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep: Definitely satisfies WP:GNG, WP:BIO, WP:ARTIST. (links--[1], [2], [3], etc,)--PATH SLOPU 14:05, 4 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. — JJMC89 (T·C) 00:52, 10 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Patrick LeBlanc (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

Horribly sourced. Fails WP:GNG and failed state senate candidate who fails WP:NPOL GPL93 (talk) 18:48, 2 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Louisiana-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 20:33, 2 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 20:33, 2 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 20:34, 2 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Architecture-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 20:34, 2 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Alabama-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 20:35, 2 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Mississippi-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 20:36, 2 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Texas-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 20:36, 2 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete No matter how badly this article tries to assert it, he's not a notable political figure for an article based on evidence. Trillfendi (talk) 21:44, 2 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Being an unsuccessful election candidate is not an WP:NPOL pass, but this article makes no credible claim of preexisting notability for other reasons and offers no properly sourced evidence that his candidacy was a special notability case of significantly greater notability than most other candidacies. It's referenced 70 per cent to primary sources (genealogies and raw tables of election results); 20 per cent to dead links where the complete citation details were never properly provided, so we can't even retrieve them to see what they ever actually did or didn't say; and one short blurb about the plane crash he died in. None of this is how you source an unsuccessful election candidate as notable enough for Wikipedia. Bearcat (talk) 15:00, 4 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Most importantly does not pass WP:NPOL, but also WP:NOTNEWS and WP:NOTMEMORIAL applies here too.--Rusf10 (talk) 01:25, 5 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per Bearcat and Rusf10 - GretLomborg (talk) 18:32, 9 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. — JJMC89 (T·C) 00:53, 10 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

George B. Mowad (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

Fails WP:NPOL. While he served 20 years as the mayor of a town, its population was less than 8,000. None of the sources used (election returns, obituaries, passing mentions, etc.) in the article establish that Mowad or his tenure as mayor of Oakdale are particularly notable GPL93 (talk) 18:40, 2 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 20:38, 2 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 20:38, 2 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Louisiana-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 20:38, 2 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 20:39, 2 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lebanon-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 20:40, 2 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. Oakdale, Louisiana is not large enough to confer an automatic notability freebie on its mayors just for existing as mayors, but in the classic manner of Just You Guess Who, this is referenced almost entirely to primary sources and tangential verification of stray facts about other people, not to any strong evidence of reliable source coverage about Mowad. Bearcat (talk) 20:48, 2 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Fails WP:NPOL....William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 23:54, 2 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete I agree with Bearcat that Oakdale is too small for its mayor to be automatically notable, and he does not seem to be notable for any other reason. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 13:24, 3 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete fails WP:NPOL and the references are all tangential or obituaries. SportingFlyer T·C 20:11, 3 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete mayors of places with less than 10,000 people are almost never notable for such.John Pack Lambert (talk) 20:28, 4 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. — JJMC89 (T·C) 00:53, 10 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Planet Slow Mo (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

Does not meet WP:GNG. Coverage online appears to be limited to tabloids like the Daily Mail highlighting a specific episode of the subject and providing essentially no independent coverage (in addition to not being RS). Previously nominated for A7 by Jmertel23, which was denied on account of the notability of people involved with the project. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 18:33, 2 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 18:34, 2 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 18:34, 2 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - lacks necessary sources to meet WP:GNG and WP:NWEB. As for the notability of people involved in the project, I would point to WP:INHERITWEB, which states that web content is not considered notable simply because of notable people associated with it. Also - one of the "notable" people wikilinked from this page doesn't even have his own article- the link redirects to another of his shows. Jmertel23 (talk) 19:25, 2 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 20:42, 2 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per nom. - GretLomborg (talk) 18:31, 9 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. — JJMC89 (T·C) 00:54, 10 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Quinche J. Félix (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

Does not meet WP:GNG, WP:NPOLITICIAN. The subject's highest political post was vice-president of of Bolívar Canton, Carchi, a local government position in Ecuador. The lone source attached to the article just mentions that a bust was erected in his honor in his hometown of Calceta, I was unable to find anything more significant, although given that he died in the 1970s, any likely sources are probably going to be print copies of Ecuadorian local newspapers, which I do not have access to. The article also appears to have been written by a relative of Félix's, given that they uploaded an old photo of the subject and claimed it as their own work._signed, Rosguill ^talk 18:29, 2 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 18:29, 2 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 18:29, 2 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Ecuador-related deletion discussions. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 18:29, 2 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. The canton is a local level of Ecuadorian government, not a provincial/state level, so there's no automatic WP:NPOL pass for its vice-presidents just for existing as local officeholders — and notability is not inherited, so he's not automatically special just because a couple of his children went on to hold more NPOL-passing roles. But neither is this article referenced well enough to get him over the hump he actually has to clear — "major local political figures who have received significant press coverage". We do not keep poorly sourced articles about people who don't clear any SNG just because it's possible that better sources might exist in places that almost nobody who's actually active on Wikipedia has the ability to check — the onus for showing that he actually has enough coverage to clear the notability bar for local figures is ultimately on the creator of the article and not on everybody else. And no, the Spanish article (which was created by the same editor a few months ago) isn't referenced any better, either, and should probably be listed for deletion there as well if anybody with better Spanish language skills than I've got is willing to tackle it. Bearcat (talk) 15:12, 4 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. — JJMC89 (T·C) 00:55, 10 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The whizzard (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

The reason I'm nominating this for deletion, a complete purge, rather than leaving it to wallow as an isolated digital fragment forevermore, is because of how far off the track this will become. It was part of a blast by a COI for their company. We're left with multiple pages that need addressing, non-notable orphans from an inactive (as per social media), non-existent (dissolved in 2017) never notable (as per GNG) failed commercial venture. This would become a redirect to a redirect to a redirect to a redirect because of their activity and their creation of too many articles - from one for their main company which is not notable and being deleted or redirected (open AfD currently), their american subsidiary and then this product. It's a long tail of non-notable promotional guff, and redirects are as cheap as they are costly.

As for the actual product, if it is easily demonstrable that the ultimate parent company is not notable and just the product of an over-zealous promotor with a distinct SPA/COI. My proposition is rather than redirect this to the company which is redirected to the parent company which is redirected to the generic article of the company's base product, to delete it completely. It only exists because of a non-user's abuse of the open policy for their own commercial gains. A vote for redirect pretty much just supports the notion that we must preserve its existence perpetually because once a non-wikipedian with a commercial motive decided to create an article on this product. Rayman60 (talk) 18:18, 2 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of News media-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 20:44, 2 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Video games-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 20:44, 2 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 20:45, 2 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 20:45, 2 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete I found a single news article from 2015. Nothing since, so apparently it didn't quite make the splash that it hoped for. (Forgive the pun.) Schazjmd (talk) 01:05, 3 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Reads like a puff piece more than anything else.TH1980 (talk) 04:19, 6 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom. - GretLomborg (talk) 18:29, 9 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. — JJMC89 (T·C) 00:55, 10 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Ved Prakash Gupta (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

Sources provided don't add up to any sufficient degree of notability. 1-3 are passing mentions, 4-7 are identical copies of the same interview, 8 is a passing mention, 9-11 & 13 are promotional videos, 12 is the meagrest of passing mentions. Currently this article is a badly-sourced promo feature, and I see no material that seems likely to change that. --Elmidae (talk · contribs) 18:17, 2 April 2019 (UTC) Elmidae (talk · contribs) 18:17, 2 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per nom. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 18:36, 2 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. Ceethekreator (talk) 18:41, 2 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. Ceethekreator (talk) 18:41, 2 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Ceethekreator (talk) 18:41, 2 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. Ceethekreator (talk) 18:41, 2 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. — JJMC89 (T·C) 00:55, 10 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Paul M. Davis Jr. (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

