Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2019 July 9

Recent AfDs: Today Yesterday

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

< 8 July	10 July >

Guide to deletion

Purge server cache

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

The result was redirect to Subdivisions of Podgorica. I read a narrow consensus to redirect. This is backed-up by the argument that the article has no more information than the target. Indeed, the target has slightly more information in that it specifies this to be an urban community. I will copy across the two non-spam refs. Just Chilling (talk) 00:27, 17 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Sadine, Podgorica[edit]

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

No evidence of notability. This is one of a set expanded from a list of areas on a real estate website. Imaginatorium (talk) 17:43, 24 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Montenegro-related deletion discussions. Imaginatorium (talk) 17:43, 24 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 17:58, 24 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Lack of substantive sources asserting notability. Reywas92^Talk 19:39, 24 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. It is the subject of a "detailed urban plan" here. This is "Six papers were shortlisted for solving the area of Sadina in Podgorica" Eastmain (talk • contribs) 22:40, 24 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Just to clarify: I do not think there is any dispute that the placename exists; but it has to be "notable", and being the subject of urban planning does not in itself amount to notability. The name could be included in a "list of suburbs" on the Podgorica page, if that was thought genuinely helpful. Imaginatorium (talk) 05:04, 25 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment, as there is nothing there at the moment how about a Redirect from Sadine to List of Podgorica neighbourhoods and suburbs? Coolabahapple (talk) 14:16, 27 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Subdivisions of Podgorica. I think this is the best redirect target, as Podgorica does not have a list of suburbs and List of Podgorica neighbourhoods and suburbs has a paragraph of descriptive info on each entry. We do not have any sources giving descriptive info, so it makes sense to redirecto the subdivisions page, where Sadine is already listed. --Cerebellum (talk) 16:55, 28 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

fair enough. Coolabahapple (talk) 23:23, 28 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Just Chilling (talk) 19:22, 2 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Just Chilling (talk) 22:55, 9 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Subdivisions of Podgorica as per Cerebellum. As a populated place, it meets WP:GEOLAND, but the article in its present form is now worth having. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 10:26, 10 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Comments (by proposer): I see the argument for redirecting. Should/Could I also redirect all the other names copied from the estate agent's list? Then can anyone explain the point of having two separate articles: (1) List of Podgorica neighbourhoods and suburbs at least has content, though in a normal encyclopedia such content would be in an article Podgorica (here there is an intervening article Podgorica Capital City which is a sort of top-level "list of placenames"; and (2) Subdivisions of Podgorica, which is just a content-free list of possible subdivisions, many redlinked, uncited, or just dead ends. Imaginatorium (talk) 14:36, 10 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Article is notable enough to stand in its own; no redirection to an unsourced main article is needed by making a WP as a directory for populated places which readers are uniquely querying. Shevonsilva (talk) 04:33, 11 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The entire body text of the "article" is: "Sadine is a suburb of Podgorica, Montenegro." Can you explain what information this gives the reader other than including "Sadine" in a list of suburbs of Podgorica? (And what is a "unique query" in this context?) Imaginatorium (talk) 06:20, 11 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect to List of Redwall episodes#Season 1: Redwall (1999). Ad Orientem (talk) 04:44, 17 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Redwall: The Movie[edit]

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

No reliable or useful sources of any sort, overly promotional, overinflated plot section and little to indicate notability. Prod was declined with no comment on any of these points Jac16888 ^Talk 20:36, 2 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

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

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

Speedy Delete Way too promotional and rambling in tone and style.TH1980 (talk) 05:05, 4 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Just Chilling (talk) 22:42, 9 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Redwall (TV series). As far as I can tell, this "movie" was just a shortened compilation of the first season of the TV series. There are no sources that really show that this compilation had any sort of notability independent of the series it was cobbled together from, so it makes no sense to have this as a separate article. Redirecting this to the series' article, and perhaps giving a brief line or two there mentioning that the series was condensed to this movie, is about all it needs. Rorshacma (talk) 23:08, 9 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to List of Redwall episodes#Season 1: Redwall (1999) and note there and in the series article it was re-edited for a theatrical release in 2000. Nate • (chatter) 00:11, 10 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Minimally this title is useful as a Redirect, that's why I deprodded. If the movie were not closely connected to other clearly notable topics (TV series, novel) we could talk about deletion on WP:N or WP:TNT grounds. It is connected so we don't need to expend that energy. ~Kvng (talk) 21:46, 10 July 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. The weight of WP:PAG based arguments appears to establish a rough, but viable consensus in favor of keeping this article. Ad Orientem (talk) 04:50, 17 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Caleb Foote[edit]

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

Fails WP:NACTOR. Could find essentially no secondary sources that discuss him more in depth besides an interview with his alma mater. May be worth taking a look at other articles by same creator, they seem to be equally non-notable. Etzedek24 ^{(I'll talk at ya) (Check my track record)} 16:57, 2 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I am also nominating the following pages because they are similarly non-notable actors created by the same editor and only sourced from interviews, press releases, and IMDB. Etzedek24 ^{(I'll talk at ya) (Check my track record)} 17:09, 2 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. IntoThinAir (talk) 17:50, 2 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Michigan-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 18:08, 2 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 18:08, 2 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 18:09, 2 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 18:09, 2 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Minnesota-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 18:10, 2 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Wisconsin-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 18:10, 2 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 18:10, 2 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Theatre-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 18:11, 2 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of New Jersey-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 18:13, 2 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Washington-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 18:15, 2 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. The work in film and video adds up to notability. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 21:11, 2 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete all none of these people have enough sourcing to show notability. IMDb and twitter are not reliable.John Pack Lambert (talk) 03:11, 3 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Procedural Comment - Connected AfDs are supposed be for pages that are associated with each other, such as a musician's article and his various album articles. This nomination makes a fairly specific statement about Caleb Foote's notability, but then grouped in several other people simply because they are also child actors. It is illegitimate to nominate all of them while only examining the first, and to vote in the same fashion. ---DOOMSDAYER520 (Talk|Contribs) 15:02, 3 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Doomsdayer520: In my experience, bundling has been used for grouping together many articles by the same author, and in this case I've bundled the other articles because they were created by the same author and have similar notability concerns, not simply because they're child actors. Etzedek24 ^{(I'll talk at ya) (Check my track record)} 16:22, 3 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Caleb Foote - under the WP:TOOSOON standard, because all he has so far are basic entries in industry directories and WP:ROUTINE cast listings. No comment on everyone else in the nomination unless they are spun out into their own AfDs with proper reasoning. ---DOOMSDAYER520 (Talk|Contribs) 15:05, 3 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment Doomsdayer520 I see all the actors listed on this AfD appeared on The Kids are Alright, so I guess they have that in common (and thus the procedural close won't stand). Jovanmilic97 (talk) 19:08, 3 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Etzedek24 Andy Walken absolutely meets WP:NACTOR for significant roles in The Kids are Alright and A Christmas Story Live!, so that one should be struck or removed. Sawyer Barth could meet WP:NACTOR for roles in The Kids are Alright and Super Dark Times, but Super Dark Times revolved around the characters played by Owen Campbell (actor) and Charlie Tahan, so I find him a marginal case. The rest seem to fail the criteria. Jovanmilic97 (talk) 19:05, 3 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Jovanmilic97: Point taken on Walken. Seeing him as Ralphie should have clicked, combined with a recurring role on the other show. I'll strike it. Etzedek24 ^{(I'll talk at ya) (Check my track record)} 19:11, 3 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

- - Comment No problem. Please don't erase my comment like you did on [1] though. I have reinstated it back. Jovanmilic97 (talk) 19:23, 3 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, sorry about that. Definitely not my intention, I just resolved the edit conflict improperly. Etzedek24 ^{(I'll talk at ya) (Check my track record)} 19:30, 3 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Artists are known by their work. The work iadds up to notability. Lightburst (talk) 20:09, 3 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. This actor has a significant, ongoing role in a network TV series. -- Ssilvers (talk) 17:19, 7 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

WP:NACTOR specifies multiple significant roles to be presumed notable, he just has one recurring role. Also, I don't think it's as important, but the show is not ongoing, it was cancelled after one season. Etzedek24 ^{(I'll talk at ya) (Check my track record)} 23:38, 9 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Just Chilling (talk) 22:41, 9 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment A major problem with WP articles about many actors is that they only list screen roles. Caleb Foote's article has tables only for Film and video, and Television, and yet the lead para states that "He received the San Diego Theatre Critics Circle 2017 Craig Noel Award for Outstanding Male Performance for his role in Hand to God." So he has clearly had roles on stage, and at least one role notable enough to win an award, and yet his stage roles are not listed elsewhere in the article, and all the discussion here has focused on screen roles. His stage roles need to be taken into account as well. I will try to see what I can do. RebeccaGreen (talk) 06:20, 10 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I believe that Caleb Foote meets WP:NACTOR with his roles in The Kids are Alright and Hand to God. That definitely did not receive just routine cast listings - I have added quotes from reviews, which said his performance was virtuosic, remarkable, extraordinary, it was "young Foote’s show" - a notable performance in a notable play. I will check the other actors nominated and vote on them separately - it's not possible to assess different people just on the basis that their articles were created by the same editor (and Foote is not a child actor; I don't know about the others yet.)RebeccaGreen (talk) 08:50, 10 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
KeepCaleb Foote per User:RebeccaGreen.E.M.Gregory (talk) 14:08, 10 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Procedural Comment I have added some sources to David Alan Smith (actor). How the nom Etzedek24 can justify bundling all these actors together, just because they were created by the same editor who used unreliable sources, I don't know. The only thing that David Alan Smith shares with the other actors included in the AfD is that he appeared on The Kids are Alright. He is most definitely not a child actor, as he was born in 1959 and has a career of over 30 years! Please separate the nominations, so they can each be considered on their own merits. RebeccaGreen (talk) 21:33, 10 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@RebeccaGreen: I struck the child actor comment a while back--and see above for comments related to the viability of a procedural close. That these articles are connected by the series and created by the same editor is a fine grounds for bundling. Etzedek24 ^{(I'll talk at ya) (Check my track record)} 21:59, 10 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Reply I don't know where you struck it, but you say "not simply because they're child actors" at 16:22, 3 July 2019 above. The state of sourcing in an article is not grounds for deleting, unless a thorough WP:BEFORE has been done, which it clearly hasn't in these cases. It's not always clear whether editors are !voting on one or all nominated articles here, so I don't know how a closing editor is going to be able to assess them. RebeccaGreen (talk) 22:09, 10 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I did do a BEFORE, and nothing of note turned up except for interviews and cast announcements. The only sourcing that has been added to the articles so far are primary sources. Etzedek24 ^{(I'll talk at ya) (Check my track record)}

WP:NACTOR requires "significant roles in multiple notable films, television shows, stage performances, or other productions". The sources added verify the roles these actors have had, and the attention paid to them by reviewers. Reviews are certainly acceptable sources for WP:CREATIVE #3, which requires "multiple independent periodical articles or reviews". They are not considered primary sources about actors, authors, etc; they are only primary sources about the reviewers, which are not the subject of these articles. RebeccaGreen (talk) 03:53, 11 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Concur with Rebecca green that bundling is inappropriate for this list of actors. they should be considered separately.
Comment: The other actors have been unbundled. Etzedek24 ^{(I'll talk at ya) (Check my track record)} 05:06, 11 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you! That makes it much more straightforward :-) RebeccaGreen (talk) 09:27, 11 July 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. The consensus is that this footballer meets WP:GNG. Just Chilling (talk) 00:00, 17 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Cristian Cálix[edit]