Another Louisiana obituary with no assertion of notability. Reywas92^Talk 18:05, 2 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete No evidence that the subject passes WP:GNG. Best, GPL93 (talk) 19:08, 2 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 20:48, 2 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 20:48, 2 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Louisiana-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 20:49, 2 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Fails WP:GNG....William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 11:17, 3 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. ...William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 11:37, 3 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. WP:NOTMEMORIAL. This is the portrait of a productive and admirable life, but there is no indication of the kind of notability that results in inclusion in an encyclopedia.E.M.Gregory (talk) 00:37, 4 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Sources don't show notability. Not enough published papers to satisfy other notability guidelines so I am marking this as delete. THEFlint Shrubwood (talk) 22:14, 5 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep, WP:NOTPAPER and this comes across as pure WP:BITTERNESS against the "now-baneed editor" whatever he did or didn't do. Tony May (talk) 08:38, 6 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Not paper is not an argument to keep an article. Just because something can be online doesn't mean it should: "Consequently, this policy is not a free pass for inclusion". Reywas92^Talk 22:04, 6 April 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. -- RoySmith (talk) 02:32, 10 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Adwin Brown (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

Still WP:TOOSOON, subject has had one major recurring role in television so far, in addition to several bit roles, falling short of WP:NACTOR. All coverage available in RS is routine casting announcements that do not provide sufficient coverage of the subject to meet WP:GNG. Their casting for future recurring roles indicates that they will likely meet notability guidelines in the future, but per WP:CRYSTAL that means we should wait until those roles have actually occurred and been shown to be significant. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 18:04, 2 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 18:04, 2 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 18:04, 2 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 18:04, 2 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 18:04, 2 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete I had been asked to review this article by an editor who I had previously interacted with. My review at that time suggested it was not notable for exactly the reasons Rosguill said as he fails both NACTOR and GNG. I also do not see any sort of redirect target as a reoccurring role does not seem like a strong enough target article. I left the article for another reviewer to make their own judgement because I didn't feel it was fair to nominate for deletion something someone had asked me in good faith to review. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 18:34, 2 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

We could redirect to Heathers (TV series), as that is their most notable role that has already occurred. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 18:38, 2 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Some reoccurring roles are that way for contractual reasons and they might appear in 90% of episodes. Other such roles might be in 1 or 2 a season. I don't know how much his reoccurring role was for Heathers or will be for You, but in general I think we shouldn't be redirecting for such roles. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 19:01, 2 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Re-reading the article, I'm inclined to agree. For some reason I had been under impression that Brown had a lead role. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 20:18, 2 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Africa-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 20:50, 2 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 20:51, 2 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete does not meet the multiple significant roles in notable productions threshold.John Pack Lambert (talk) 17:50, 4 April 2019 (UTC)*[reply]
• Possible Keep. Bit about him in The Decider, the pop culture website that's operated by the New York Post. See ‘You’ Season 2 Adds ‘Heathers’ Star Adwin Brown By Denise Petski. And Netflixlife.com says that folks would recognize his name from Heathers and Fosters. From what I can see, he already has some recognisable star status and his star is definitely on the rise. He has a 2, 4, 9 and 10 recurrence in his reoccurring roles. and they have been going up on the increase in the order I have given. If after some good discussion on this has been done and it appears that it's heading for a delete then I guess we can preserve the history and redirect. But at this time, I think the article could be kept. Karl Twist (talk) 10:39, 7 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment. I've just had another look at the page. Not much of an article. If it is to stay then there's a lot of work to be done. Karl Twist (talk) 10:41, 7 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

  Karl Twist Can you clarify if you are suggesting notability per WP:GNG, WP:NACTOR, or some other standard? Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 14:39, 7 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete fails WP:NACTOR, agree that this may be WP:TOOSOON and he may become notable in the future. - GretLomborg (talk) 18:36, 9 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. — JJMC89 (T·C) 01:07, 10 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Eugene P. Campbell (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

Another Billy Hathorn non-notable local official sourced to obituaries, fails WP:NPOL. Reywas92^Talk 17:57, 2 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Louisiana-related deletion discussions. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 18:41, 2 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 18:42, 2 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. Local sheriffs are not automatically deemed notable just for existing — but as usual for Billy Hathorn stuff, this is referenced to obituaries and primary sources and tangential verification of stray facts about his relatives, with not even close to enough notability-supporting media coverage about him to get him over WP:GNG. Bearcat (talk) 20:29, 2 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Mississippi-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 20:52, 2 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 20:53, 2 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of American football-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 20:53, 2 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• He seems to have been considered to be of some local importance, as his house was preserved as a historical landmark. [4] [5] Rlendog (talk) 21:25, 2 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The house being preserved as a landmark is not an automatic notability freebie that exempts the house's occupant from still having to actually clear GNG as a person. The house already has its own article anyway. Bearcat (talk) 17:17, 3 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

If the house has its own article (which I can't find), then this title should be redirected there rather than deleted. Rlendog (talk) 15:50, 8 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment It seems that the house only exists in the redirect for Campbell House and on National Register of Historic_Places listings in Concordia Parish, Louisiana; in 2016 it was taken off of the national register on account of it being burnt down so I can't imagine it becoming any more notable in future. Also, the website this article cites in reference to the house was extremely short and now only exists in archive. Userqio (talk) 05:25, 9 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Ole Miss? The article claims he played at LSU from 1893-1896, but here's a reference to a person with the same name (and middle initial) at Ole Miss in 1898. It could be the same person.--Paul McDonald (talk) 21:33, 2 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete a look at the references shows regardless of college football or political notability, there's a WP:GNG failure regardless. SportingFlyer T·C 20:15, 3 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per WP:NPOL. OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 20:15, 4 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. — JJMC89 (T·C) 00:57, 10 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Catherine Alexander (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

Doesn't appear to meet WP:PROF, WP:AUTHOR or WP:GNG. Boleyn (talk) 17:02, 2 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete fails NPROF, no substantive sources. Reywas92^Talk 18:08, 2 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. Ceethekreator (talk) 18:45, 2 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. Ceethekreator (talk) 18:45, 2 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. Ceethekreator (talk) 18:45, 2 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Washington-related deletion discussions. Ceethekreator (talk) 18:45, 2 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Ceethekreator (talk) 18:46, 2 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete writer with a number of published stories listed, and nominations for some minor literary prizes. However, article is an orphan, no books, no claim that any of the published stories was particularly notable, and no sources. I can't find anything on her - she has a common name and I can't seem to find a keyword that brings up anything useful.E.M.Gregory (talk) 22:38, 3 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment The only thing I found in the news about the author was a local news blog article titled "Edmonds author starts a group for ‘Elder Orphans’"[6] on her involvement in forming a Facebook support group for the elderly. Writing this into the personal life section could help establish some notability in conjunction with the nominations, but the Wikipedia article in question seems to take verbatim from the author's personal website without citing it. I did also find an article on University of Washington Department of Pathology's newsletter[7] that collaborated the claim that her story was read by Jorja Fox, but this doesn't seem to establish any major notability on it's own. Userqio (talk) 05:50, 9 April 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} 18:22, 9 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

David Esrati (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

Almost certainly an WP:AUTOBIO of a perennial candidate who fails WP:NPOL. Even if the subject passes WP:GNG it most likely needs rewriting due to the promotional nature of the article GPL93 (talk) 16:43, 2 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment this article was deleted by unanimous vote in 2008. Best, GPL93 (talk) 16:46, 2 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. KCVelaga (talk) 17:24, 2 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Ohio-related deletion discussions. KCVelaga (talk) 17:24, 2 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete fails NPOL. Reywas92^Talk 18:09, 2 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. GPL93 (talk) 18:35, 2 April 2019 (UTC) [reply]

• Delete. Being a perennially-losing perennial candidate for political office is not an WP:NPOL pass, but this article is referenced nowhere near well enough to make him special — it's referenced almost entirely to primary sources and glancing namechecks of Esrati's existence in media coverage of other things or people, not to coverage that's about him in any non-trivial way. To be fair, the original creator in 2008 is the likely autobio candidate — but their work got deleted at AFD within two weeks, and the article was then recreated in 2010 by an editor who was far less likely to be Esrati (they stuck around for another couple of years and edited on other topics unconnected to Dayton municipal politics.) So the 2008 AFD wouldn't be grounds for speedying this by any means, but this definitely isn't a significant notability or sourcing improvement over the original version either. Bearcat (talk) 20:38, 2 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - No WP:NPOL, thanks QueerEcofeminist ^{"cite! even if you fight"!!!} [they/them/their] 05:11, 3 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Fails WP:NPOL; the only part of this article to have real notability is the reference to Dayton v. Esrati which would argue if anything a page for it and not the article being considered for deletion. Looking into it though, the case seems to be more a footnote than a major case when referenced in sources. Userqio (talk) 06:10, 9 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. — JJMC89 (T·C) 00:58, 10 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Monica Buck (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

If I A7ed this, somebody would find a way to say "but she was in a pageant". The fact is, she lacks notability, she lacks sustained notability, lacks significant coverage, and a newspaper article from 26 years ago isn't going to support a page. Trillfendi (talk) 16:34, 2 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. KCVelaga (talk) 17:25, 2 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Beauty pageants-related deletion discussions. KCVelaga (talk) 17:25, 2 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Hawaii-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 20:56, 2 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 20:56, 2 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 20:56, 2 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - fails WP:ANYBIO, in that she is a winner of a non-notable beauty pageant and has not done anything notable since then. Dan arndt (talk) 01:30, 3 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete winner of non-notable beauty contests.John Pack Lambert (talk) 20:43, 4 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete fails WP:ANYBIO - GretLomborg (talk) 18:39, 9 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. I'm closing this as a keep due to the fact that when you separate the !votes, we have 3 editors who believe the article should be kept and provide (evidence based) policy reasoning behind that. There's one editor who !votes delete but doesn't leave a policy based reason behind it and never replied to the follow up questions from other editors wishing to engage in discussion. The remaining editor who !voted delete was countered by the three editors with strong policy based arguments that effectively cancelled out their reasoning behind the delete. Had the other delete !vote editor have used policy based reasoning this would have gone towards a no consensus, however, that's not the case tonight. I believe enough discussion has taken place here and we've asked enough of the community's time in discussing this. It seems as though the discussion is done as nobody has commented on this since April 5th since it was relisted last time. (non-admin closure) Dusti^{*Let's talk!*} 08:31, 11 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Herbert Bockhorn (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

Fails WP:NFOOTBALL and WP:GNG, as the player has never made an appearance in a fully professional league, has never made a senior international appearance, and has no solid independent notability. S.A. Julio (talk) 06:59, 19 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. S.A. Julio (talk) 06:59, 19 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. S.A. Julio (talk) 06:59, 19 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Africa-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 07:00, 19 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Germany-related deletion discussions. S.A. Julio (talk) 07:01, 19 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. S.A. Julio (talk) 07:01, 19 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - fails WP:GNG (just, as this is decent, but not enough) and WP:NFOOTBALL. Recreate if/when he makes his pro/international debut. GiantSnowman 08:44, 19 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. Passes GNG. Almost made an international debut (and covered extensively due to that). Also covered in the context of being on the Borussia Dortmund reserves, and possible trade talk to the English premier league. International coverage. These are all full-length pieces on Bockhorn: [8][9][10][11][12][13][14][15]. Icewhiz (talk) 16:17, 19 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Transfer rumours and national team squads are WP:ROUTINE coverage, at the moment it is WP:TOOSOON. S.A. Julio (talk) 00:29, 20 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Far from routine - or rather if such coverage were routine we would delete a whole lot of footballers. This guy has more coverage than most lower league players that pass NFOOTY. Seems he is a signicant prospect for top-tier play.Icewhiz (talk) 04:57, 20 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete How can you be a footballer with no football career? Trillfendi (talk) 20:31, 19 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• What does this mean? He's been playing for several years. SportingFlyer T·C 00:15, 20 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• As with Fleet in being (exerting influence without ever leaving port), football prospects may be notable even if they haven't played yet in a NFOOTY league. Icewhiz (talk) 15:57, 20 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep There's a ton of coverage on him. Much of it is recent. For instance, allafrica.com quoted on the 10th: We know that the name Herbert Bockhorn was widely keyed into a Google search box after a 31-strong Cranes provisional squad was revealed this past week. Too soon for NFOOTY, but an easy WP:GNG pass. SportingFlyer T·C 00:15, 20 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Seems to be WP:ROUTINE coverage based off inclusion in a preliminary squad. S.A. Julio (talk) 00:29, 20 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Kawowo is one of the most important Ugandan football sources, PML Daily have profiled him, Swift Sports wrote an article just because he wasn't going to appear in the Tanzania game, [16], and the BBC mentioned his call-up specifically in an article (that was routine and not WP:SIGCOV, but shows importance.) None of this is routine coverage - it's all on him specifically. SportingFlyer T·C 00:42, 20 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Weak keep – 10 sources were posted here through 20 March, and since then BZ 22 March, 90min 22 March, Liga-Zwei 23 March. I'm not sure but I'm guessing the ICC games with the first team v. Liverpool, Man City and Benfica don't count for NFOOTY (SW), and although none of the sources individually is terribly in-depth, there are many examples of stories that really are focused on him (not the team), go beyond sheer routine coverage, and come from a variety of media sources in Germany and Uganda. For me, gets over the line as a GNG keep. Leviv ich 06:19, 24 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment – You're correct, the ICC games don't count towards WP:NFOOTY, as they were in preseason and therefore aren't considered "competitive games". 21.colinthompson (talk) 19:21, 24 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment - I reviewed this article back on 3/18. I felt the coverage at that time was borderline, and even though they didn't pass WP:NFOOTY I felt that that requirement would also be met. But I'll leave it up to the FOOTY folks to hash this one out.Onel5969 ^{TT me} 18:31, 25 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Post-relist comment – Searched again and found more new coverage of this player, albeit not quite SIGCOV. I don't think this Mar 22 Sports.de article has been posted here yet. I wouldn't call it "significant coverage" because it's not very long, but it does focus on Bockhorn and has a picture of him as the lead picture. According to this article from yesterday, Bockhorn has been named to the Uganda national team for this summer's Africa Cup of Nations, and I'm somewhat impressed that he's one of two players on the team that's mentioned in this article. He hasn't played in the game yet, but if he does, that would be one NFOOTY-qualifying game. A borderline case, but I still lean weak keep, or at least draftify. Leviv ich 16:07, 5 April 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. -- RoySmith (talk) 02:35, 10 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Mustapha Sesay (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

Article about semi-pro footballer who was under contract at a club (Dolphins F.C.) in the fully-pro Nigerian Premier League, but there is no evidence that he actually played for the senior side in the league. A search of online sources indicates that Sesay only received routine coverage (e.g., match reports) in Sierra Leone-based sources and essentially zero coverage in Nigerian sources, so the article comprehensively fails WP:GNG. Article was previously nominated for speedy deletion many years ago, which was declined. Jogurney (talk) 15:19, 2 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 15:38, 2 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 15:38, 2 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Africa-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 15:39, 2 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. Doesn't pass GNG - I found a bunch of other individuals with the same name (e.g. this pilot in the US, and in Sierra Leone a reporter and a number of other people) - but little on the footballer. Icewhiz (talk) 15:51, 2 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment - As an inclusionist, it is quite sad and disheartening when I see very old articles being put for AfD after all these years. This article was nominated for speedy deletion twice back in 2010. Once by @Wrwr1: (speedy rejected by @DGG:) and by @Alexf: (speedy rejected by @Phil Bridger:). So I am surprised why wasn't it taken to AfD at the time?Tamsier (talk) 16:48, 2 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

  @Tamsier: - back in 2010 there was a chance he's see playing time in Dolphins F.C. and develop a career - it was in TOOSOON zone - but soon was possibly right around the corner (WP:RAPID mayhap?). We're now in 2019 - this hasn't happened, and there is no prospect of this happening. Icewhiz (talk) 16:56, 2 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