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

Article fails WP:GNG and WP:NFOOTBALL. Subject has not played in a fully professional league nor has be represented his nation at senior level or at the Olympuc Games. Simione001 (talk) 22:39, 9 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. Simione001 (talk) 22:41, 9 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Simione001 (talk) 22:41, 9 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Did you User:Simione001 check for GNG sources? A quick Google news search finds lots of recent media coverage. And two of the older sources in Spanish Wikipedia article es:Cristian Cálix look pretty significant here and here. It would be unusual for a player to have had that many starts with Marathon not to have gained significant media coverage. Nfitz (talk) 01:59, 10 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
- The first one - maybe. The second is just a routine article about his transfer to Atlas. Simione001 (talk) 02:04, 10 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  - Where, User:Simione001 does it say that GNG coverage can't be routine? Normally I see arguments that a paragraph or two in a local paper about a transfer is routine, and doesn't indicate notability. This was 11 paragraphs in a major publication. Nfitz (talk) 14:13, 12 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. – Levivich 03:00, 10 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete – While the La Prensa article might count as SIGCOV, that's the only example I can find. Doesn't seem to meet GNG or NFOOTY. – Levivich 03:37, 10 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - More than enough to satisfy GNG: La Prensa, La Prensa, Diez, Diez, Diez, Radio HRN, AS and Diario Más - that's not even counting the heaps of transfer-related stuff. Added to the fact the player has just joined Real Monarchs in the (WP:FPL-listed) USL Championship, so a NFOOTY pass most likely isn't far away - Draftify at worst. R96Skinner (talk) 05:34, 10 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
- I saw those sources but didn't see them as in-depth or non-routine enough to meet GNG. La Prensa 2019 looks like a standard new-guy-on-the-team interview. La Prensa 2017 is the one everyone seems to agree is WP:SIGCOV. Diez Apr 2019 is six sentences about a game in which he scored his first goal for Atlas Sub-20. Diez Mar 2019 is five sentences about his debut. Diez 2018 is an interview about contract negotiations. Radio HRN is a three-sentence game report. AS 2018 appears to be the same interview as Diez 2018, just shorter. Diario Mas is three sentences about his debut. Other than La Prensa 2017, I'm struggling to see how any of those sources count towards GNG. – Levivich 05:25, 11 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  - You dismiss La Prensa 2019, an in-depth interview in one of the nation's largest newspapers as routine and "looks like a standard new-guy-on-the-team interview"? I typically don't see any coverage of such non-notable players in major newspapers, unless they die suddenly or rob a bank. Sure, it's routine to have in-depth interviews of notable people in big newspapers. How can you suggest this doesn't meet GNG? Nfitz (talk) 14:05, 12 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    - La Prensa (Honduras) has a circulation of 61,000 (and Diez (Honduras) is La Prensa's sports paper). The biggest difference between La Prensa 2017 and La Prensa 2019 is that the 2017 article includes independent reporting in the publication's own voice. The 2019 article is a Q&A–all the content is coming from the player, not from the journalist. So I don't see it as independent, but as an WP:ABOUTSELF source that should not be used to establish notability. Another difference is that in the 2019 interview, almost all of the questions asked aren't about the player, but about the player joining a new team and how he feels about that. So it's not in-depth coverage of the player; it's the player giving his opinions on a transfer. In the 2017 article, there is more content about the player himself. Finally, even if you count La Prensa 2019 as WP:SIGCOV, it's still the same source as La Prensa 2017, so we don't have significant coverage in multiple independent reliable sources. The non-La Prensa sources put forward are Radio HRN (3 sentences) and Diario Mas (3 sentences). (AS 2018 appears to be a condensed version of the Diez 2018 interview linked above, so same source as La Prensa.) – Levivich 17:13, 12 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
      - An interview in a major newspapers is not WP:ABOUTSELF. ABOUTSELF refers to self-published and questionable sources - not one of the largest newspapers in the nation. Multiple sources aren't a firm WP:GNG requirement - there isn't even a firm requirement to have more than one GNG source. You seem to be far more interested in non-existent rules - your time would surely be better spent improving the article. Are there other sources ... possibly ... I haven't even looked yet - I was simply shocked at how much I found in a few seconds, which clearly demonstrates a WP:BEFORE fail. Nfitz (talk) 20:02, 12 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
        That so-called "BEFORE fail" would be more clearly demonstrated if you posted an example of WP:SIGCOV that doesn't come from La Prensa. – Levivich 20:40, 12 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
        
        I did above, but you wrongly claimed that in-depth interviews don't count. There's also no end of coverage in Diez (which is a separate publication from La Prensa, despite the shared ownership. How is this not notable? Nfitz (talk) 17:11, 13 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
        Diez and La Prensa are published by the same publisher, Organización Publicitaria, S.A. aka es:Grupo OPSA. (Our article Diez (Honduras) redirects to La Prensa (Honduras).) If you look at the Diez article you link to, almost everything said in the journalist's voice are the same things said in the journalist's voice in the La Presna 2017 article, with similar details/anecdotes (used to be a coffee cutter, five siblings, loves his parents). There's sigcov in La Prensa and its sports paper Diez, but there isn't sigcov outside of that (that has been brought forward so far), so I don't see the "multiple sources" part of GNG being met. – Levivich 19:55, 13 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
        There are other Diez articles - you are cherry picking. There's more than enough material here from reliable sources to write an article; arguing that there's a convergence of media ownership in a remote part of a third-world nation, surely raises concerns of systemic bias! There are no hard-and-fast rules - you are applying black-and-white rules that don't exist! Nfitz (talk) 05:29, 14 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
        
        This is what WP:GNG says about the need to have multiple sources, and why I think the Diez and La Prensa articles all count as one source, esp. the parts about multiple publications from the same organization and about "restating the same information": There is no fixed number of sources required since sources vary in quality and depth of coverage, but multiple sources are generally expected ... Multiple publications from the same author or organization are usually regarded as a single source for the purposes of establishing notability ... Lack of multiple sources suggests that the topic may be more suitable for inclusion in an article on a broader topic. It is common for multiple newspapers or journals to publish the same story, sometimes with minor alterations or different headlines, but one story does not constitute multiple works. Several journals simultaneously publishing different articles does not always constitute multiple works, especially when the authors are relying on the same sources, and merely restating the same information. Similarly, a series of publications by the same author or in the same periodical is normally counted as one source. – Levivich 16:29, 15 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
        ...and the WP:BASIC part of WP:NBIO goes even further: People are presumed notable if they have received significant coverage in multiple published secondary sources that are reliable, intellectually independent of each other, and independent of the subject. (emphasis added) Almost-identical language is at WP:NATHLETE. – Levivich 16:54, 15 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Unless no Honduran newspaper is a reliable source anymore, Cálix clearly passes WP:GNG. SportingFlyer T·C 17:29, 15 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
La Prensa is just one of several newspapers in Honduras. It is based in the northwest region, in the city San Pedro Sula. There's also El Periódico, El Tiempo, La Tribuna, and El Heraldo, among others. See List of newspapers in Honduras (and this report by MediaLandscapes.org). Calix's first team was C.D. Marathon, which is a team in San Pedro Sula, where La Prensa is published. La Prensa and Diez are published by the same publisher. So what we have for SIGCOV is the local city paper reporting on the new guy on the local team, plus coverage in the sports paper that has the same owner as the local city paper. Quite to the point, what we don't have (yet) is SIGCOV in any of the other Honduran papers. So it's not even national coverage in his own country. I'm saying Diez should not be considered a separate source from La Prensa, nor should multiple publications within La Prensa or within Diez count as separate sources. It's not "discrediting" Honduran newspapers to point out that only one Honduran media company is actually writing about this, and it's because he played for the team in their home city. The two sources, Diez and La Prensa, aren't intellectually independent of each other; the Diez SIGCOV example pulls directly from the La Prensa article. To my eyes, it doesn't meet the "multiple" requirement as explained at NBIO, NATHLETE, etc. – Levivich 18:11, 15 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
And BTW, other editors may agree to disagree with my source analysis, but please don't tell me I'm discrediting Honduran newspapers or that my reasoning has no basis in policy. I come to my conclusions by applying our notability guidelines (e.g., that multiple sources must be intellectually independent of each other, that a series of publications by the same author or in the same periodical is normally counted as one source) to the facts (e.g., La Prensa and Diez have the same owner; La Prensa is published in the city where the player plays; no other Honduran newspaper is publishing SIGCOV of the player). – Levivich 18:22, 15 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

You have a self-noted bias against football biographies and you're trying to delete this on a false technicality. Many newspapers share a publisher. La Prensa and Diez are two separate and distinct publications. Considering AS.com has written multiple articles on him, and he's received coverage in other locations such as [2], [3], or [4], that only San Pedro Sula is writing about him is simply untrue. Your reasoning has no basis in policy. SportingFlyer T·C 18:30, 15 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I do not have a bias against footballers, I have a bias in favor of our notability guidelines. Let's look at those four sources:
- The only AS.com source I've seen put forward here is AS 4 Aug 2018, which is a summary of an interview in Diez (En entrevista con el Diario Diez ..., emphasis in original, referring to this Diez 4 Aug 2018 interview). That same Diez interview (which Nfitz posted above) takes almost everything said in the publication's own voice from the La Prensa 2017 article (see discussion of this point above). So AS 4 Aug 2018 = Diez 4 Aug 2018 = La Prensa 2017. I count those as the same source, and my reasoning is based in WP:GNG (Several journals simultaneously publishing different articles does not always constitute multiple works, especially when the authors are relying on the same sources, and merely restating the same information.) and WP:NATHLETE ("Intellectual independence" requires not only that the content of sources be non-identical, but also that the entirety of content in a published work not be derived from (or based in) another work (partial derivations are acceptable) ... A biography written about a person contributes toward establishing his or her notability, but a summary of that biography lacking an original intellectual contribution does not.).
- The first new source SF linked to in the above comment, Notiulti, does not appear to be a WP:RS to me, but even assuming that it is a reliable source, this is what it says about Calix: Cálix, who had already been summoned in the Copa MX to face the Pumas ... We must remember that Calix signed from last December 28 with Atlas, but you know what it is to sweat the skin of the "Foxes" when he added his first minutes with the U-20 team in the draw to zero goals against Morelia, and where he was booked with a yellow card. Not in-depth in my opinion.
- The second source you link to appears to be a mirror of this Informador article (a Guadalajara paper), here's what it says about Calix: The 19-year-old forward Cristian Cálix decided not to continue with the Marathon of Honduras because he reached an agreement with the Atlas, which will be for four years. The young attacker is already in Mexico, to get the necessary medical studies and sign his contract. Cálix comes to Mexican soccer for the showcase that he offers, besides that economically he will be much better than with the Marathon ... The young attacker was not acquired by Españyol of the Spanish League, he was on trial but he did not convince, and in the Marathon he did things well. I don't see this as in-depth.
- The third source you link to NTR Guadalajara, here's what it says about Calix: The Honduran Cristian Cálix is close to defending the colors of the Atlas for the Clausura 2019. This element is a promise of his country that according to some sources in Central America did not renew his contract with the club Marathon to come to the Foxes. The catracho is a 19-year-old extreme midfielder who is also selected U-20, even participated in the past Central American and Caribbean Games in Colombia. Cálix is in the sights of clubs such as Olimpia, Motagua and Real España, but Atlas has negotiated the advantage and could sign in the course of the week once it arrives in Guadalajara. Not seeing this one as in-depth enough to count as WP:SIGCOV, either. The only SIGCOV examples all appear to come from La Prensa/Diez. – Levivich 21:14, 15 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I think all of those are in depth, though the notiulti.com doesn't appear to be a RS, you're right. If they were the only articles then he'd be borderline/a weak keep, but they're not. Diez.hn has written about Cálix - where he's mentioned in the headline! - at least 20 times. He's so notable La Prensa wrote a story on when his mother died. [5] La Tribuna - owned by a different company than Diez or La Prensa - has mentioned Cálix over a dozen times in their headlines (and then invariably link to diariomas.com). SportingFlyer T·C 22:11, 15 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - probably scrapes by on GNG. Giant Snowman 07:34, 10 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep passes WP:GNG.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 08:57, 10 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep easily meets GNG with some of the sources referenced in the article and others. Particularly this, this, and this. Nfitz (talk) 17:11, 13 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Easily meets WP:GNG. SportingFlyer T·C 19:08, 13 July 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. Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 17:20, 16 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Olympus Villas[edit]

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

Nothing in article mentions why this place would be notable, and an internet search doesn't bring much. Fails WP:NBUILD. I was going to PROD it, but just wanted to hear others' opinions. William2001^(talk) 22:17, 9 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete- I completely agree with nominator, Olympus Villas is very clearly non-notable. Meeanaya (talk) 05:07, 10 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 06:40, 10 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Cyprus-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 06:40, 10 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as per nom - fails WP:GNG. Jmertel23 (talk) 15:26, 10 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as per nom and all of this editors new articles need to be deleted. I have been re-directing them to the actual city or township they are located in but I think a deletion would be better.VViking_TalkEdits 14:14, 11 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete There may be hundreds of these places around the world nothing makes this one notable. Alex-h (talk) 12:52, 14 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete there's nothing special or notable about this apartment complex, because that's exactly what this is. Praxidicae (talk) 14:56, 16 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete no assertion or evidence of notability. Railfan23 (talk) 15:28, 16 July 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. Unanimity that the company fails notability guidelines. Just Chilling (talk) 22:21, 16 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

SadoTech Doorbells[edit]

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

Non notable company. All references except two are to the company website or YouTube channel. Of the two, one is a personal report on using a doorbell in kindergarten. The other has no mention of SadoTech. CambridgeBayWeather, Uqaqtuq (talk), Sunasuttuq 21:41, 9 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 21:48, 9 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 21:48, 9 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 21:50, 9 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Delete- Non-notable company, lacks RS. It could have been speedy deleted instead of AFD. Meeanaya (talk) 04:55, 10 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete- this is an advertising brochure. Reyk _YO! 07:00, 10 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete- Per above , this is advertisement, should have been speedy deleted. Alex-h (talk) 13:00, 14 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete- Agree with the above, advertisement and should be deleted. Bottletoppen 16:00 15 July 2019 (UTC)

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

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

The result was delete and redirect to Viktor Frankl. What's left is already included in Viktor Frankl so I have just set up a redirect. Just Chilling (talk) 20:18, 16 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Statue of Responsibility[edit]