  I took the article to AfD because I don't think a PROD would be appropriate. Here editors have the time to check my research on sourcing, and perhaps I've missed some useful coverage that would meet the GNG. If not, this article has been in a sorry state for far too long. Jogurney (talk) 16:59, 2 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

  @Icewhiz:, but had it been brought to AfD at the time, its faith would have been decided by the community since we do not generally accept stand-alone articles which are in the WP:TOOSOON zone. We do not know (unless someone comes forward and disclose it here) whether an editor at the time saw WP:RS on/off-line but didn't bother to add them to the article and now such sources are taken off-line. I don;t know. Nobody knows. And it is not far fetched because I have witness for a number of years editors arguing for an article to be kept at AfD - providing great reliable sources in the discussion but without adding them to the article itself. I bet I'm not the only one who have seen that happen during AfD discussions. We now have no archive of sources which might have been available at the time but now nobody knows. If the community/editors at the time thought he was notable for a stand-alone, then he is still notable as notability is not temporary. However, that is merely conjecture because at the moment, nobody knows. Just because sources aren't available online does not mean a subject is not notable. They might be available off-line or might have been available online but were taken off. Also, for Africa, Google sometimes does not scan or takes time to provide African related sources. As such, we should be extremely careful when talking about lack of online sources for African related articles. All I know based on our articles and my limited knowledge of football is that, he played in a premier league club at the time. I would therfefore be following this discussion and looking forward to reading the arguments of the editors who were involved with this article all those years ago.Tamsier (talk) 17:57, 2 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep If he plays for the team the article says (East End Lions F.C.), as a professional team it passes WP:NFOOTY. -- Alexf^(talk) 16:57, 2 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

  Actually, that league is not fully-professional (see, WP:FPL). Potentially he has played in the Nigerian Professional Football League which is fully-pro, but it cannot be verified using reliable sources. Jogurney (talk) 17:01, 2 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

As I said below regarding WP:FPL, "that link is an essay, not a policy. The 1 ref cited for Sierra Leone looks like a WP:SYNTH to me. Michael was talking about "the poor structure of "some" Premier League Clubs". I've read that article archived from last year, and there is nothing in that article authored by Awoko where Michael said that "Sierra Leone National Premier League is not a professional league" in the sense we understand professional for Wikipedia policies relating to football notability, unless of course I've missed it." Quote modified to avoid repeating myself.Tamsier (talk) 02:20, 3 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete – Sierra Leone National Premier League is not a WP:FPL league, and no reliable sources attest to his playing in the Nigerian Football League (indeed, no sources at all that I can find, other than the one archived page from the now-defunct NigeraSportsWorld.com). I cannot find any non-routine coverage of the 27-year-old footballer, although I learned there are a lot of people named Mustapha Sesay. Doesn't pass WP:NFOOTY or WP:GNG. Leviv ich 20:08, 2 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Really! Sorry, I'm contused, but who says "Sierra Leone National Premier League is not a WP:FPL league"? That link by the way is an essay, not a policy. The 1 ref cited for Sierra Leone looks like a WP:SYNTH to me. Michael was talking about "the poor structure of "some" Premier League Clubs". I've read that article archived from last year, and there is nothing in that article authored by Awoko where Michael said that "Sierra Leone National Premier League is not a professional league" in the sense we understand professional for Wikipedia policies relating to football notability, unless of course I've missed it.Tamsier (talk) 23:05, 2 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The way I analyze it is: WP:NFOOTY says "2. Players who have played ... in a competitive game between two teams from fully-professional leagues, will generally be regarded as notable. See a list of fully professional leagues kept by WikiProject Football." with a link to WP:FPL (which stands for "Fully Professional League"). FPL says that SLNPL is not an FPL, with a link to a source, the Awoko article. [17] The source says, "...60% of the players don’t even have any professional contract with their clubs..." which suggests it is not a fully professional league, and thus playing in it doesn't meet NFOOTY. Now, I don't know if SLNPL is or is not a fully-professional league, and I don't think playing in a fully-professional league makes one notable anyway, so a much, much more important question for me is, as very well put in WP:42 and more formally in WP:GNG, can we write an article about Mustapha Sesay? and the answer is No because we have no sources from which to say anything other than to give his stats, which a reader can get from Soccerway. Leviv ich 23:24, 2 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment - Does this footballer also go by the name of Yamusa Sesay (midfielder for East End Lions F.C.)? BBC Sports, National Football Teams, Afryka, FootballDatabase.Tamsier (talk) 21:02, 2 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

  I'm pretty sure Mustapha Sesay's name was reported as "Musa Sesay" in Sierra Leone. I'm less convinced that his name was also reported as "Yamusa Sesay." I found an article about an East End Lions' footballer named Abu Bakarr Sesay who died in 2014, who had one dozen brothers, including a "Mustapha Sesay." My best guess is Yamusa is not the same person as Mustapha/Musa, but even if he were, there is no significant coverage of Mustapha/Musa/Yamusa. It appears Yamusa did make a single substitute's appearance for Sierra Leone in January 2012 (friendly against Angola), but we don't have any vital information (such as date or birth) to confirm that he is Mustapha - moreover, a single substitute's appearance in an international friendly isn't enough to satisfy WP:NFOOTBALL without some significant coverage. Jogurney (talk) 21:52, 2 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hmm! I probably disagree. I think it is the same person. The name, position, club, and years (especially some of the sources as shown in his own article, above and below) indicates that it is probably the same person who has different names but in the end decided to stick with Yamusa. His real name by the way is Mustapha, which is shorten to Musa which is very common in West Africa especially those with Muslim names. For example in the Senegambia region where there are loads of Sierra Leoneans who immigrated there (especially Gambia where Sierra Leoneans have immigrated to for over a 100 years), the Muslim/Arabic name Ibrahima is localised to Ebrima; Ibra; Ebou; and Ibrima. The name "Mustapha" is the same as Musa; and Moss. His surname "Sesay" which is the same as Sissay, Ceesay, and Ciss, tells me he comes from the Sessay clan which is a Mandinka surname. "Ya" is just a prefix for which the Mandinka and Mandé group are known for. Putting all that aside, I think in the early stages of his career he probably went by all those names but in the end decided to stick with Yamusa for what ever reason. The article tells us that he joint East End Lions in 2011. if you do a combined search for "Yamusa Sesay [or just Yamusa], "East End Lions", and any year prior to 2011, you will not find anything that matches the combined search. However, you will find Yamusa Sesay starting his career with East End Lions in 2011 as confirmed by this source. The chances of 2 different players with almost the same name, playing for the same club, playing on the same position (midfielder) and joining the club in the same year is practically nil. I admit, I'm not a mathematician so I will leave that to the mathematicians to give us the probability of that happening. WP:COMMONSENSE however tells me that the chances are minute. According to this 2010 source Mustapha Sesay was playing midfield for Dolphins FC as stated in our article. According to this BBC source, in May 2011, Yamusa Sesay from East End Lions (playing midfield) joint the Sierra Leonean team in preparation for the Africa Cup of Nations. That same year (2011), this source (month not given) uses Musa Sesay for the 2011 Sierra Leone Premier League. I even tried to do a check on there 2009/10 database for anyone by the name of Musa/Mustapaha Sesay or Yamusa Sesay, but there was none, only someone called Musa Fofanah which is definitely not our subject, but a different person. Currently, we have this Football Database telling us that Yamusa Sesay has been a member of East End Lions from 2011 (the same year our article told us he joint the club) to 2019, and was in the Sierra Leone team v Angola in 2012 in which Angola beat Sierra Leone 3 - 1. By 2013, we still have him using Musa Sesay according to this Sierra Leonean archived source when playing at home. I might be totally wrong, but this tells me in the early stages of his career he was probably known by all three names (Mustapha, Musa and Yamusa). It also tells me that, when he was playing home, he used all three names or was referred to by all 3 especially the first two. However when playing international or a foreign team, he adopted Yamusa or was called Yamusa - which he continued to use to the present as he got older and more mature. If you do a normal combined Google search for Yamusa Sesay, 2019, and East End Lions, you will at least find something that is recent. However if you substitute Yamusa for Musa/Mustapha, you will not find anything that is recent, only old stuff. In any case, I wish this article and the community luck as they decide its faith.Tamsier (talk) 02:08, 3 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

What really matters here is WP:SIGCOV. I'm willing to accept sources with Yamusa (or heck - any footballer with a similar name and bio details to the one in our article) - but what I want to see is 3-4 in-depth, independent, reliable, sources. The ones you provided with Yamusa are name drops in a list - which doesn't help us with SIGCOV. Icewhiz (talk) 10:40, 3 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete he definitely exists, but I can't find anything on internet media to verify much other than he played at least once for a team in a non-fully professional league. He may have appeared for Sierra Leone but I can't find that either. Reluctant delete. SportingFlyer T·C 07:26, 3 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. GiantSnowman 12:57, 3 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - fails WP:GNG and WP:NFOOTBALL. GiantSnowman 12:58, 3 April 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 Deleted per WP:G5. (non-admin closure) –eggofreason^{(talk · contribs)} 14:41, 4 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

BIG KIDD (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

References seem to be mostly to databases and unreliable tabloid-like websites. Unnotable and promotional. –eggofreason^{(talk · contribs)} 15:06, 2 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. CASSIOPEIA^(talk) 15:25, 2 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. CASSIOPEIA^(talk) 15:25, 2 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Reason why not delete Some new refernces added to the page, all the refences are real and from well known webiste related to music, now also added reference from Apple Music. On the other hand {{AFD help}} notice only can be used when topic not according to important rules, which including three cardinal content policies (Wikipedia:Neutral point of view, Wikipedia:Verifiability, and Wikipedia:No original research) and the copyright policy (Wikipedia:Copyrights) this page is according to all these 4 terms. According to Wikipedia:Verifiability#Reliable sources we can use refernces fro tiird part sites. Hope this explanition is eniugh.03wikicreator (talk) 16:56, 2 April 2019 (UTC) — Note to closing admin: 03wikicreator (talk • contribs) is the creator of the page that is the subject of this AfD. [reply]
• Delete - just promotional article only. Fails WP:SINGER.___CAPTAIN MEDUSAtalk 17:35, 2 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Speedy delete as WP:CSD A7 and promotional. StaticVapor message me! 02:57, 3 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete PROMO, and very poor English. At best WP:TNT. Aoziwe (talk) 11:38, 3 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Promotional and non-notable. I don't think the editor arguing not delete fully understands wikipedia criteria. ShelbyMarion (talk) 14:16, 3 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete promotional with very poor sourcing.ThatMontrealIP (talk) 02:32, 4 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment: The article is already deleted as per CSD-G5.--PATH SLOPU 14:12, 4 April 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 Snow Keep. (non-admin closure) Dusti^{*Let's talk!*} 08:12, 7 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Elinor Burns (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

Sources do not seem to be related to the same subject, subject is not notable, and sources appear to be self-published. JAH2k (talk) 14:53, 2 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. CASSIOPEIA^(talk) 15:23, 2 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. CASSIOPEIA^(talk) 15:23, 2 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Journalism-related deletion discussions. CASSIOPEIA^(talk) 15:23, 2 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. CASSIOPEIA^(talk) 15:23, 2 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. I don’t understand this nomination. The article has multiple sources to demonstrate notability. Has the nomination checked the offline refs to support the statement that the sources don’t relate to the subject? Mccapra (talk) 16:14, 2 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. I've added to the article. Also found several reviews of her writing. I think there is enough coverage. I'm not sure which sources the nominator says don't refer to the same person. Tacyarg (talk) 16:27, 2 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. Perfectly fine minor figure from British labour and communist movements. Sources are provided, and check out so far as I have access. Rupert Clayton (talk) 06:43, 3 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. Definitely pass WP:POLITICIAN, WP:BIO, etc.--PATH SLOPU ^(TALK) 08:55, 3 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep, I've further expanded the article, there are plenty of reliable sources with significant coverage of her, and there's no question that they do refer to the same person. Warofdreams talk 10:28, 3 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - Certainly after the expansion this figure seems encyclopedic. Smmurphy^(Talk) 19:43, 5 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. — JJMC89 (T·C) 00:58, 10 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Miss International Pageants Inc. (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

This does not appear to be a notable organization. All references are either non-independent or don't mention the subject. I can't find on my own any significant coverage in independent reliable sources to establish notability (although the similarity in name to the different organization Miss International makes it difficult). Deli nk (talk) 14:40, 2 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Icewhiz (talk) 14:49, 2 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Icewhiz (talk) 14:49, 2 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Beauty pageants-related deletion discussions. Icewhiz (talk) 14:49, 2 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Virginia-related deletion discussions. Icewhiz (talk) 14:49, 2 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete The similar naming makes it really difficult. I found a handful of press releases, but nothing more. The references are to the org's site or to the site for a cause that a contestant supported. Schazjmd (talk) 00:53, 3 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete not notable event, no third party reliable sources.-Richie Campbell (talk) 02:36, 5 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Puff piece.TH1980 (talk) 04:45, 6 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom. Also, this appears to have been created by a WP:SPA - GretLomborg (talk) 18:44, 9 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. — JJMC89 (T·C) 00:59, 10 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Jack Breaux (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

Fails WP:NPOL and WP:GNG. Sources used are basic government records, his obit, and unlinked local newspaper articles. GPL93 (talk) 14:21, 2 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. Ceethekreator (talk) 14:28, 2 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Louisiana-related deletion discussions. Ceethekreator (talk) 14:28, 2 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete is there no end to articles on minor Louisiana mayors?John Pack Lambert (talk) 15:42, 2 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Apparently no end, you can help sift through them! Reywas92^Talk 18:14, 2 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep He was the first Republican mayor since Reconstruction. If he wasn't I'd say delete, but that's a significant enough fact to warrant some relevancy. Duce de Zoop (talk) 20:00, 2 April 2019 (UTC)— Duce de Zoop (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
• Delete. Zachary LA is not large enough to confer an automatic notability freebie on its mayors just for existing as mayors, but the article is not referenced anywhere close to well enough to get him over the bar that he actually has to clear: "major local political figures who have received significant press coverage". And no, being the first member of one particular party to win the mayoralty is not a free pass to being special, either — regardless of whether a mayor is a Democrat or a Republican or a member of some minor political party, he still has to show much more press coverage about him than this shows. As always, Billy Hathorn, the existence of an obituary in the local newspaper upon a person's death is not an instant notability pass that guarantees the person an article in and of itself and exempts all of the rest of the sources from actually having to be reliable or substantive — but apart from the obituary, this is otherwise referenced entirely to raw tables of election results and genealogy documents and non-source clarifying notes and glancing namechecks of his existence in articles about other things or people, not to substantive coverage about him. This is, as usual, not how you reference a smalltown mayor as notable enough for Wikipedia. Bearcat (talk) 15:30, 4 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Does not meet WP:POLITICIAN, one of many articles about minor LA political figures created by a now banned user. OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 20:12, 4 April 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 Plano East Senior High School#Band. A merge can be performed at editorial discretion. — JJMC89 (T·C) 01:00, 10 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Plano East Senior High School Band (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

High school marching band. Appears to have won an honour at some point, but doesn't appear to pass GNG; all other sources are primary or nearly so. Black Kite (talk) 14:21, 2 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Ceethekreator (talk) 14:30, 2 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. Ceethekreator (talk) 14:30, 2 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Texas-related deletion discussions. Ceethekreator (talk) 14:31, 2 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• redirect to section in Plano East Senior High School, which has plenty of detail for an encyclopedia. Mangoe (talk) 16:40, 2 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• redirect as per Mangoe, doesn't justify a standalone article. BubbaJoe123456 (talk) 16:51, 2 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep with Merge to Plano East Senior High School#Band as per overlap in WP:MERGEREASON.--PATH SLOPU 14:16, 4 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. — JJMC89 (T·C) 01:01, 10 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Dulani Rathnayake (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