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

Promotional non-notable text has gradually been removed until all that's left is redundant with the page for Viktor Frankl. The article is about a proposed statue that was never built. The original version of the article advertised something called the Statue of Responsibility Foundation, which was apparently attempting to build the statue, and linked to its website, which is defunct. The main blockquote featured in the article already appears under Viktor_Frankl#Legacy. Tophtucker (talk) 19:59, 9 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. Tophtucker (talk) 19:59, 9 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletion discussions. Tophtucker (talk) 19:59, 9 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. Tophtucker (talk) 19:59, 9 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Merge what's left to Viktor Frankl. There are a few sources but not enough to merit a standalone article.ThatMontrealIP (talk) 22:20, 9 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Merge/redirect to Viktor Frankl. This currently fails WP:CRYSTAL. Peterkingiron (talk) 15:26, 15 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Merge with Viktor Frankl. This is only a brief article, and a merge should not prove too difficult. Vorbee (talk) 16:51, 16 July 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. Unanimity that the page fails notability guidelines. Just Chilling (talk) 19:58, 16 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

-kinesis[edit]

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

Duplication of material already present at Wiktionary entry. I can find no evidence that the topic otherwise meets WP:GNG (i.e. the suffix -kinesis doesn't seem to be the subject of works I can find). I'd suggest deletion per WP:N and WP:Wikipedia is not a dictionary. Ajpolino (talk) 19:54, 9 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Language-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 20:06, 9 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. While this article possibly has a potential to become a more fully developed list-class article like List of phobias, in practice I could find no significant non-dictionary sources describing the suffix. Without in-depth reliable sources, the article fails WP:GNG and I cannot see any good alternative to deletion at the moment. Hence, delete. --{{u|Mark viking}} {Talk} 21:16, 9 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Most of the entries are unattested neologisms regarding superpowers that are nowhere near being notable as concepts – some (e.g. cocoakinesis) are just completely silly! The previous AfD reached no consensus, but most of the Keep arguments conflicted with WP:NOTDICT or asserted WP:ITSUSEFUL. –LaundryPizza03 (d c̄) 21:19, 9 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Wikipedia is a not a rhyming dictionary. Bearian (talk) 18:18, 10 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:NOTDICT and perhaps also WP:INDISCRIMINATE. This is a list of unsourced, miscellaneous definitions without substantiative encyclopedic content, and most do not have standalone articles, also raising the question of which terms actually belong in such a list. Also, an extremely similar list exists at wikt:Category:English words suffixed with -kinesis (linked from the page linked by Ajpolino). ComplexRational (talk) 19:15, 10 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete and redirect to José Mesa. The consensus was to delete and I will set up a redirect to José Mesa. Merge was subject to discussion but the key information has already been added to his father's article. Just Chilling (talk) 20:05, 16 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Jose Mesa, Jr.[edit]

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

Used to be a prospect in the Yankees' and then in the Orioles' organization so the simple solution was to redirect to, say, New York Yankees minor league players. But he's now playing in independent leagues so that trick doesn't work anymore. We are left with a BLP that does not meet the baseball-specific notability criteria. There are a few references in the article but it's mostly routine coverage so I don't think he meets WP:GNG either. Pichpich (talk) 18:47, 9 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete the article and Merge any relevant information to his father's article. Best, GPL93 (talk) 19:08, 9 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. CThomas³ (talk) 19:23, 9 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Baseball-related deletion discussions. CThomas³ (talk) 19:23, 9 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Caribbean-related deletion discussions. CThomas³ (talk) 19:23, 9 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Kansas-related deletion discussions. CThomas³ (talk) 19:23, 9 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

delete or merge I don't care which. Generally, minor league athletes don't generate the press necessary for passing notability requirements. At this time, I don't see any reason to make an exception here.--Paul McDonald (talk) 20:22, 9 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Certainly no reason for him to have his own article. Pitched a grand total of 63 innings in AA ball, which was the highest level he reached, and is now playing in an independent league. That his father was a major leaguer is irreelevant. He's already mentioned in his father's article and I would say that's as much coverage as he merits. Papaursa (talk) 18:45, 14 July 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. Unanimity that this resort fails notability guidelines. Just Chilling (talk) 19:50, 16 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Grizzly Jack's Grand Bear Resort[edit]

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

No significant coverage per WP:CORP. SL93 (talk) 18:38, 9 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Illinois-related deletion discussions. CThomas³ (talk) 19:25, 9 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 20:07, 9 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

delete All references given are primary. Didn't find any significant independent coverage to meet the GNG.Sandals1 (talk) 23:22, 13 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Most state and national parks probably have small resorts like this nearby, though the indoor water park and amusement park makes it a bit more interesting than a routine rural resort. The venue started in 2005, well within the world wide web era, but in a brief Google search, I've only found one source that would meet non-local WP:SIGCOV: 2 reviews by the same journalist for the St. Louis Post-Dispatch, [6] (2010-01-31) and [7] (2012-04-16). I've found several articles about the 2018 fire and re-opening, but all are local-market (or at least Chicago) news outlets that would be obligated to cover such things, except that one is Associated Press coverage that probably came from local/Chicago: CBS News via Associated Press (2018-01-02): significant coverage of 2018 fire. NewsTribune (2018-01-04): significant coverage of 2018 fire, from local newspaper. WGN-TV (2018-01-02): short coverage of 2018 fire; note that Grizzly Jack's local television market is Chicago despite the distance. WSPY radio (2019-04-03): short article from local media; says that Grizzly Jack's issued a press release saying they'd re-open after the 2018 fire. --Closeapple (talk) 04:22, 14 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
delete per Closeapple Sadads (talk) 13:35, 15 July 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) 18:14, 16 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Julien Lamy[edit]

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

PROD contested by IP, no reason given. Fails WP:GNG (lack of significant coverage) and WP:NFOOTBALL (has not played in a fully-professional league). Any speculation that he might become notable this season is pure WP:CRYSTAL. Giant Snowman 17:37, 9 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Giant Snowman 17:38, 9 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Ceethekreator (talk) 18:42, 9 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. Ceethekreator (talk) 18:42, 9 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of France-related deletion discussions. Ceethekreator (talk) 18:42, 9 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete (or at least Draftify) - whilst I fully expect Lamy to become notable via WP:NFOOTBALL in about a months time, GS is right and this is too soon. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Gricehead (talk • contribs)
Delete - He has not played in a fully pro league or received significant coverage, meaning the article fails WP:NSPORT and WP:GNG. Sir Sputnik (talk) 00:19, 12 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete fails WP:GNG, Alex-h (talk) 13:07, 14 July 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 soft delete. WP:REFUND applies. Randykitty (talk) 18:13, 16 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Ameba TV[edit]

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

Limited coverage in reliable sources, fails WP:NWEB. Störm (talk) 17:36, 9 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. Ceethekreator (talk) 18:44, 9 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. Ceethekreator (talk) 18:44, 9 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. Ceethekreator (talk) 18:44, 9 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy keep. Nomination withdrawn. (non-admin closure) CaptainPrimo (talk) 15:21, 10 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

List of one-hit wonders in the United States[edit]

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

This is an article that seems to be an attempt at an exhaustive list of an undefined concept. The criteria for inclusion is merely 2 source invoking the label even if they wildly disagree on their conception of what that is. Wikipedia already has an article on the concept of one-hit wonders. There is no purpose for a list that is entirely subjective and based on conflicting criteria. CaptainPrimo (talk) 17:12, 9 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. CThomas³ (talk) 19:51, 9 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. CThomas³ (talk) 19:51, 9 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 20:08, 9 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. There are lots of published lists of one-hit wonders. Every entry has two references, and while some of the sources are questionable, Afd is not for cleanup. Clarityfiend (talk) 00:03, 10 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Clearly a notable concept. Yes, the criteria used by the sources are subjective and vary from source to source, as is the case at numerous other list articles. Objectively, there is no best movie, worst president, etc. With objective selection criteria, however, we can obviously compile unranked lists of opinions from reliable sources. - SummerPhD^v2.0 01:04, 10 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep while the criteria for what is and isn't a one-hit wonder can be subjective, the list is very well sourced and the concept has widespread notability. Frank Anchor^Talk 14:06, 10 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Randykitty (talk) 18:13, 16 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Almaz Capital[edit]

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

A hedge fund with not much in the way of sourcing beyond press releases, created by a paid editor. A WP:G11 was contested, but even after removing large amounts of promotional material, I still can't see how we could improve this so the man in the street would understand the encyclopedic importance. I appreciate the article has been round the houses and improved at AfC, and has been on the Russian Wikipedia for a long time, but there must be something there I just don't get, unfortunately. So let's discuss it. Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 16:45, 9 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for starting this conversation Ritchie333. I am the person who nominated it for G11, which I stand by. While it was accepted at AfC, I think it was promotional. ~~I also have some concerns about the AfC reviewer given that they also accepted Nyotron.~~ Following the G11 decline, I then removed a substantial percentage of the promotional aspects. In looking at what remained, as the very start of my BEFORE, I came across two existing Russian language sources [8] [9] for which I didn't attempt to fully ascertain that they were RS but which definitely suggested the company had received substantial independent secondary coverage and so stopped me from nominating for lack of NCORP notability. So if this concludes we should delete because of PROMO, well I think that's a good outcome, but also think it is likely that this firm would, in a neutrally written version would meet our notability standard. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 17:24, 9 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. Ceethekreator (talk) 18:45, 9 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Ceethekreator (talk) 18:45, 9 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. Ceethekreator (talk) 18:45, 9 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The question is whether the organisation is notable, not whether it's a good article. Rathfelder (talk) 19:27, 9 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Actually the question is should the article be deleted. Deleting because of lack of notability is the most common reason but that does not, in my way of thinking, preclude deletion (or alternatives to deletion) for other policy based reasons. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 19:42, 9 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Finance-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 20:08, 9 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 20:08, 9 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: @Ritchie333: 1) The sources mentioned above: forbes (staff written) and vedomosti are definitely RS and prove the WP:NCORP. The article as accepted by me had over 40 citations, and was mostly a direct translation of the Russian version of the article that has been around since 2008. When @Barkeep49: has removed what he refers as "promotional content" he also removed more than 2/3 of citations. Alamaz is one of the biggest / successful venture funds in Russian (post Soviet) Eastern Europe, that is a significant corporation and has massive influence. I am puzzled how can a man from the street not understand the encyclopedic importance of that. In my opinion when dealing with subjects that have majority of coverage in a foreign language and there is an existing established page we should almost defer to the editors on that Wiki when it comes to questions of notability. But we don't have to, here is a Wiki list of Notable Venture Capital firms i just clicked through 10 of them and many of them include similar info to the one deleted by Barkeep49 (history of recent exits for example) and the ones that don't list the history of exits have less RS sources and news coverage than Almaz. So if you AFD Almaz why not all those other ones, this makes no sense.

P.S.( @Barkeep49: is your reference to Nyotron questioning my motives? Otherwise i don't see how it's relevant to this AFD) Shemtovca (talk) 01:22, 10 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

You're right that this is not the right forum for any concerns I might have about you and I have stricken the comment. However, the idea that a whole string of press releases and/or churnalism helps convey notability and isn't promotional is one I disagree with. I also think the other stuff exists doesn't change whether or not the content for this article was promotional. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 03:43, 10 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I agree with the sentiment expressed by Shemtovca; is there a mechanism for notifying the editors of the Russian version of this entry about this AfD? Looking at search results in Yandex (Russia's top search engine) and narrowing it down to the year of launch (2008), I'm seeing many articles that are probably independent, but I'll be the first to admit I don't know these publications. Examples: 1 2 3 4. Of course sustained coverage is necessary, and these refs only show proof that the company's launch and early activity was notable, but I'm pretty sure that if we sifted past all of the brief mentions (founder said this, partner said that) we'd find plenty more examples of substantial independent coverage between 2008 and today, between Yandex and Google. Pegnawl (talk) 18:57, 10 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Three important notes:

Let me quote my own reasoning from AfC. I will try to show, that Almaz Capital's notability for venture capital market is reflected in publications that suffice for reliable sources. The history of the fund has received significant coverage in multiple, independent, reliable publications in leading business and technological mass media. The oldest Russian business newspaper Kommersant extensively covered activities of Almaz Capital including transactions (2009 - investment in Parallels, 2015 - investments in data centers) and its internal life (2012 - detailed publication about the conflict between its founders). The second major Russian business newspapear Vedomosti also covered events that took place in Almaz Capital. There were publications about the establishment of Almaz Capital, fund raising, internal conflict, and numerous investments. In particular, the publication about purchase a stake in Yandex called the fund “one of the largest IT investors in Russia”. Forbes published a huge editorial article devoted to history of the fund entitled “How the Alexander Galitsky Foundation became the leader of the venture capital market”. It covers the history of the fund, its organization and principles, partners and most notable deals. The links proviced clearly indicate that Almaz Capital complies with WP:NCORP.
Before the nomination Barkeep49 removed a section of article that covered Almaz Capital's invesments and exits. The uncut version of the article is avaliable through the revision history. Investments are the core activity of venture capital (VC) firms, so a short representation of fund's portfolio is as important as corporate history. I looked through the Category:Venture capital firms of the United States and found out that most of them have short lists of invesments (even with short descriptions of portfolio companies' businesses!). Check the following articles: Accel, Silverton Partners, Index Ventures, Balderton Capital, Union Square Ventures, Valar Ventures, Tenaya Capital, Khosla Ventures, General Catalyst, and others.
The version of this article submitted for AfC additionally included the Almaz Capital's general and managing partners. Core teams are important for VC firms and that's why some of them carry partners' names, i.e. Andreessen Horowitz. I believe Bloomberg profiles generally suffice as RS for such a list 'cause they are basically a in-deepth reviews provided by S&P Global Market Intelligence and not the Bloomberg itself. You can see the list of partners in articles such as Kleiner Perkins, TechOperators, Founders Fund, etc. Gruznov (talk) 13:13, 11 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per Shemtovca, Best - Blake44 (talk) 22:38, 15 July 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 soft delete. WP:REFUND applies. Randykitty (talk) 18:06, 16 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Karunakara M Reddy[edit]

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

Does not appear to meet WP:BIO. I looked at all the references. Many don't mention him at all. Of the ones that do, they're all just quotes from him related to this business, press releases, and other sources that we would normally not consider contributing to WP:N.

The best source I see is The New Indian Express, but that's just a single source. WP:ANYBIO says, The person has received a well-known and significant award or honor. This source is about the subject receiving the Jal Daan Water Hero Award. I haven't been able to find much on this, so I'm assuming it doesn't qualify. I also note that searching for the term makes it look like Reddy is the only person who has ever won this award, which certainly means it doesn't qualify. -- RoySmith (talk) 15:24, 9 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. Icewhiz (talk) 15:37, 9 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Icewhiz (talk) 15:37, 9 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Environment-related deletion discussions. Icewhiz (talk) 15:38, 9 July 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. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 16:41, 16 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Harry Came[edit]

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

Not yet notable by WP:NCRIC, as hasn't played first class, List A or T20 cricket. Should merge/draftify with the existing Draft:Harry Came article until he plays enough senior cricket to become notable. The-Pope (talk) 14:11, 9 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. The-Pope (talk) 14:11, 9 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Cricket-related deletion discussions. The-Pope (talk) 14:11, 9 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. The-Pope (talk) 14:11, 9 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - I can find no news sources, for example, which deal with him in any form. Of course, it's a tricky search term, but I worked through a variety of possibilities and found nothing - although I should think there's stuff out there somewhere that at least mentions him. I need to see that before I could vote anything other than delete based on this being a BLP without any in depth sourcing. Blue Square Thing (talk) 12:37, 10 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - While he is in the Hampshire squad, he has yet to debut at any level which satisfies WP:CRIN. StickyWicket (talk) 15:08, 10 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete not enough sources. Also in the BBC website only mentioned him in a sentence and without any further details. Maybe in future he will have an article, Best - Blake44 (talk) 09:09, 16 July 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. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 16:41, 16 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

FaceRecog[edit]

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

Small startup. Some coverage around Tech in 2014 Asia’s Startup Asia Singapore - where they won a prize. Not much else. Not close to meeting WP:NCORP. Note I AfDed Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Muhd Amrullah (the founder) as well.Icewhiz (talk) 14:11, 9 July 2019 (UTC) Icewhiz (talk) 14:11, 9 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Icewhiz (talk) 14:11, 9 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. Icewhiz (talk) 14:11, 9 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Singapore-related deletion discussions. Icewhiz (talk) 14:11, 9 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete agree with nom. Nothing else to add. MaskedSinger (talk) 15:45, 9 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Note WP:CORPDEPTH which states "Examples of trivial coverage that do not count toward meeting the significant coverage requirement ... brief or passing mentions, such as ... non-notable awards received by the organization, its people, or products ... [and] presentations, speeches, lectures, etc. given by organization's personnel ... [and] other listings and mentions not accompanied by commentary, survey, study, discussion, analysis, or evaluation of the product, company, or organization." --Puzzledvegetable|💬|📧|📜 22:52, 9 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Dose not have significant coverage, is not a notable company. - MA Javadi (talk) 22:40, 13 July 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 soft delete. WP:REFUND applies. Randykitty (talk) 18:05, 16 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Muhd Amrullah[edit]

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

Founder of start up - fails WP:GNG. Not much that is in-depth on our subject. In terms of sources in the article, the first ref is a deadlink. The second one is in Guardian's network blog and is a video of our subject speaking. Ref3 - techinasia - is comments from our subject on his startup. Ref4 is a deadlink, and is a blog regardless. Ref5 (challengefuture.org) has blurbs from our subject in a group interview. Note I AFDed Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/FaceRecog (the startup) as well.Icewhiz (talk) 14:06, 9 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. Icewhiz (talk) 14:07, 9 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. Icewhiz (talk) 14:07, 9 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Singapore-related deletion discussions. Icewhiz (talk) 14:07, 9 July 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. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 16:41, 16 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Monkey X[edit]

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

I do not believe this topic meets the WP:GNG: The topic does not appear to have received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject.

Copy-pasting a comment from elsewhere: I found a small section of a book where the language is used as an example, a how-to program in the language book, an article where the language is used to explore game design, and then trivial mentions elsewhere (nothing of interest in Google, GNews, Gbooks, Gscholar). None of these strike me as rising to the requirements in the WP:GNG. Searches for the other names are similarly lacking. Izno (talk) 14:00, 9 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. Izno (talk) 14:00, 9 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. Izno (talk) 14:00, 9 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Agree with sentiments in Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Monkey (programming language). A quick search for WP:RS only found those above. Although there's a couple of games written in it which makes me lean towards keep, without third party sources this fails WP:GNG. Widefox; talk 11:13, 14 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete References are mainly from their official website and GitHub which they both fails WP:GNG, the references should be secondary from reliable sources, Best - Blake44 (talk) 22:44, 15 July 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. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 16:42, 16 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Amrullah Deep Liquidity[edit]

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

Appears to be original research; there are precisely two Google results for "Amrullah Deep Liquidity", both from the same website. ... discospinster _talk 13:40, 9 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Finance-related deletion discussions. Icewhiz (talk) 13:53, 9 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Recent tradingview post and naught much else - fails GNG. Also fails WP:NOTADVERTISING - possibly even grounds for speedy. We're actually stating in our voice "The average 12-month percentage net profit of ADL backtested across BTCUSD is 1621% and the average 1-month percentage net profit of ADL backtested across BTCUSD is 135% during the periods between 2017 to 2019." - which is, well.... If it's doing so well, why not trade yourself with this? Icewhiz (talk) 13:58, 9 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note I AfDed - Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Muhd Amrullah as well.Icewhiz (talk) 14:07, 9 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete agree 100% with the above. Nothing else to add. MaskedSinger (talk) 15:46, 9 July 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. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 16:42, 16 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Carl Obeysekera[edit]

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

Non first-class cricketer who played a few minor school matches and minor matches for Ceylon. Fails WP:CRIN. StickyWicket (talk) 13:00, 9 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Cricket-related deletion discussions. StickyWicket (talk) 13:00, 9 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. CASSIOPEIA^(talk) 13:04, 9 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sri Lanka-related deletion discussions. CASSIOPEIA^(talk) 13:04, 9 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Not notable enough. MaskedSinger (talk) 15:47, 9 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Does not pass CRIN. Articles linked have passing mention or list him as appearing in a photo, so no evidence that he passes GNG. Spike 'em (talk) 16:12, 9 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete a non-notable cricketeer. We have way too many articles on Wikipedia on such people.John Pack Lambert (talk) 21:57, 11 July 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 -- JHunterJ (talk) 14:21, 16 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Red Apollo (disambiguation)[edit]

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

I can only find two instances of 'Red Apollo': Red Apollo (Group) and the butterfly common red Apollo, which has no article or red link. Disambiguation is not necessary. Leschnei (talk) 12:48, 9 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Disambiguations-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 13:00, 9 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nominator; almost meets Wikipedia:G14. Geolodus (talk) 16:51, 9 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete The common red apollo does have an article under its scientific name Parnassius epaphus. The band is probably not notable and so this is a case where a hat note could suffice per WP:ONEOTHER. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 03:33, 11 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and {{For}} either the butterfly or the hackers. The band can probably be discounted as it doesn't even have sufficient content on deWP. --Elmidae (talk · contribs) 17:26, 11 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete with hatnote at primary topic. Shhhnotsoloud (talk) 22:47, 12 July 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) 18:03, 16 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Nooka[edit]

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

The company fails to meet WP:GNG and WP:CORP guidelines for notability. It is literally a one-man operation of founder Matthew Waldman (recently deleted) and some design interns. The article was authored by a user with WP:COI as a work of WP:PROMO and to this day, it is horribly misleading, full of twisted facts and outright lies. Perhaps it is most compelling to watch Matthew Waldman explain why his company is not notable in his Indiegogo video. Nooka has gotten some press for its designs but has not made them come to life as seen by what they attempt to sell. Instead, Nooka seems to be an e-begging instrument. See failed Pothra and Fairy projects. SVTCobra 12:44, 1 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. SVTCobra 12:44, 1 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 13:08, 1 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom, WP:GNG and WP:NCORP. Notwithstanding the video which the nominator highlights (in which the owner/operator of the company states himself that it is "such a small company"), the only coverage that I can find are all linked from the article itself. Like the Forbes piece. Which seems to be as much about how small companies use crowdfunding sites to overcome their size/funding issues, as it is about the subject itself. And, frankly, would seem to further reinforce the nominators point (that this company is no more notable than any other small organisation or Indiegogo subscriber). Other pieces like this one seem to reinforce this point. (That, of the limited coverage that the subject has had, much of it seems to be actually focused on its lack of notability/prominence.) The COI/promo overtones in the original creation are also concerning. Personally I'd advocate deletion. Guliolopez (talk) 14:29, 1 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep the nomination mentions all kinds of things that are not relevant to determining notability (one man operation, e-begging, crowdfunding etc), since we have no policies that prevent articles on companies that have these qualities. A video by the article subject plays no role in determining notability either: we go by independent sources here. What is relevant to determining notability is that it has had coverage in lots of good publications (Guardian, New York Times, Wired, Deignboom etc.) Once notable, always notable. Meets GNG easily. Additional sources:

Profiled in the book "Design Entrepreneur: Turning Graphic Design Into Goods That Sell"
Coverage in TechCrunch
coverage in Wired Magazine
Coverage in Fast Company
More Wired coverage
Core 77 coverage

And so on... ThatMontrealIP (talk) 15:25, 1 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

- Comment I mentioned such sources in the nomination, but I guess I will explain why I don't think they should count. If you read How to apply the criteria in WP:CORP, you will see they pretty much all fail. The book is a solid source, but it is an interview about Waldman/Nooka's efforts to bring prototypes into production. It is from 2008 and does not demonstrate notability or significance of this upstart company. TechCrunch, Wired, FastCompany coverage is all by freelance bloggers/writers and uses only media provided by Nooka (basically prototypes and illustrations). This fails a major criteria. Core77 lets designers submit projects for publication (they'll write about anybody). Also, the TechCrunch is about the crowdfunding for a new chronograph (photo of prototype) which despite the successful funding does not appear to have been manufactured. The Indiegogo is littered with complaints from people who paid but never got a watch. There's is no chronograph on any shopping site. Now, I know the WP:OR rule, but I don't think a contributed article about a prototype leads to notability for a whole company. Two of the articles you cite are about perfume and umbrellas neither of which appear to have gone into production. This lends to Nooka's notability how? The book explains how Nooka outsourced a run of 1000 watches. It is speculation, but I suspect they are still trying to sell inventory from that run. The fact that Waldman has been marketing savvy enough to get some press should not pass notability. There are probably tens of thousands of startups every year. If the article is kept it needs to be cleaned of lies such has having boutiques around the globe. Cheers, --SVTCobra 16:07, 2 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your comments. You have some good comments on the sources, but also I think you are engaging in analysis of the company based on your opinion (It is speculation, but I suspect...) of their success as a company. The fact is, there is lots of coverage in many varied independent sources, which easily meets GNG and probably NCORP. WP:AUD says "Evidence of significant coverage by international or national, or at least regional, media is a strong indication of notability.", and we have that here. It doesn't matter if they never shipped a product; nor does their financial health; we have any articles on bankrupt companies. Re your concerns, if you have sources for what you believe are their business failures, you should add them to the article.ThatMontrealIP (talk) 17:59, 2 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Whatever happens, the article cannot stand as is. No, I don't have sources for the recent failures. Nooka didn't submit those to tech bloggers. I have the failed Kickstarter projects, but that is Primary and would constitute WP:OR. The Forbes source currently cited in the article describes a company on the brink and needing $75K from Indiegogo, but of course it has been cherry-picked to be used only for the date of foundation. The book cited is also misused. It claims a design was commissioned by Seiko, but in the book, it was years before Nooka existed and Waldman worked for Seiko in Japan. The article needs so much work because it is WP:PROMO if it is notable. The author, User:Msurtees10001 aka Michael Surtees, is a real life acquaintance of Waldman. --SVTCobra 18:30, 2 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I can see you have concerns about the notability of the company. But to say it again, your speculation about who is friends with who in real life, how much the company has shipped and so on does not belong here. There are multiple sources in reliable independent publications. Please skip the speculation and stick to our established policies. You might also need to read the WP:OUTING policy as providing off-wiki information about someone's personal relationships is explicitly uncalled for. ThatMontrealIP (talk) 18:39, 2 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Just to point out that "lots of coverage" is *not* one of the criteria for establishing notability. It must be significant and in-depth coverage with intellectually independent content that contains original and independent opinion, analysis, investigation, and fact checking that are clearly attributable to a source unaffiliated to the subject. Regardless of whether SVTCobra is interpreting the content too much, the fact remains that not a single one of the references you meets these criteria. HighKing⁺⁺