One of 70 contestants in a minor international beauty competition held in 2017. Didn’t win or place. Has not achieved anything notable since the competition. Dan arndt (talk) 13:19, 2 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sri Lanka-related deletion discussions. Dan arndt (talk) 13:22, 2 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Beauty pageants-related deletion discussions. Dan arndt (talk) 13:22, 2 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Dan arndt (talk) 13:22, 2 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fashion-related deletion discussions. Dan arndt (talk) 13:22, 2 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Wikipedia has a clear overabundance of articles on non-notable beauty pageant contestants.John Pack Lambert (talk) 15:41, 2 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. No indication of notability. Mccapra (talk) 16:16, 2 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - as per nomination, and I agree with User:Mccapra, thanks QueerEcofeminist ^{"cite! even if you fight"!!!} [they/them/their] 17:37, 2 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. — JJMC89 (T·C) 01:01, 10 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Cultured (magazine) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

I can find essentially no independent sources, except one or two blogs. The NYT reference given is a general article about the editor, just mentioning the magazine DGG ( talk ) 11:55, 2 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Arts-related deletion discussions. Icewhiz (talk) 12:21, 2 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Journalism-related deletion discussions. Icewhiz (talk) 12:21, 2 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. Icewhiz (talk) 12:21, 2 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. Icewhiz (talk) 12:21, 2 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Architecture-related deletion discussions. Icewhiz (talk) 12:21, 2 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fashion-related deletion discussions. Icewhiz (talk) 12:21, 2 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete the NYTimes article is a profile of Sarah Harrelson, a wealthy Miami art collector who has founded at least 4 art publications, the annual magazine of Art Basel Miami, one in LA, the one under discussion here, and one other - forgot where. Mentions of these turn up in searches on her name, but no SIGCOV on any of them. It may be that she could support an article - although to me, sourcing for a BLP looks scant. What is clear is that this Cultured mag is not notable, fails WP:SIGCOV, although Harrelson appears to be a bit of a force among collectors of contemporary art.E.M.Gregory (talk) 11:52, 3 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. — JJMC89 (T·C) 01:01, 10 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

List of Australia Test cricket records against Bangladesh (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

Overly specific lists of statistics as per WP:NOTSTATS. List of Australia Test cricket records is as specific as it needs to be. Spike 'em (talk) 11:30, 2 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I am also nominating the following related pages which all suffer from the same issue:

List of Australia Test cricket records against India (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

List of Australia Test cricket records against New Zealand (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

List of Australia Test cricket records against Pakistan (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

List of Australia Test cricket records against South Africa (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

List of Australia Test cricket records against Sri Lanka (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

List of Australia Test cricket records against West Indies (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

List of Australia One Day International cricket records against India (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

List of Australia Twenty20 International cricket records against India (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

I was wondering where the England article was, but it is already deleted. As per that discussion, I could throw in a WP:NOTMIRROR here, as these lists are just reproductions of similar pages on cricinfo. Spike 'em (talk) 11:44, 2 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Cricket-related deletion discussions. Icewhiz (talk) 12:22, 2 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. Icewhiz (talk) 12:22, 2 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of South Africa-related deletion discussions. Icewhiz (talk) 12:22, 2 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Icewhiz (talk) 12:22, 2 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. Icewhiz (talk) 12:22, 2 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sri Lanka-related deletion discussions. Icewhiz (talk) 12:22, 2 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. Icewhiz (talk) 12:22, 2 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of New Zealand-related deletion discussions. Icewhiz (talk) 12:22, 2 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Caribbean-related deletion discussions. Icewhiz (talk) 12:22, 2 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 13:01, 2 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per nom and the previous AfD for a similar list. Lugnuts ^{Fire Walk with Me} 15:28, 2 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. It is my understanding that lists with three overlapping criteria have been specifically ruled against. With time I could imagine exemptions this is not one of them. (Dushan Jugum (talk) 20:49, 2 April 2019 (UTC)).[reply]
• Delete far too specific - we really don't need a list for any of these; the only one that might be of special significance would be against England perhaps, but that's already been deleted. Blue Square Thing (talk) 15:31, 3 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Per nom. Stats should be kept to a minimum; in this case, it's overkill! StickyWicket (talk) 21:49, 3 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - overkill of statistics. Orientls (talk) 06:06, 4 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per WP:NOTSTATS and WP:NOTMIRROR. This is basic stuff that can be found on ESPNCricinfo. Ajf773 (talk) 08:50, 5 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bangladesh-related deletion discussions. Worldbruce (talk) 12:45, 8 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete: per nom and above and more specifically WP:NOSTATS, whilst List of test cricket records may be acceptable this is a clea voilation of WP:NOTSTATS. SSSB (talk) 16:38, 9 April 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) Dusti^{*Let's talk!*} 02:59, 9 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Helena Eldrup (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

A successful high school principal. Clearly important to the school. Fails WP:GNG and WP:NACADEMIC. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 10:54, 2 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. Icewhiz (talk) 11:00, 2 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. Icewhiz (talk) 11:00, 2 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sweden-related deletion discussions. Icewhiz (talk) 11:00, 2 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 11:05, 2 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment: Being an IP, I assume I can't vote, but I hope I can comment. I am from Sweden, so please excuse any spelling mistakes I may make. The Kjellbergska flickskolan is counted as one of the "First Five" pioneer secondary educational schools for women in Sweden, and Helena Eldrup was essentially given the task to be its founder and organiser, beside being its first principal. Being an individual from the history of a small country, it is perhaps not strange if she is not yet mentioned in international sources, even if she was an important person from that country's history (and even in Sweden, the history of women's education has not been given much coverage until very recently, despite its importance); but Wikipedia does allow foreign language references, as far as I understand, and without them, it would be hard to expand international knowledge about subject that are notable, but not yet covered in English language reference books.--92.35.227.48 (talk) 11:32, 2 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. Principal of a very notable school at a time when there were few significant girls' schools in the world. Definitely notable. Meets WP:NACADEMIC #6. -- Necrothesp (talk) 12:55, 2 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment The Fredberg reference in the article does verify the dates of her tenure. [18] I am leaning towards Keep on the additional basis of WP:NONENG, WP:SOURCEACCESS, WP:WORLDVIEW and WP:AGF for the Kullgren reference and the other references at the Swedish Wikipedia version. 24.151.50.175 (talk) 15:07, 2 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment See also Therese Kamph, Eldrup's successor as principal of Kjellbergska flickskolan, nominated for deletion on 26 March, where similar considerations will apply.TSventon (talk) 15:39, 2 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. Not just a principal, but also a pioneer in that she built the school up from its founding. /Julle (talk) 11:15, 3 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep historically significant. -- Willthacheerleader18 (talk) 18:25, 4 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - per WP:GNG and per sources.BabbaQ (talk) 21:50, 4 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment -- I was leaning towards delete, but will not oppose the emerging consensus. I can see that as a pioneer of women's education and founding principal of a school, there is an argument that she is notable. I would be reluctant to encourage bios of head teachers to be allowed as a matter of course. There is no objection to foreign language references, though English ones are of course preferable, if available. I would give considerable weight to the view of the IP, even though it is not formally a vote. Peterkingiron (talk) 16:07, 7 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. First principal of a notable school. The article needs more sources: references to Heckscher and Hedin in Therese Kamph are also relevant to Eldrup.^[1][2]TSventon (talk) 13:06, 8 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep I have added some more sources. I haven't added many inline citations - even for the online sources for which more than a snippet is visible, it really needs someone who reads Swedish. There are sufficient sources to show significant coverage over an extended period of time. RebeccaGreen (talk) 14:01, 8 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. — JJMC89 (T·C) 01:01, 10 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Nicolas_Lehotzky (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

not notable enough Swissdesign1984 (talk) 09:40, 2 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Switzerland-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 09:49, 2 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 09:49, 2 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. Ceethekreator (talk) 10:54, 2 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete: Pseudo biography lacking significant coverage to establish notability. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Otr500 (talk • contribs) 10:35, 8 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete A WP:BEFORE indicates a dearth of persistent or in-depth coverage in reliable sources ([19]), absolutely insufficient pass the basic requireents of WP:ANYBIO. ——SerialNumber54129 11:04, 9 April 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. CSD G12, copied from Ravindar Tomar, Commercial Operations Management, Global India Publications, 2009. Please nominate Enterprise marketing management separately. SpinningSpark 23:24, 2 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Marketing operations management (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