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 02:13, 3 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment, this cv of Waldman states that Nooka watches are held at National Maritime Museum, and the Japanese Industrial Design Association Museum, have been unable to confirm this, it also lists a number of exhibitions including MOMA, again unable to confirm, they do/did sell the watches (see here), the watches also appear to be popular amongst some celebs, see here. on the fence, leaning over into the keep side, a bit more/confirmations required to push me in... Coolabahapple (talk) 02:45, 3 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

CVs are notoriously puffed up and obviously not a source. If the claim is true, it would go a long way toward what I'd consider notable. Harbour.Space University gives us another article with notability and COI issues. The school is only 3 years old. That CV also shows a new start date for Nooka all the way back in 2002 (the company keeps getting older). I have seen video interviews where he never claimed any of that. You can buy Nooka watches to this day. I mentioned that in nomination. Core77 offers to publish user submitted stories for designers. And reading that, Nooka may have heard of the glow-in-the-dark theme and sent watches to Kanye West. We all know celebrities get inundated with products for free. Oh, I just found that the Maritime Museum does have a Nooka watch but the Chinese made watch is not on display and they are asking readers if they know what it is. I wonder if Nooka sent it to them unsolicited. I am sorry if I am being super-skeptical but once I get the con/scam tingle, it's hard to let go. --SVTCobra 03:23, 3 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Museums regularly display a fraction of their collections. That is entirely normal. The rest of what you say about tingles and so on is irrelevant to the discussion. Try to keep to policy rather than continuously casting aspersions on the subject based on personal opinion. ThatMontrealIP (talk) 03:31, 3 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I know little about museums, but I thought the "permanent collection" was always on display and the rest of the inventory on rotation. Anyway, you are right and I will shut up for the rest of this process unless I am pinged for a response. Cheers, --SVTCobra 05:14, 3 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

This article might be informative.ThatMontrealIP (talk) 01:16, 9 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete for now. The Forbes article is the best, but only mainstream coverage of any length. The best it can do is describe Nooka as "not unknown". A mere mention in the Guardian is not sufficient to push the company over the notability threshold of WP:NCORP. Cool looking watches, all the same! I'm slightly surprised the Matthew Waldman article was deleted. Sionk (talk) 06:18, 3 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, – filelakeshoe (t / c) 🐱 11:55, 9 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I am unable to locate a single reference that meets the criteria for establishing notability. Most rely on "announcements", others on interviews failing WP:CORPDEPTH and/or WP:ORGIND. Topic fails GNG and WP:NCORP. HighKing⁺⁺ 17:31, 9 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 20:09, 9 July 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. Consensus is for deletion relative to WP:NOTPROMOTION. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 20:11, 9 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Fabiano de Abreu[edit]

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

I can't see how this person is notable by our standards. There's been interminable WP:COI/WP:SOCK editing on this (and by the same editors on Draft:Hebert Neri and Draft:Jennifer Lobo, though I don't know what the connection is between them). Perhaps the oft-repeated claims of importance and notability are justified ... and perhaps they are not. I read Portuguese only slowly, but at the moment I'm not seeing it. Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 19:31, 24 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 19:31, 24 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Journalism-related deletion discussions. Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 19:31, 24 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Brazil-related deletion discussions. Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 19:31, 24 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 19:57, 24 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, RL0919 (talk) 23:53, 1 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as PROMO for a press agent.E.M.Gregory (talk) 19:21, 7 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, – filelakeshoe (t / c) 🐱 11:55, 9 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete WP:PROMO for a non-notable press agent. Best, GPL93 (talk) 12:36, 9 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Delete Clear case of WP:PROMO. Nothing else to say. MaskedSinger (talk) 15:48, 9 July 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. Further recreation in article space without adequate content could lead to the title being protected. Recreation as a draft is fine if the creator is willing to abide by the articles for creation process. RL0919 (talk) 14:02, 16 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Karna Shilahara[edit]

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

Almost nothing here (almost qualifies for A1). Should be incubated in draft space, but author recreated it after it was draft-ified. —teb728 t c 11:33, 9 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. Icewhiz (talk) 11:35, 9 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. Icewhiz (talk) 11:35, 9 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Icewhiz (talk) 11:35, 9 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. An infobox, paired with a four-word sentence fragment that just says where the subject was born, is not an article. No prejudice against recreation in the future if somebody can actually write and reliably source a paragraph of body text about why this person might be eligible to have an encyclopedia article. Note as well that Shilahara does not list this person as having been the "first" (or any other ranking) ruler of any of its three branches at all, so the notability claim being made in the infobox is not verified. Bearcat (talk) 18:30, 10 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Draftify' again. Pichpich (talk) 20:46, 11 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Draftify' again. Perhaps salt it so that it cannot be moved back to mainspace without review. Jmertel23 (talk) 18:46, 12 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I have to agree. Ther's almost nothing at all on this page. What's the point of keeping it?WaterwaysGuy (talk) 23:13, 14 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete or userify. This is not even enough to be a stub yet. The subject may well need an article. Peterkingiron (talk) 15:24, 15 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and salt There are no resources and no sense that the claim of notability made is correct. --Enos733 (talk) 23:20, 15 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. RL0919 (talk) 14:08, 16 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Napoleonland[edit]

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

Procedural nomination on behalf on an IP. Their rationale is

[this article is] about an idea that gained some media attention at the time, but never went anywhere and Wikipedia should not be having articles about every oddball proposal by a politician. 146.198.136.44 (talk) 11:24, 9 July 2019 (UTC) Reyk _YO! 11:28, 9 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of France-related deletion discussions. Icewhiz (talk) 11:31, 9 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Entertainment-related deletion discussions. Icewhiz (talk) 11:33, 9 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. Tyw7 (🗣️ Talk) — If (reply) then (ping me) 12:44, 9 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. The French Wikipedia article for fr:Yves Jégo says it is still a live proposal as of 2017, sourced to this, despite out article saying nothing has been heard since 2013. So our article would appear to be out of date. SpinningSpark 17:07, 9 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. It’s still in the news, 4 January 2019, 18 January 2019, 4 February 2019. Mccapra (talk) 04:35, 16 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Meets WP:BASIC. Szzuk (talk) 06:36, 16 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. RL0919 (talk) 13:50, 16 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Suresh Danoda[edit]

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

Politician who has not been elected and does not hold any constitutional office. The subject fails WP:NPOL , WP:GNG and being a general secretary, Scheduled Caste (Anusuchit Jati) Morcha of the Bharatiya Janata Party does not qualify him to have a stand alone article on Wikipedia. FitIndia ^Talk 11:04, 9 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. FitIndia ^Talk 11:06, 9 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. FitIndia ^Talk 11:06, 9 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Per the nom's point, subjects whom have not been elected to a notable office do not normally meet WP:NPOL.--SamHolt6 (talk) 16:33, 9 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep- The person is also a working member in Government of Haryana. References/citations are described. Denotified & Nomadic Tribes Development Board (Vimukt Ghumantu Jati Vikas Board) is the department of Government. He is taking two major positions at the statewide office. --iamrahulsethi 17:06, 10 July 2019 (UTC) — Note to closing admin: iamrahulsethi (talk • contribs) is the creator of the page that is the subject of this AfD. and appears to have a close connection with the subject of the article being discussed.[reply]
Delete: Non-notable and non-elected politician with no significant coverage in reliable sources. Fails WP:GNG and WP:NPOL. GSS (talk|c|em) 17:27, 10 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment- The person has a very notable personality and has good media coverage (more references/citations added) and already mentioned in talk page about not having a close connection with the subject of the article.18:31, 10 July 2019 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Iamrahulsethi (talk • contribs)

You may not have a personal connection but you disclosed that you work for the political party that he is a member of and stated that you could get access to his Government ID if necessary so I'd say you almost certainly have professional connection that is definitely close enough to be considered a COI. Best, GPL93 (talk) 19:22, 10 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete As a NPOL and GNG fail. Also Iamrahulsethi, you can comment as much as you want but you can only vote once. Best, GPL93 (talk) 18:40, 10 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. People are not automatically entitled to have Wikipedia articles just for existing as civil servants in the government bureaucracy — but two of the four footnotes here are primary source content on the government's own self-published website about itself, which are not support for notability at all, and the two which are real media are just short blurbs about him announcing a government policy, not substantive coverage about him doing anything relevant to our notability criteria. The notability test for a Wikipedia article is being substantively the subject of a significant volume of press coverage, not just getting your name into the newspaper twice as a giver of soundbite in an article about something else. Bearcat (talk) 18:44, 10 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment- The poorly sourced content is removed. It's good to have only verified content rather than deleting the whole article. --iamrahulsethi 19:35, 10 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

No, a person has to be properly demonstrated as passing our notability criteria before he's allowed to have a Wikipedia article at all. It's not just a question of "keeping verified content" — if the content isn't being verified by notability-supporting reliable source coverage about him (which is not the same thing as "coverage about other things which happens to mention his name") that would get him over WP:GNG, then it's still not keepable whether it's "verified" or not. Bearcat (talk) 20:09, 10 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: The author has been blocked for sockpuppetry. GSS (talk|c|em) 05:44, 11 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete no evidence of passing WP:NPOL criteria. OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 16:32, 11 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
delete per bearcat, socking, and COI. —usernamekiran(talk) 12:53, 16 July 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. Consensus that notability is satisfied (non-admin closure) Nosebagbear (talk) 09:51, 16 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Sorakiss[edit]

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

Subject fails WP:GNG and WP:ANYBIO. Search turns up Passing mentions and no WP:SIGCOV on subject for now. Lapablo (talk) 09:34, 9 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Lapablo (talk) 09:34, 9 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Lapablo (talk) 09:34, 9 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Ghana-related deletion discussions. Lapablo (talk) 09:34, 9 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 10:19, 9 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 10:19, 9 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 10:20, 9 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 10:21, 9 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - the number of hits I'm seeing suggest she is well-known in Ghana. [10] for example, itself reasonable coverage, cites its source as "Flex Newspaper". It looks to me that Sorakiss has had some natoinally-recognised hits in Ghana, so the suggestion of notability is there. Remember that African nations have more print-only news sources than western ones these days, so what you see online isn't necessariy the sum total. — Amakuru (talk) 08:44, 11 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as per above, the singer has coverage in multiple reliable sources such as Pulse, Ghana Web and others already in the article and passes WP:GNG and also has claims to pass WP:NMUSIC with charting singles, thanks Atlantic306 (talk) 21:01, 13 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. The refs are OK. Szzuk (talk) 06:33, 16 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy delete per WP:A7. So Why 08:56, 9 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Al Amin Shehzad[edit]

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

Non notable cricket player, not covered by reliable sources -- Luk ^talk 08:16, 9 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. -- Luk ^talk 08:16, 9 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Cricket-related deletion discussions. CASSIOPEIA^(talk) 08:55, 9 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bangladesh-related deletion discussions. CASSIOPEIA^(talk) 08:55, 9 July 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. Yunshui ^雲 _水 08:00, 16 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Kaja Renkas[edit]

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

No RS found, fails WP:GNG. Meeanaya (talk) 05:36, 9 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Meeanaya (talk) 05:36, 9 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Poland-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 07:18, 9 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 07:18, 9 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 07:18, 9 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Artists-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 07:18, 9 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete does not appear notable based on article sources.ThatMontrealIP (talk) 18:51, 9 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Nice art but lack of reliable source coverage. Curiocurio (talk) 21:29, 9 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - run of the mill illustrator, who hasn't exhibited anywhere notable. His awards are all of the "runner up" or "up and coming" variety. Fails WP:GNG and specifically WP:CREATIVE. Bearian (talk) 18:23, 10 July 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) 17:59, 16 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Ankhmaa (singer)[edit]

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

Fails WP:GNG, too early to qualify for a page. Meeanaya (talk) 05:30, 9 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Meeanaya (talk) 05:30, 9 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 07:19, 9 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 07:19, 9 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 07:19, 9 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 07:20, 9 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Mongolia-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 07:21, 9 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - badly written in passive voice, the article is about a performing artist who not ready for prime time. There's no evidence she's toured internationally, or that her (single) film has actually been shown publicly, or that she has a hit song. Bearian (talk) 18:27, 10 July 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. Yunshui ^雲 _水 08:00, 16 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Eva Lewarne[edit]