Marketing WP:NEOLOGISM that the community seems to indicate it does not wish to accomodate. Sourcing is poor to non-existant which leads to WP:POV, WP:NOTESSAY and other concerns though that is not to say the sourcing is not fixable. This also applies to Enterprise marketing management that I am about to bundle Djm-leighpark (talk) 08:58, 2 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I am also nominating the following related page because it has the same issues:

Enterprise marketing management

Enterprise marketing management (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

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

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 09:50, 2 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. Icewhiz (talk) 10:03, 2 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. — JJMC89 (T·C) 01:02, 10 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Roy O. Martin Jr. (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

It's a great resume but not one that really asserts notability. He had a successful family business, but not a notable one, and the only source of substance in this WP:REFBOMB is a family-written obituary. Reywas92^Talk 06:34, 2 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Louisiana-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 06:40, 2 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 06:40, 2 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Tennessee-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 06:41, 2 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 06:41, 2 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete this article was deleted in 2007 and still doesn't pass notability standards now. I tried to speedy delete it but my request was turned down. Best, GPL93 (talk) 12:37, 2 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Nothing stated here is "inherently" notable for the purposes of guaranteeing his inclusion in Wikipedia, but the referencing is not getting him over WP:GNG at all — in classic Billy Hathorn fashion, it stakes his notability entirely on the existence of a paid-inclusion legacy.com obituary (which is not a notability criterion, because everybody always gets one of those if their own family or friends place it) and then references everything else to primary sources, glancing namechecks of his existence in coverage of other things, and purely tangential verification of stray facts about his family that have nothing to do with whether he's notable enough for inclusion or not. The existence of a book about him and his company might seem like a start toward making him notable enough for inclusion, but (a) it's being cited only to metaverify its own existence rather than actually being used to support any of the content about Martin, and (b) Claitor's is a local publishing house that just publishes the book-form editions of government documents and local family genealogies, not a publisher of conventional fiction or non-fiction books — even the book's own Amazon sales profile plainly reveals that it's a Martin family genealogy, not a notability-making book about him. Bearcat (talk) 17:04, 4 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete: Not notable person. Notability is not inherited from the legacy of the father so this is an invalid bio especially since Wikipedia is not a vehicle for genealogy. The company is covered in the Oakdale, Louisiana article and the subject has notable mention in the Alexandria, Louisiana article. Otr500 (talk) 12:11, 8 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. — JJMC89 (T·C) 01:02, 10 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Jason Rosam (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

BLP for radio personality and station director. Doesn't seem to have any secondary sources about him that I can find, so doesn't look like he passes WP:BASIC for notability. The few secondary sources that do exist that mention him are about the station Wandsworth Radio, so the station seems notable but I don't think he himself is. Maybe redirect his page to the Wandsworth Radio page? Meszzy² (talk) 05:51, 2 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Radio-related deletion discussions. KCVelaga (talk) 05:55, 2 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. KCVelaga (talk) 05:55, 2 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Article seems too detailed. They must be a hardcore "fan" if they know so much minor info. Agree with the idea of redirecting the page to Wandsworth Radio. Although looking at that article, that seems there's scope for that to be deleted? 132.185.161.127 (talk) 12:41, 8 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Questionable notability. PureRED | talk to me | 19:24, 8 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Not notable, ore about Wandsworth Radio than the person. 132.185.161.127 (talk) 13:52, 9 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. This matches his user page, so clearly self-promoted page. See User:Purplehead. Also, there is more information on Rosam's page about Wandsworth radio than him. UK Wiki User (talk) 18:52, 9 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. — JJMC89 (T·C) 01:03, 10 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Sandeep Deswal (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

Lacks sourcing on both Google and Google news. Sources in the article seem very peacock-y, sending up a red flag. Seems to be an attempt to get this guys' picture out more than anything.  I dream of horses (My talk page) (My edits) @ 05:07, 2 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions.  I dream of horses (My talk page) (My edits) @ 05:08, 2 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions.  I dream of horses (My talk page) (My edits) @ 05:08, 2 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Wrestling-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 05:22, 2 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Per nom, seems like a peacock article Kb03 (talk) 17:05, 8 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - sources not sufficient to establish notability Spiderone 21:30, 9 April 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) 11:02, 11 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Oksana Gedroit Jager (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

This model is not notable at all. There’s nothing to show for her career—and no reliable sources at all (“Fashion Encyclopedia” is literally one big copyright violation). There’s really only a regional thing from 15min but that’s not enough for an article to stand on. An article cannot rely on one source. I put a notability tag but the author removed it... (talk) 16:07, 10 March 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 March 10. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 16:29, 10 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Icewhiz (talk) 16:32, 10 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fashion-related deletion discussions. Icewhiz (talk) 16:32, 10 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lithuania-related deletion discussions. Icewhiz (talk) 16:32, 10 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

First of all, how is she not notable? She is a working model, constantly shooting for different ads and magazines and doing runway shows. She is still active and has more followers than some of the models you Trillfendi have written articles for! If you were even remotely interested in the fashion industry you would know that. I'm sure her followers would be interested to read about her on wikipedia. And stating that there's only one source, when there's five different sources, is clearly a lie. But I guess IMG Models is not reliable, right? Bianca1703 (talk) 15:28, 13 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Bianca1703: Get this... someone’s number of “followers” on social media is irrelevant to a Wikipedia article. Being a working model doesn’t equal being a notable model if there’s no way to independently verify said work. And if you really want to make this about IMG, I’m looking at the board right now and counted at least 101 models on the Main Board who are not notable enough right now by general notability standards to have a Wikipedia page. Being signed to IMG Models is not automatic notability. That’s not how this works. And with regard to these “sources”, it’s absolute RIDICULOUS to think “hautespotter”, “fashionencyclopedia”, and “AESTHETICCULT” are anywhere near the realm of reliable sources on this website. And IMG is a primary source so it doesn’t even count. Now since you’re trying to make this me and my interests—why would I have created 65 fashion model articles so far, help create 10, and have 74 model articles currently in the draft space if I wasn’t “even remotely interested in the fashion industry.” Blatantly, by now, I know what I’m doing on this subject. People are welcome to disagree with me on any AfD, yet I know enough to have created multiple model articles from scratch in just one day. This is not WP:ILIKEIT or WP:IDONTLIKEIT. Trillfendi (talk) 16:23, 13 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Trillfendi: It's 2019, of course followers matter. They are people who will actively search for more information on someone and would want to read an article on wikipedia. So you're trying to say that journalists who independently did their research and interviews and wrote articles aren't credible? They are not good enough for wikipedia, right? Get off your high horse! It's getting ridiculous.

To many people, like me, Oksana is better known than many of the models you created articles on. Just accept that different people are interested in reading articles about different models. Just because YOU are not interested in her and YOU didn't write the article, doesn't mean that no one else is. I don't go around marking your articles for deletion, because I know that someone out there might be interested in one of them. But also, I have better things to do with my time.