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

Does not appear to meet WP:BASIC or any criteria of WP:NARTIST. Sources in article are primary. Search for sources turned up only promotional, self-authored brief bios and passing mentions. Triptothecottage (talk) 05:18, 9 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Artists-related deletion discussions. Triptothecottage (talk) 05:18, 9 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Poland-related deletion discussions. Triptothecottage (talk) 05:18, 9 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. Triptothecottage (talk) 05:18, 9 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I cannot find SIGCOV.ThatMontrealIP (talk) 18:54, 9 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom.--Darwinek (talk) 21:49, 9 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 14:04, 10 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 14:04, 10 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep, based on what I found on Google books. It's arguable whether the coverage is significant or not. Her illustrations have been used on book covers and in magazines. Bearian (talk) 18:35, 10 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I can't find any reviews, nor permanent collections holding her work. The one mentioned in the article, "Commanderie Museum D’Unet" (actually the Musée de la Commanderie d'Unet, or the Musée d'art moderne d'Unet) was a scam - a woman who charged artists to display their works, and didn't have a museum, just her dining room! One of Lewarne's works is held by the the Government of Ontario Art Collection [11], but I don't think that counts as a "notable gallery or museum". Her work was selected for the Art Gallery of Mississauga's annual exhibition in 2015 (one of 31 selected from 173 submissions), but I can't find that any of her work is in that gallery's permanent collection. That may change, of course, but for now she doesn't seem to meet any of the WP:SNG or WP:GNG. RebeccaGreen (talk) 19:47, 15 July 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. Yunshui ^雲 _水 07:58, 16 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Brookshire, California[edit]

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

I live nearby and I have never heard of Brookshire, outside of seeing it on Google maps. No businesses or other properties nearby include Brookshire in their names. There is no sign anywhere for Brookshire. The name of this locale has not even been mentioned in any nearby newspapers. I don't think Wikipedia needs a page for this just because it is in the GNIS. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Naddruf (talk • contribs)

Delete utterly fails WP:V. Literally the only hits I get are false positives that just have the words "Brookshire" and "California" next to each other. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 05:08, 9 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
- I noticed that someone said it could be a hoax. I don't think that could be accurate, because it was categorized in the Geographic Names Information System. I think it is more likely just a name created but never used.Naddruf (talk) 06:26, 9 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 07:21, 9 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 07:22, 9 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I don't think we can base evidence of existence solely on GNIS. This seems to come up quite regularly; place names that are found only in the GNIS database and sites using that database. Pages where the only information is coords and elevation is a red flag for a fictitious/erroneous entry for WP:GEOLAND cases. SpinningSpark 16:37, 9 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - it might be a ghost town - I found a few book references but nothing else. Bearian (talk) 18:37, 10 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
- @Bearian: Do you mind linking to those book sources? If it is a ghost town, then it should be kept per WP:GEOLAND and WP:NTEMP. SpinningSpark 13:51, 11 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  - @Spinningspark and Bearian: The ones I can see are from some magazines about mining. It seems to have been an oil drilling location. However it says nothing in these books beyond the price of the stock from this location. There are three other books, but I can't open them to see the reference. One is "Pisor's Registry of World Record Size Shells". One is about a pet store (which is listed from 1991; I'm very sceptical that this town existed then. The remaining one is "The Stickley Brothers: The Quest for an American Voice", which I searched inside the book and didn't find anything.
Delete per all. Nothing substantial on Google Books. – John M Wolfson (talk • contribs) 22:27, 10 July 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. -- Ed (Edgar181) 12:54, 16 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Social Compassion in Legislation[edit]

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

Article about a Non-profit which fails to have any reliable sources that discuss this organization in depth. All references provided are primary or press releases about laws this group may have supported. Failes to meet WP:GNG and WP:CORPDEPTH McMatter ^(talk)/_(contrib) 04:15, 9 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Animal-related deletion discussions. McMatter ^(talk)/_(contrib) 04:15, 9 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. McMatter ^(talk)/_(contrib) 04:15, 9 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. McMatter ^(talk)/_(contrib) 04:15, 9 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per lousy sources, and searches that don't turn up much.A.Jacobin (talk) 14:35, 11 July 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) 17:58, 16 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Snagger[edit]

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

Page is about something I cannot find any evidence is used in the manner this article claims it does. Even the external links used as references do not support anything in this article. I would have CSD but I may have been having regional search issues as this could be a very regional based term. McMatter ^(talk)/_(contrib) 04:09, 9 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete likewise I can’t find anything at all to support the content of this article. Mccapra (talk) 04:28, 9 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Language-related deletion discussions. Icewhiz (talk) 07:38, 9 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Architecture-related deletion discussions. Icewhiz (talk) 07:38, 9 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. Icewhiz (talk) 07:38, 9 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Snagging is a part of the house construction process in Ireland and the U.K. (per, e.g., ISBN 9781444302370 pages 113–114), but whilst there is a snag list there's no "snagger" associated with it. snagging is in the U.S. a style of sport fishing with multiple hooks, and that has snaggers which would redirect to it. The history of this article is that it started out as entirely what is now snagger (software), and was later hijacked. Instead of taking the hijacking out, editors took the original article out, attributing the original article to the wrong author along the way. (Q3dotzero (talk · contribs) is the author of this stuff, but was erroneously credited with the work of Swede1127 (talk · contribs).) Q3dotzero's edit pointed to things which did not support the content, and I am unable to find any support for this. This is unverifiable. The right thing to do is either to revert to the original snagger (software) that was here, or redirect to snagging and make sure that snagger (software) can be found. Uncle G (talk) 08:40, 9 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete all, the original subject, Snagger software, shows no signs of notability either. The new hijacked article doesn't seem to be verifiable. Sionk (talk) 12:32, 9 July 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. Yunshui ^雲 _水 07:57, 16 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Sportsbet.io[edit]

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

inadequate references for notability -- essentially all references are press releases or notices. DGG ( talk ) 04:07, 9 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I thought I'd actually nominated this as I did a full before and found it lacked the multiple reliable independent secondary sources discussing it in signficant detail we expect for NCORP articles. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 04:11, 9 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete agree with above MaskedSinger (talk) 04:37, 9 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. Icewhiz (talk) 07:35, 9 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. Icewhiz (talk) 07:35, 9 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Icewhiz (talk) 07:36, 9 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete and open a UPE investigation. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 10:29, 9 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I have done better research and updated the article with proper secondary sources. It was careless from my part not noticing press releases. What are the other changes you might suggest to improve the article quality? Thanks Smehh (talk) 15:39, 9 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom, all the sources added (both in the version as nominated for AfD and the current revision) seem to be press releases. Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 09:49, 10 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep After review it appears that original editor has changed the article sources to independent news providers. Review is needed. Stoupa84 (talk) 12:34, 10 July 2019 (UTC)— Stoupa84 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
@DGG, Ritchie333, and Kudpung: Please check your inbox. Thank you GSS (talk|c|em) 10:21, 12 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I re-read just now every one of the proposed sources, to make sure I'm not just going by impressions. Everything is still PR, except 3,4, and 9 which are more accurately termed mere notices, and 6 is an enthusiastically uncritical review--even if it is naïvely seen as a honest 3rd party source, it wouldn't be enough to justify an article. . Two of the blatant indications here are that some of the pr references are almost identical, and that many of them quote an interview with the firm's executive as most of the content. The attempt to keep this article has been advertised off-WP, and small amounts of money offered to those saying keep. I think a snow close is appropriate. Not speedy, for we need to be able to use G5 for the probable future re-creations. DGG ( talk ) 19:28, 12 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Per norm. Lapablo (talk) 21:25, 14 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Per norm. Not notable. looks like part of a PR campaign WP:ARTSPAM, subtle, but there. Dlohcierekim (talk) 01:43, 15 July 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. Yunshui ^雲 _水 07:57, 16 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

George Kubini[edit]

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

This article is about a person who seems to be really only known for one thing. The article seems to fall into the issue of WP:NOTNEWS, the references used are either that of government agencies or a rehashes of the same press release/court reporting. The article is more a synopsis of the court case then the person himself. This fails to meet the threshold in WP:GNG McMatter ^(talk)/_(contrib) 03:49, 9 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Concur with the nominator. Rap Chart Mike (talk) 17:33, 9 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. McMatter ^(talk)/_(contrib) 03:49, 9 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Law-related deletion discussions. McMatter ^(talk)/_(contrib) 03:49, 9 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Hungary-related deletion discussions. McMatter ^(talk)/_(contrib) 03:49, 9 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Russia-related deletion discussions. McMatter ^(talk)/_(contrib) 03:49, 9 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Pennsylvania-related deletion discussions. McMatter ^(talk)/_(contrib) 03:49, 9 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete not every personaccused of property fraud is notable.John Pack Lambert (talk) 22:00, 11 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Per norminator. Lapablo (talk) 21:35, 13 July 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) Szzuk (talk) 06:31, 16 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

List of guest stars on Sesame Street[edit]

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

I nominate this list for deletion because its reliability can never be assured; as a matter of fact, the refimprove tag has been there for over nine years. The information that can be verified has been included in List of Sesame Street Muppets and List of human Sesame Street characters, both of which are FLs. I also believe that this list is unnecessary and a bad reflection on the quality of most other Sesame Street articles. The show's 50th anniversary is in November of this year, so it's important to maintain the quality of those articles. Thanks for your consideration. Christine (Figureskatingfan) (talk) 03:12, 9 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Can't argue with your points Christine (Figureskatingfan) but if improved, this page would definitely be a useful resource and very appropriate page to have. Any suggestions apart from delete? MaskedSinger (talk) 04:39, 9 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists of people-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 07:23, 9 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 07:24, 9 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 07:24, 9 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: The article in its current state does not belong in the mainspace, that is a given. Mostly unsourced; random selection of pictures; a small number of entries have segment information. I also believe that the alphabetized list does not help here at all. A better version would be a proper sortable table with columns for (at least) actor, date appeared, episode appeared, segment (or other info), and ref. Such a table would add context to the list. Either outright delete or send to draft, if someone is actually working on it. --Gonnym (talk) 08:55, 9 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Gonnym, I'd be okay with sending it to draft, but as I state above, the verifiable content is in other FLs. Yes, it's been worked on lately, but mostly by IPs. Christine (Figureskatingfan) (talk) 16:44, 9 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The WP:GNG is passed by the coverage this gets. A simple search for "guest stars" and "sesame street" finds ample results to sort through. Vanity Fair [12], Entertainment Tonight [13], Screen Rant [14]. So the topic is clearly notable. This information is not in other articles. As for confirming information on the list, that can be easily done by referencing what episode they were on. I search for the name of the first person on the list, Paula Abdul, and "Sesame Street" and found video clips of her appearance. And https://muppet.fandom.com/wiki/Paula_Abdul list what episodes she was on and what she did. That isn't a reliable source since its user generated, however someone can then look at that and search for the episode number and the name of the person and find something. She list her appearance on her official website https://www.paula-abdul.com/zoes-dance-moves.html . The information is easily confirmed. Dream Focus 04:12, 11 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the Article Rescue Squadron's list of content for rescue consideration. Dream Focus 04:35, 11 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Article/list easily passes WP:GNG based on the coverage and existing video footage of each celebrity's appearance. For instance: this Washington Post article which details Annette Bening's appearance on Sesame Street. WP:NEXIST Lightburst (talk) 00:17, 12 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Suggest focus on creating a single table with sortable columns that includes episode date at a minimum. Can do it in a sub-page. -- GreenC 14:24, 12 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Seems to pass WP:LISTN with several RS (such as [15]) listing guest stars. There is very little overlap with the two FLs mentioned in the nom~~, and some of those should be removed and kept in guest stars (such as All Star Alphabet)~~. If they refer to the guest star by their real name, then they clearly should be on this list. Maybe it should be noted if they were on the show or in a direct-to-video. That might be clear by the lack of "episode #". Certainly open to changing the format to a table, but we might want to add more info (in a easily replaced format) while it is still broken up by letter. There are 3,465 articles which mention "Sesame Street" and 95 with it in the title so it's important to maintain the quality of those articles. StrayBolt (talk) 02:47, 14 July 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. Yunshui ^雲 _水 07:55, 16 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hacker Ministry[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

The first part of the article engages in unsourced speculation on the real-world dates of Jim Hacker's political career and the second is a list of fictional cabinet members, including the "former Permanent Secretary of the Ministry of Defence." It stands in violation of point 1 of WP:IINFO as it merely summarizes rather than discusses "the development, design, reception, significance, and influence of works." I could find no sources apart from the TV show or book that discuss this fictional government ministry, and if no sources can be found discussing the Hacker Ministry, we shouldn't have an article on it. I love Yes, Prime Minister, but this doesn't belong here. schetm (talk) 02:08, 9 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. schetm (talk) 02:08, 9 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. schetm (talk) 02:08, 9 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Can any of this content be moved to the main page? MaskedSinger (talk) 04:41, 9 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