@Bianca1703: First of all, sign your comments. Secondly, read: followers don’t matter—to a Wikipedia page. Thirdly, “hautespotter”, “fashionencyclopedia”, and “AESTHETICCULT” don’t use “journalists”, get real. Articles require reliable sources, not blogs. Read the policy. It doesn’t matter how well known the subject is to you, it matters what can be verified. I’ve created pages for Model of the Year winners and unknowns; the difference is they have magazines like Vogue, Harper’s Bazaar, and Elle as sources. This is not about my opinion of the subject because frankly I couldn’t care less. This is about the fact that the subject doesn’t meet Wikiepdia’s notability standards. Had you actually sent this through the AfC process, a reviewer would have declined it. I didn’t propose deletion out of spite, so stop being so sensitive and look at this for what it is. If you actually had a reason to propose deletion on one of my articles then nothing would stop that from going forth. None of this is personal. Trillfendi (talk) 17:53, 14 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Comments: Civility is a policy as well as No personal attacks, and the way we follow that is by assuming good faith. These are part of the fundamental principles of Wikipedia. The first source I looked at, aestheticult.net, stated "Instagram is probably many models’ LinkedIn". While determining notability, coverage by reliable independent sources needs to be considered. WP:NMODEL gives added criterion for notability to be considered on all related articles and I don't yet see "industry related" sources only as reaching the bar. Otr500 (talk) 14:55, 20 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect to IMG (company)#IMG Models. Inadequate sourcing, but still a model for a notable company. ––Redditaddict69 ^{(talk) (contribs)} 21:58, 24 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Redirecting to a section of an article that has 3 sentences? Trillfendi (talk) 01:11, 25 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

WP:ATD. ––Redditaddict69 ^{(talk) (contribs)} 07:48, 25 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep - I think this subject definitely passes WP:NMODEL. The problem is that there are few English sources, however I have found several in Lithuanian which we should take a look at before deletion:

https://www.15min.lt/vardai/naujiena/lietuva/is-salcininku-kiles-modelis-oksana-gedroit-jager-savo-busima-vyra-sutiko-tokijuje-1050-440622 https://zmones.lrytas.lt/tv-antena/2014/10/06/news/niujorke-isikurusi-lietuve-kalbedama-su-mama-griebiasi-zodyno-4370390/

Skirts⁸⁹ 09:34, 25 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

What about, you know, actual fashion sources like Vogue. Oh wait, none are out there. Trillfendi (talk) 22:25, 28 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment She has often appeared in Vogue Japan (eg [20], [21], [22], [23], [24], etc) - searching on "Oksana Jager" helped to find those. RebeccaGreen (talk) 14:42, 31 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

4 links of street style photos... how useful. Trillfendi (talk) 14:58, 31 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Lack of independent, substantive sources to establish notability. "She" didn't appear in Vogue Japan, the clothes she wore to advertise did, with her name mentioned as part of a common job. Reywas92^Talk 06:41, 2 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Meets WP:NMODEL #1 "Has had significant roles in multiple notable ... other productions". I have added sources verifying that she has modelled for many notable brands. (It helps to search on all variations of her name - Oksana Gedroit Jager, Oksana Gedroit and Oksana Jager.) RebeccaGreen (talk) 16:06, 3 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Once again, a slideshow of 3 images and a smattering of street style photos (i.e. ≠off duty) does not do anything to indicate notability. Walking your dog while wearing Alexander Wang, etc. is not modeling for them, that’s off-duty. That’s not how any of this works. Trillfendi (talk) 21:24, 3 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Certainly if I walked a dog while wearing Alexander Wang, I would not be modelling for them. But when a professional model wears it, is photographed by a professional fashion photographer, and the photos are published in a leading fashion magazine, I would certainly call it modelling. I also disagree with the editor above, who said that she didn't appear in Vogue Japan, the clothes did. Funny how the clothes always appear on professional models, not just anybody (or nobody, just the clothes) - and that the models appear again and again .... RebeccaGreen (talk) 15:12, 4 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

That’s. Not. Modeling. It’s called being off duty. Meaning they’re off the clock. Not working. Not getting paid to wear clothes. Wearing their own clothes on their personal time. Trillfendi (talk) 15:30, 4 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete a model with WP:MILL mentions, but no WP:SIGCOV, not even the sort of special gigs - like becoming the face of a major brand - that make a model notable. Fails WP:NMODEL.E.M.Gregory (talk) 17:07, 10 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@E.M.Gregory: She was/is actually the face of lamer, and she was chosen because she has small scars on her face which make her stand out. Bianca1703 (talk) 18:14, 10 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I see the claim that she represents La Mer. what I do not see is WP:SIGCOV in WP:RS.E.M.Gregory (talk) 18:41, 10 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@E.M.Gregory: http://www.jymbenzing.com/advertising/2018/5/29/la-mer-soleil and https://www.imgmodels.com/tools/package-viewer/66091/7845/new-york/39/51a97c48de1d345aedef8b23fb7d2fa0 there was also another source from a photographer that I can't find at the moment. The photographer's name is Lewis Mirrett in case anyone else can find it. Bianca1703 (talk) 18:59, 10 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

PRIMARY sources do not establish notability. this appears to be mere PROMO for a fashion model. Wikipedia is not a a free billboard for anyone's career. E.M.Gregory (talk) 19:13, 10 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

How is a producer's and casting director's PORTFOLIO a promo for a model? It only shows the work he's done. I guess some gossip article is worth more on wikipedia. Bianca1703 (talk) 19:18, 10 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete: As not notable per nom and above User:E.M.Gregory. Also against cover-ups such as arbitrarily removing maintenance tags that is not a simple WP:BRD move. There is a difference in sources that are acceptable for article content and sources that advance notability. The second is what is lacking and certainly any significant, independent, reliable sources. Otr500 (talk) 22:57, 10 April 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. The arguments to keep this for the most part are arguments from authority, and do not provide concrete evidence that the subject meets WP:PROF, WP:NAUTHOR, WP:GNG, or some other criterion of notability. The arguments to delete are far stronger; Mike Christie's argument, in particular, is persuasive. Vanamonde (Talk) 17:54, 12 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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}}.

Rick Norwood (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

Effectively an unsourced BLP. Subject fails WP:NACADEMIC for mathematical contributions (no more than a two dozen or so citations on any of his 24 papers), WP:GNG, and his editorship work in comics seems to fail WP:AUTHOR. — MarkH21 (talk) 05:47, 25 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I would like to say a word or two in defense of the article about my work. The criteria in WP:NACADEMIC sets the bar quite high, and reads more like the criteria for, say, Encyclopedia Britannica than for Wikipedia. Wikipedia has a reputation for accuracy equal to that of the Britannica, but Wikipedia is clearly more inclusive, since the English Wikipedia alone contains more than one hundred times as many articles as the last print Britannica and more than forty times as many articles as the current on-line Britannica. If the WP:NACADEMIC standards were applied generally, I suspect a very large number of Wikipedia articles would be deleted. In mathematics, my 24 publications, some with two dozen citations, is not an inconsiderable number. In particular, I am one of the leading researchers in the area of knots on the double torus.

My claim for notability in my other area of interest, comic strips, is even stronger. I am one of the world's leading experts on newspaper comic strips, have written extensively on the subject, and have published approximately four hundred magazines reprinting classic comic strips, as well as editing books for other publishers.

I agree that as a writer of fiction my work (so far) is minor, and is only included along with other biographical information. Rick Norwood (talk) 17:25, 25 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

All Wikipedia articles are judged on the criteria of notability which have been established by consensus. This includes WP:GNG, WP:NACADEMIC, and WP:AUTHOR. If there are reliable sources that demonstrating that the subject of any article passes some criteria, then the article is usually adjudged to have sufficient notability to merit an article. As it stands now, there is no such evidence for the subject of this article for work in mathematics (by WP:GNG, WP:ANYBIO, or WP:NACADEMIC) nor work in comics (by WP:GNG, WP:ANYBIO, or WP:AUTHOR).

Note that of the 24 papers: none are indexed on Web of Knowledge nor Scopus (typically used citation metrics); 9 are indexed on MathSciNet (one with 8 citations, two with 6 citations, and three with 1 citation); and several are on Google Scholar (one with 23 citations, one with 15 citations, one with 5 citations, and the rest with 3 or fewer citations). I don't think that this typically qualifies as highly cited nor significant per WP:NACADEMIC. — MarkH21 (talk) 19:20, 25 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]