In my view, there's nothing worth merging. The tenure of government section is entirely original research, and everything from Her Majesty's Government on down is pure WP:LISTCRUFT. Merging the content anywhere would violate either WP:OR or WP:IINFO. schetm (talk) 13:25, 9 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I quite like the Her Majesty's Government section. It is not LISTCRUFT, it is essentially a list of characters, but organised according to role rather than the organisation on the Yes Minister page which is the more conventional main/minor arrangement. However, that may be more suitable for Wikia than here. SpinningSpark 15:14, 9 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. The material is either entirely in-universe, or a discussion of the dates of the Hacker government. The latter is all WP:SYNTH of in-universe statements. The writers of Yes Minister clearly kept the dates deliberately obscure, presumably to prevent association with any real-world government. Any claimed ability to be able to deduce the dates is akin to spotting continuity errors in movies. For this to be notable, sources with out-of-universe discussion of the subject are required, which are entirely lacking at the moment. It's hard to imagine how a source might discuss the Hacker government separately for Yes Minister in any case. SpinningSpark 15:05, 9 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - apart from the fact this is all very speculative and seems to contain original research, a fictional administration would have to have a lot of coverage and significance to meet the notability standards needed for an article. While, yes Minister/Prime Minister were popular series the actual Hacker ministry is not really a significant part of the series. Other than the main characters (two of whom are civil servants) the rest barely appear. Dunarc (talk) 22:59, 12 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Wholly non-encyclopaedic. RobinCarmody (talk) 19:45, 15 July 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 House Un-American Activities Committee. Not a strong consensus, but it seems closer to what the participants want than a "no consensus" default keep. RL0919 (talk) 13:40, 16 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Lilly Popper[edit]

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

Fails WP:GNG. Article with two references, neither of which come close to establishing notability. ...William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 16:00, 24 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. ...William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 16:00, 24 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. ...William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 16:00, 24 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 16:01, 24 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment The only coverage for her that I can find is primary sources (government) when she invoked the Fifth Amendment during the House Un-American Activities Committee hearings. It's possible that there might be contemporary newspaper coverage of the hearings that talk about her, but I don't know that this one event is sufficient for WP:GNG. UrbanToreador (talk) 20:09, 24 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I found some news coverage of her which I added to the article. However, I really can't decide what to do about her. I think maybe redirecting to House Un-American Activities Committee until someone writes a better bio about her. There's a lot of primary sources about her (many which I didn't add since they wouldn't show notability) so I could see that as a future possibility. Megalibrarygirl (talk) 22:26, 26 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, RL0919 (talk) 00:03, 2 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete this is basically one event notability, and that is just not cutting it. Not every piano teacher is notable, and being called before a congressional committee also does not make one notable.John Pack Lambert (talk) 05:38, 2 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Just Chilling (talk) 01:30, 9 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect: I would not be against a "Redirect" per User:Megalibrarygirl as a compromise. No bio here and the one inconclusive hearing would not be enough. There may be more secondary sources "out there" but agree with delete if redirect does not find favor. Otr500 (talk) 15:11, 10 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. I am not seeing a consensus in this discussion. There have been two relistings and, since the last comment was over 10 days ago, my view is that a further relist is unlikely to promote a better consensus. Just Chilling (talk) 01:38, 16 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

679 Artists[edit]

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

Article is unsourced with the only source I was able to find was the archived version of thier website and http://37adventures.co.uk/679-artists/ which is mostly a copy of the website with an additional sentence about the end of the label. These two self published sources are not enough to satisfy the notability guidelines.

A merger has been suggested to warner music group, but that would be inappropriate since there are over a hundred such labels and including them in the article would be infeasible. Just including one of the non-notable labels would be giving it WP:UNDUE weight. Trialpears (talk) 12:51, 24 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Trialpears (talk) 12:51, 24 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. Trialpears (talk) 12:51, 24 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 16:03, 24 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. 679 meets WP:MUSIC's sense of an important label - it was in operation for more than a decade as a Warner subsidiary (I see a release as recent as 2018) and released music from a whole passel of noteworthy artists, among them The Streets, The Futureheads, The Secret Handshake, King Creosote, Death from Above 1979, MSTRKRFT, Little Boots, Plan B, and The Stills. Many of these albums were charting in the UK or the US, in some cases top-ten. The argument against merging falls flat; leaving this as a redlink is certainly not preferable to having it provide some sort of information about the connections between the groups that would link to it. Chubbles (talk) 20:16, 24 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I couldn't find what WP:MUSIC's sense of an important label was with no heading for labels. Therefore I looked at the criteria for the "Others" section of WP:MUSIC and to the criteria at WP:ORG. For both these I could not see that it met these criteria due to not finding any significant coverage in any independent, reliable secondary sources. This could of course be due incompatence on my part, but as notability is not inherited having a notable artists in the label is not sufficient for notability.

I am also curious about the 2018 release as according to http://37adventures.co.uk/679-artists/ the label closed in 2013. Trialpears (talk) 20:44, 24 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Well, WP:MUSIC's language refers to indie labels, but I don't see a good reason not to apply it to major-subsidiaries, if we are choosing between keeping and merging. I'm not in principle opposed to a merge so long as the basic functionality of the page - an easy way to tell who was signed to the label - is retained; perhaps to a larger Warner discography page, but frankly, leaving it as a separate article (perhaps at "list of artists signed to 679 Artists"?) just seems like so much more user-friendly a solution. Plan B's most recent album (2018) was released on the label according to Billboard ([16]). Chubbles (talk) 20:51, 24 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 12:01, 1 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment There are a number of compelling arguments to say that "labels" should not fall under WP:NCORP guidelines but should instead fall under WP:MUSIC guidelines. As it stands, WP:MUSIC does not provide guidelines for labels (but perhaps it should?). Therefore using the WP:NCORP guidelines, this company fails the criteria as there are no references that meet the guidelines for establishing notability and my !vote would be to delete. Has this discussion taken place under WP:MUSIC in the past? HighKing⁺⁺ 17:04, 4 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, at Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Music/Archive_37#No_criteria_for_labels and then subsequently at Wikipedia_talk:Notability_(music)/Archive_21#Proposed_criteria_for_record_labels. I was the instigator in these conversations, though I did not see the attempt through fully. The chief sticking point seemed to be the number of artists that would substantiate importance - some editors wanted a minimal threshold, whereas I thought a more holistic judgment was warranted, and I didn't end up pursuing the matter beyond this. Chubbles (talk) 21:32, 5 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 01:20, 9 July 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. Sufficient swallows found. RL0919 (talk) 13:37, 16 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Jeeves of Belgravia[edit]

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

Declined speedy. I think that this is a thoroughly unremarkable business; the only ref that does not seem entirely run of the mill is the NYT article from 1979. It's pretty insubstantial and one swallow does not a summer make. TheLongTone (talk) 15:28, 1 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I see that the company that owns the business is itself a subsidiary of another company, and does not have its own article.TheLongTone (talk) 15:31, 1 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Icewhiz (talk) 15:36, 1 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. Icewhiz (talk) 15:36, 1 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fashion-related deletion discussions. Icewhiz (talk) 15:38, 1 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Of the 8 refs only 2 offer anything that would count towards notability. These 2 are newspaper cuttings describing shop openings and count as routine coverage. A recently created article with likely COI. Szzuk (talk) 07:16, 8 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Merge. The article doesn't say they are part of the bigger Johnsons cleaners. However I now see they are. Szzuk (talk) 06:38, 9 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

~~Merge~~ to Johnsons Cleaners UK as the perfectly obvious WP:ATD. Hugsyrup (talk) 15:14, 8 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - I'm not totally sold on all of the sources added, since several do little more than report on the two acquisitions the store has been through. However, the HK Tatler and NYT articles, neither of which I found in my initial look, get it over the line. Hugsyrup (talk) 09:15, 16 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 01:19, 9 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Being run-of-the-mill is not a reason to delete and, in any case, the assertion is false as this is an exceptional business, specialising in luxury items and holding a royal warrant. This exceptional nature is recognised in educational work such as this and so the topic passes WP:GNG. See also WP:ATD, WP:BEFORE, WP:PRESERVE. Andrew D. (talk) 08:19, 9 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Honestly, my first reaction to this was the same as yours, as I've known about Jeeves for years and thought it was a unique and notable business. However, as I started writing what I fully intended to be a 'keep' !vote, and looked for sources to back up my argument, I discovered that there really aren't any that offer any depth of coverage, and particularly none that separate Jeeves from its parent company, with whom I recommend merging it. Luxury does not equal notability and a small feature in an A-level Business Studies textbook definitely doesn't mean it passes the WP:GNGs in my view. Hugsyrup (talk) 10:59, 9 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Andrew, it is the coverage that is claimed to be run-of-the-mill, not the business. Please learn to distinguish the difference between notability and uniqueness. SpinningSpark 14:25, 9 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The nomination asserts that this is a "thoroughly unremarkable business" and this is quite false. As a further example of detailed coverage, see here. There are many humdrum dry-cleaners, such as the one I use myself, but this one is something special and has coverage to match. My !vote stands. Andrew D. (talk) 14:40, 9 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hardly in-depth coverage; its a nugget of triva. And being expensive does not confer notability.TheLongTone (talk) 13:29, 15 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Amongst other things, that detailed piece tells us that it was "the largest of its kind in Europe". This is clearly significant coverage and so my !vote stands. Andrew D. (talk) 13:39, 15 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I declined the speedy, and I have just added more sources to the article. I believe that it meets WP:ORGCRITE, with significant coverage in multiple independent, reliable secondary sources, these being The New York Times, The Guardian, the Independent, UPI (in several publications, here referenced to The Galveston Daily News), The Telegraph and the Hong Kong Tatler. I note too that the coverage extends from 1979, through 1980, 2003, 2014, and 2017. While some of the sources cover sales of the companies, they do not appear to me to be "standard notices, brief announcements, and routine coverage", as they contain 6 or more paragraphs. I have not checked all databases for sources - I will add more if I find it. RebeccaGreen (talk) 19:12, 15 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect to List of The Walking Dead (TV series) characters. (non-admin closure) Spirit of Eagle (talk) 02:15, 16 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Henry (The Walking Dead)[edit]

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

Brief mentions in routine reviews of the show. No in-depth analysis or coverage to show any real-world notability. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 16:07, 1 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 18:10, 1 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 18:10, 1 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Sounds like a run of the mill support character who isn't a major part in the show Seasider91 (talk) 19:12, 1 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep if more sources can be found, otherwise merge to List of The Walking Dead (TV series) characters. BOZ (talk) 20:03, 1 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 01:19, 9 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to List of The Walking Dead (TV series) characters. As stated by the nom, there is not much in terms of actual in-depth coverage for this fairly minor character. He is already present on the list of characters, though, so a redirect to that list seems appropriate. As he is already given a brief bio there, a merge is not really necessary. Rorshacma (talk) 15:39, 9 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect per Nom and User:Rorshacma. Secondary choice of Delete if redirect is not an option. Otr500 (talk) 15:16, 10 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to List of The Walking Dead (TV series) characters per above. Aoba47 (talk) 03:58, 15 July 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. Yunshui ^雲 _水 07:53, 16 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Sabarimala Ayyappa Seva Samajam[edit]

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

Apparently non-notable. The refs are minor notices, not comprehensive accounts. And there's a clear promotional intent. DGG ( talk ) 22:17, 1 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. CThomas³ (talk) 04:18, 2 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 06:43, 2 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Hinduism-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 06:43, 2 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Independent and reliable references were added. I think that now this article meets Wikipedia's notability criteria. If any sentence in the article that violate neutrality, remove that particular sentence and retain the article.Mayooramc (talk) 14:30, 2 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Comment The Hindu and TOI are certainly reliable sources. Not sure about some of the others. Mccapra (talk) 02:26, 8 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
- User:Winged Blades of Godric/Indian Media helps with paid news in India. Only one of the pieces currently cited is of the politician-promises-something content-free non-news kind, and that's being used to source a minor fact. Most of the current sourcing is news coverage of single incidents involving the subject, rather than the subject as a whole. I have not looked to see what could be found. Uncle G (talk) 08:09, 9 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 01:18, 9 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: There is significant coverage on activities and future plans of Sabarimala Ayyappa Seva Samajam in independent media such as, United News of India^[1], News 18^[2] and The Hindu^[3]^[4]^[5].
Mayooramc (talk) 07:55, 12 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Passes GNG with not just minor mentions. Activities done by the organizations are prime focus of various news articles already used as sources in the article.

References

^ "Ayyappa Seva Samajam conducts cleaning operation in Sabarimala". United News of India. 2019-07-10. Archived from the original on 2019-07-10. Retrieved 2019-07-12.
^ "Ayyappa seva samajam to offer free food facility". News18. Retrieved 2019-07-12.
^ Reporter, Staff (2011-06-19). "Ayyappa Seva Samajom to open 50 Seva Kendras". The Hindu. ISSN 0971-751X. Retrieved 2019-07-12.
^ Srinivas, M. (2014-11-09). "Devotee-friendly steps for Sabarimala pilgrims". The Hindu. ISSN 0971-751X. Retrieved 2019-07-12.
^ "Campaign to save Sabarimala from plastic to begin in State". The Hindu. Special Correspondent. 2015-11-27. ISSN 0971-751X. Retrieved 2019-07-12.{{cite news}}: CS1 maint: others (link)

Keep. The sourcing looks solid now. Mccapra (talk) 04:48, 16 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Meets the WP:GNG and WP:Notability criteria and the article is well sourced. Some references from Malayalam News can also be added. --Harshil169 (talk) 07:10, 16 July 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. Yunshui ^雲 _水 07:51, 16 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Mallorie Rodak[edit]

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

I'm not seeing any notability for this voice actress. No notable convention appearances. Sourced only by cast announcements and no major roles in major titles. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 23:30, 1 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 23:30, 1 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 23:30, 1 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Anime and manga-related deletion discussions. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 23:30, 1 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 04:59, 2 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Texas-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 05:00, 2 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 05:00, 2 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Reoccurring roles as characters in various notable series means WP:ENTERTAINER is passed: "Has had significant roles in multiple notable films, television shows," Dream Focus 17:45, 2 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

These are minor characters though so they are not significant roles. The series are not television but direct-to-videos. Those shows that actually made it to television (Tokyo Ghoul, Fairy Tail, My Hero Academia) she has minor character or guest roles. She is not made a significant guest list at any anime conventions. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 23:23, 2 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Izetta:_The_Last_Witch#Main_characters had its episodes broadcast, and this voice actor played one of the two main characters. Other things have in fact been on television, not that that actually matters. It has a Wikipedia article, then it counts as notable by Wikipedia standards. I did look through various things on the list earlier before stating the article should be kept, but don't feel like sorting through it all again to find other examples. Dream Focus 03:32, 3 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Again, these are titles that if she were the voice actress in Japan, it would be a major, but this is on an English dub that is direct-to-video at most, and not even something like Netflix/Amazon. Notable English voice actors also have a number of convention appearances or significant coverage articles, of which she has none, only cast announcements. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 13:31, 3 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I don't see that as a rule anywhere. Sounds like total nonsense you just made up. These aren't just random people chosen for dubs, these are professional voice actors. And whether something is made for television or internet broadcast is not relevant. Millions of people use Crunchroll to watch anime on. To claim Netflix or Amazon is notable but not Crunchroll and Funimation, is ridiculous. And whether someone goes to conventions or not is not relevant to notability. Dream Focus 14:19, 3 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Dream Focus: Was the English language version broadcast anywhere else than on internet streaming? There are no English language broadcast companies mentioned in the article or here. Is there any way of knowing viewing figure for individual animes on Crunchyroll? This might help to show notability because WP:ENTERTAINER requires that the show be notable. The Japanese version clearly is but the English version may not be. The notabilty guidelines for shows WP:TVSERIES state "Generally, an individual radio or television program is likely to be notable if it airs on a network of radio or television stations (either national or regional in scope), or on a cable television channel with a broad regional or national audience.". --Dom from Paris (talk) 14:50, 3 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

That's out of context. It reads Generally, an individual radio or television program is likely to be notable if it airs on a network of radio or television stations (either national or regional in scope), or on a cable television channel with a broad regional or national audience. It is far less likely to be notable if it airs in only one local media market. Its showing that broadcast are more likely to be notable if broadcast over a larger area than just some local small town. That has nothing to do with internet viewing. And how exactly do you determine if something is notable in Japanese but not English? They review the first one out, then they don't usually review it again for each language its translated into. Dream Focus 15:06, 3 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

It's not something I made up. It's stuff that I've used for AFDs for years. This voice actress has NO anime convention appearances. If she's traveling all over the country and world to appear as a invited guest, she is probably more likely to be notable and get mentions in newspapers for it. Not every Funimation voice actor is notable just because their name appears on a Funimation credit. Also WP:GNG is not something I made up. If you can provide articles that meet WP:GNG, then that overrides WP:ENT. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 16:19, 3 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

WP:NOTABILITY is quite clear. A topic is presumed to merit an article if: It meets either the general notability guideline below, or the criteria outlined in a subject-specific guideline listed in the box on the right; It doesn't have to meet the GNG if it meets and of the SSG such as WP:ENTERTAINER. Dream Focus 17:04, 3 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I'm not convinced by the reply to my question about the notability of the dubbed English version of a notable Japanese anime. So in the absence of enough reliable sources to pass GNG and the lack of information to show she passes NACTOR I'm afraid it's a delete for me. Dom from Paris (talk) 23:12, 3 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 01:16, 9 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Basically no reliable and independent sources, Google showed nothing more useful. Esw01407 (talk) 19:00, 15 July 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) ––Redditaddict69 ^(talk) ^(contribs) 07:35, 16 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Eylül Cansın[edit]

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

WP:BLP1E: Cansın has only received coverage for having died by suicide. gnu 57 08:46, 2 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Discrimination-related deletion discussions. gnu 57 08:46, 2 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sexuality and gender-related deletion discussions. gnu 57 08:46, 2 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Turkey-related deletion discussions. gnu 57 08:46, 2 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 12:02, 2 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Wikipedia is not a newspaper, and nothing about this incident rises to more than routine news coverage of a suicide.John Pack Lambert (talk) 15:19, 2 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep - Far more than just a suicide. Her death sparked protests in several Turkish cities and brought to the public's attention police brutality against sex workers, and in particular LBGT sex workers. Her death also led to a hostel being set up in Istanbul for people in a similar situation. To the Turkish LGBT community, she is an important figure in their history and civil rights struggle.--John B123 (talk) 22:28, 3 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - I can't speak to Turkish sources, but doing a Google News search I see CBC, Guardian and Vice News sources mentioning an ongoing impact. Rab V (talk) 19:35, 4 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 01:14, 9 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep based on the rational of John B123 and Rab V above. I would consider renaming and formatting the page to Death of Eylül Cansın.Thsmi002 (talk) 02:22, 9 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The incident sparked protest in Ankara and Istabul - see http://www.kaosgl.org/page.php?id=18441 - here -1] and here-2shows the impact of the LGBT community in Turkey and culcuture in Turkey in general. CASSIOPEIA^(talk) 07:10, 9 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - her suicide was not merely news, but had a lasting impact. Bearian (talk) 18:40, 10 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Comment/reply - Since the only coverage of Cansın is in the context of suicide, this article amounts to a WP:PSEUDObiography. The problems as I see it are
1. The reliable sources give hardly any information about Cansın as a person: just that Cansın was 22/23/24 years old, transgender, and had the birth name/alternate name Mehtap Zengin.^[1] In particular, there really are no reliable sources for Cansın's being employed as a sex worker. This research paper (the PDF version) does list someone with the same name as a 24-year-old sex worker; the author says, though, that some of the data was collected from people interviewed back in 2012 and some was extracted from LGBTI News in Turkey articles. I would assume the Cansın entry was one of the latter, and the LNT article doesn't mention sex work. (And the quote about choosing sex work is from a different person also named Eylul.)
2. The only sources of information about the events leading up to Cansın's death are the conflicting, non-BLP-compliant, primary source interviews/statements of Nurcan Zengin Bala (Cansın's mother)^[2] and Yankı Bayramoğlu (Cansın's roommate, a transgender beauty queen).^[3]^[4] (Did Cansın become a sex worker? If so, was it because of a lack of other opportunities, or coercion by a "trans gang"? Did Bayramoğlu beat, strip, and defraud Cansın of a large sum of money, or did Cansın remove her own clothes in a fit of agitation and remain friends with Bayramoğlu? Did the police turn a blind eye to the gang of transgender people allegedly menacing and beating Cansın? Bala said that she thought Cansın's death was foul play by the gang rather than a suicide. Michelle Demishevish, the activist/journalist who interviewed Bala and seems to be the only person doing significant reporting, later said that one of the transgender women whom Bala named was taken in for questioning.)
3. The coverage of the death itself is routine news items (with many reprints) which just say that Cansın committed suicide at the bridge, left a video note, and was buried in a particular cemetery, and that others attributed Cansın's death to transphobia.
4. In the aftermath of Cansın's death:
  - a coalition of LGBT groups protested and released a joint statement against heterosexism.^[5]
  - The LGBTI studies unit of the Turkish Psychologists Association released a statement about trans suicides.^[6]
  - a hostel was named in Cansın's memory.^[7]^[8]^[9]^[10]
  - The play "Eylul" is named after Cansın but contains unrelated characters and plotlines.^[11]
  - There are also quite a number of passing mentions of Cansın as an instance of a transgender person who died by suicide, mainly in non-RS
    The sources for these all mention Cansın, of course, but don't say anything about her as a person.
I agree with Thsmi002 that a move to Death of Eylül Cansın might be better. I would prefer, though, to redirect/merge to LGBT rights in Turkey or LGBT history in Turkey, because there's very little that's BLP-compliant to say about Cansın's life or death; the bulk of the coverage which mentions Cansın is about the status of transgender people in Turkey following Cansın's death. Cheers, gnu 57 06:32, 12 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

References

^ https://www.fortuneturkey.com/mehtap-zenginin-eylul-cansin-intihar-videosu-bulundu-5753
^ Demishevish interview: https://t24.com.tr/haber/kadikoy-trans-cetesi-kizim-eylul-cansini-pazarladi-uyusturucuya-zorladi-iskence-yapti,284174 (reprinted here, here, here and here and translated here)
^ Demishevish article https://t24.com.tr/haber/toplumun-intihara-surukledigi-trans-bireylerin-olumleri-nefret-cinayetidir,282879
^ interview reprint1 reprint2
^ http://sendika63.org/2015/01/lgbti-orgutleri-intihar-degil-cinayet-238752/
^ https://t24.com.tr/haber/tpd-medya-lgbti-bireylerin-yaninda-durmali,282824
^ https://www.gazetepatika10.com/eylul-cansin-trans-evi-sergisi-yckmde-783.html
^ http://www.agos.com.tr/tr/yazi/10400/eylul-cansin-misafirhanesi-hayati-aramak-icin-destek-bekliyor
^ http://www.cumhuriyet.com.tr/haber/turkiye/218774/Translarin_yeni_yuvasi.html#
^ https://news.vice.com/en_us/article/gynaem/i-feel-safe-turkeys-first-transgender-shelter-offers-a-haven-from-abuse
^ http://www.salom.com.tr/haber-110715-sfrpztfte_ugur_kanbayin_ilk_oyunu_eylul.html

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

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

The result was delete. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 01:11, 16 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Akshay Ramaswamy[edit]

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

An article about a non-notable subject probably written by himself. It has been previously deleted and is back again. All the sources fail at least one of the follow categories: reliable, independent, significant coverage, or about him. William2001^(talk) 01:07, 9 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 01:21, 9 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 01:21, 9 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 01:21, 9 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - no SIGCOV. Mere passing mentions do not indicate notability. schetm (talk) 02:29, 9 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Very clearly fails WP:GNG, no indication of notability. Meeanaya (talk) 05:33, 9 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails WP:GNG and WP:ANYBIO. CASSIOPEIA^(talk) 06:43, 9 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 07:28, 9 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete No evidence of WP:BIO notability. OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 14:08, 13 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Per norm. Lapablo (talk) 21:12, 14 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete.WaterwaysGuy (talk) 13:10, 15 July 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.

[1] "Ayyappa Seva Samajam conducts cleaning operation in Sabarimala". United News of India. 2019-07-10. Archived from the original on 2019-07-10. Retrieved 2019-07-12.

[2] "Ayyappa seva samajam to offer free food facility". News18. Retrieved 2019-07-12.

[3] Reporter, Staff (2011-06-19). "Ayyappa Seva Samajom to open 50 Seva Kendras". The Hindu. ISSN 0971-751X. Retrieved 2019-07-12.

[4] Srinivas, M. (2014-11-09). "Devotee-friendly steps for Sabarimala pilgrims". The Hindu. ISSN 0971-751X. Retrieved 2019-07-12.

[5] "Campaign to save Sabarimala from plastic to begin in State". The Hindu. Special Correspondent. 2015-11-27. ISSN 0971-751X. Retrieved 2019-07-12.{{cite news}}: CS1 maint: others (link)

[fortune-6] ttps://www.fortuneturkey.com/mehtap-zenginin-eylul-cansin-intihar-videosu-bulundu-5753

[mother_interview-7] Demishevish interview: https://t24.com.tr/haber/kadikoy-trans-cetesi-kizim-eylul-cansini-pazarladi-uyusturucuya-zorladi-iskence-yapti,284174 (reprinted here, here, here and here and translated here)

[Demishevish-8] Demishevish article https://t24.com.tr/haber/toplumun-intihara-surukledigi-trans-bireylerin-olumleri-nefret-cinayetidir,282879

[interview-9] terview reprint1 reprint2

[10] ttp://sendika63.org/2015/01/lgbti-orgutleri-intihar-degil-cinayet-238752/

[11] ttps://t24.com.tr/haber/tpd-medya-lgbti-bireylerin-yaninda-durmali,282824

[12] ttps://www.gazetepatika10.com/eylul-cansin-trans-evi-sergisi-yckmde-783.html

[13] ttp://www.agos.com.tr/tr/yazi/10400/eylul-cansin-misafirhanesi-hayati-aramak-icin-destek-bekliyor

[14] ttp://www.cumhuriyet.com.tr/haber/turkiye/218774/Translarin_yeni_yuvasi.html#

[15] ttps://news.vice.com/en_us/article/gynaem/i-feel-safe-turkeys-first-transgender-shelter-offers-a-haven-from-abuse

[16] ttp://www.salom.com.tr/haber-110715-sfrpztfte_ugur_kanbayin_ilk_oyunu_eylul.html

[1]

[2]

[3]

[4]

[5]

[1]

[2]

[3]

[4]

[5]

[6]

[7]

[8]

[9]

[10]

[11]